In my experience those on the left of the political spectrum have a big problem with selective education, I have heard that it breeds elitism, social division etc. etc.
The biggest argument that I hear is the secondary modern schools were appalling and failed the children that had to go to them. This focus on destroying the successful element of a system rather than improving the least successful element have never made sense to me.
I have long felt that it is not the rich who benefit most from selective education but the poor, and for them a good education can mean a chance to lift themselves out of the poverty trap. Denying this option to bright but poor children has always struck me as being morally corrupt.
Eric Anderson, one of the big brains from Eton, writes a very interesting piece in the Telegraph on this subject which coincides with this BBC article showing that a majority of people now support selection in education.
Whether it is an expansion of the Grammar School system or a modern replacement it matters not, but there must always be an educational vehicle for bright children from poor families to learn and be pushed academically. Not to so so is wrong both economically and morally.