Free schools (a sad and deliberately ambiguous term) will only exasperate the very problem I have just described, creating more strands of inequality (by my post, classes of 18.5). The agenda being one of political ideology and not one of education. Once again, choice for those that can afford it...why don't they open them in areas where they are needed. Surely anyone can smell this fish?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/goves-free-school-project-is-an-unguided-missile-says-report-7906925.html
And if 'free schools' offer mobility, why would someone in such a position write this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/free-schools-a-lousy-tory-sham-to-serve-the-ruthlessly-ambitious-middle-classes-7986152.html
Also, how is mobility facilitated by selection, by definition a process of bracketing? I know there is argument that grammar schools once produced more politicians etc. But I would suggest that it is merely the case that such positions are ones that are becoming 'affordable'. You only have to look at the backgrounds of our current front benchers...proving my point.
You only have a choice if you can afford it, much like going to university these days.