If any issue in education affected voter intentions, it must surely have been school funding.

But let’s not forget the thorny issue of selection, too.

It’s impossible to say how many parents pitched up at the polling station and put their cross in the box with a return of grammar schools in mind, but I doubt it was very many. While education generally might be up there among parental concerns, selection specifically was not. At least, not among the parents I speak to. It’s just another distraction from what we all wish for, which is the provision of properly funded, equal opportunities for every child.

We’re seeing (at the time of writing) softer language being used around Brexit, and the language around selection is being reined in, too. But Graham Brady MP, a leading light in the drive towards greater selection, is still on the offensive, still suggesting that a “modest” pilot of grammar schools could still be introduced focusing on urban areas.

I don’t know how long a pilot must last for to provide meaningful results and outcomes, but I’m guessing we’re talking five years minimum, for the sake of argument - the lifespan of a child’s compulsory secondary education.

All of which begs the question: who is going to volunteer their children as guinea pigs for this experiment? You could argue that plenty of parents have thrown their lot in behind free schools in blind faith, but this feels different somehow.

Would any primaries be willing to stage the 11-plus exams, mindful of how the results might reflect on their school? They would surely be fearful of unofficial league tables of schools comparing how many got their pupils through the entrance exam.

What will be the cut-off point for measuring poverty? And if we are going to focus on children from lower income families are we discriminating against those who may be brighter but slightly better off? It’s not unreasonable to ask why their life chances should be affected if their scores are higher.

‘Another flawed experiment’

It would no doubt result in another flawed experiment in social engineering and fake concern for the poorest in society. Because if you really wanted children from low-income backgrounds to succeed you wouldn’t starve existing schools of cash, putting their teachers’ jobs at risk.

In any event, there are already 164 “pilots” going on around the country in the shape of existing grammar schools - notably, among others, the schools of the King Edward VI foundation in Birmingham. You can’t get more inner-city than Handsworth. Has anyone been to Aston or King’s Heath and asked how it’s going with the selection and social mobility thing? Might be worth doing so before spending millions of pounds setting up new ones.

As for us parents, how much do we really want grammar schools? The answer, I guess, depends on how bright we think our child is. Knowing he or she would flourish in such an environment because of natural ability and aptitude - rather than because they’d been coached to pass the test by tutors - isn’t an unattractive prospect. Until you consider that places will be limited and even an exceptional child can have an off-day. In which case, it’s off to the secondary modern for you, confidence destroyed and expectations lowered.

Somehow, and with the absence of any meaningful evidence, it feels like too high a risk to take.

Dorothy Lepkowska is a freelance journalist and writer. And a parent.

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes on Twitter and like Tes on Facebook