It’s one of the most divisive issues in politics - Prime Minister Theresa May’s push for new grammar schools.

Kent is firmly in the spotlight, with the construction of the first new grammar for 50 years already underway in Sevenoaks and another planned.

Two of our journalists have very firm views on the subject - here, business editor Chris Price and KMTV reporter Josie Hannett explain why they feel so strongly.

Josie Hannett

I know many people are against the idea of grammar schools - why should we be filtering out the brainier children at the age of 11?

I’m not the most academic person in the world, but my teachers had confidence I would pass the 11-plus.

With the demand for a grammar school place and the calibre of children taking the test so high, we decided to get a tutor.

I know it’s frowned upon to get help to pass. I still knocked for friends and played outside, it never stopped me from being a normal kid.

People can argue I was lucky as my parents could afford it, but the way I see it is if you’re that dedicated enough to get your child to the school they want, then you will work the extra hour here or there to make it happen.

I went to Highworth Grammar School in Ashford from 2007 to 2014.

It gave me fantastic opportunities. We were offered countless career meetings whenever we needed them, we had days focused on university applications and getting into the workplace.

Comparing my education to my sister’s - who went to a comprehensive - I was given a lot more support than she was.

The atmosphere was competitive - some might say this is a bad thing - but I thrive on competition and this definitely pushed me to do well.

Don’t get me wrong there was the odd class clown, but 99% of students were focused, you had to work hard at school to do well.

I think the grammar system filters out the naughty kids as those who have worked hard to get into the school don’t want to throw away their education.

Related stories

Corbyn: 'Kent shows grammars are not working'

Justine Greening says grammars expansion will be good for everyone

Government defends move to allow more grammars

I felt it was okay to like school, it wasn’t seen as being uncool or like you were a geek because you enjoyed your lessons.

That element of bullying wasn’t an issue.

We were always taught to aim high but were never pushed to the breaking point.

I loved the fact when a teacher saw potential in us, they wanted us to do our very best.

People say schools these days churn out their students but it really was each to their own, I didn’t fit the mould of wanting to go to university but I had so much support in my decision to do an apprenticeship or take a gap year.

My family aren’t rich, but they were willing to pay for an hour of tuition each week - I admit I was lucky with that.

"The majority of people who go to grammar school aren’t rich and this is why I think it’s fantastic, it gives those from the working classes a shot at a better education" - Josie Hannett

The majority of people who go to grammar school aren’t rich and this is why I think it’s fantastic, it gives those from the working classes a shot at a better education.

Apart from expanding our grammar schools, I think the only other solution is for comprehensives to up their game.

My brother and sister both went to comprehensives. One failed their A Levels and the other got excluded just before his GCSEs. He is the kind of class clown I feel they couldn’t be bothered to deal with.

The education and discipline needs to be better at comprehensives.

We should be paying our teachers more and getting rid of those who just aren’t up to standard - I’m sure we’ve all come across a few who like it for the school holidays rather than to inspire young people to better themselves.

Grammar parents are seen as pushy, but shouldn’t we be teaching students in all schools to aim high?

We’re talking about our next prime ministers, doctors, soldiers, scientists - all important jobs in society.

I feel with grammar schools we’re pushed to succeed and are given a structured teaching but with comprehensives, pupils get lost in the system.

Chris Price

I am in the privileged position of being someone who received a grammar school education.

After picking up three A-levels it allowed me to attend a Russell Group university doing the degree I wanted, eventually leading to the career in journalism I enjoy today.

I am also someone who failed their 11-plus.

At the age of 10, I took an exam which decided I was not among the top 25% of pupils from that year’s primary school crop.

When my dad sat me down to tell me I had not made the grade and would not being going to grammar school, I cried in my bedroom.

I had blown it and I was somehow not good enough, despite being one of the top performing children in my class.

What awaited me instead was five years at a nearby secondary school, considered good by my family as my uncle had attended some 20 years previously.

"I had blown it and I was somehow not good enough, despite being one of the top performing children in my class" - Chris Price

The perception was not shared among my primary school classmates, especially the ones which had passed the Kent Test. Dodgy kids went there, they said. It was rough.

I soon discovered their assessment could not be further from the truth.

I made friends, enjoyed myself though I would never admit it and after five years pumped out an impressive set of GCSE results thanks to a series of inspiring teachers and an inner desire to achieve.

When it came to sixth form, I was advised by the deputy head teacher to consider applying for the grammar school, which offered a greater range of subjects.

I went to the school and was given top-rate tuition by first-class teachers, while surrounded by some incredibly bright young people.

The prime minister, a former grammar school pupil, argues opening more grammar schools will create more opportunities for “ordinary working-class families” to gain access to this kind of exceptional education for their children.

What it will actually do is spread a two-tier system, like we have in Kent, across the entire UK, increasing social division.

I understand that putting bright people in grammar schools stops high-achievers being held back by less academic or disruptive pupils.

But why do we have to do this by segregating young people into different schools?

Why can this not be done by putting them into different classes at the same school?

At the secondary school I attended, the brightest pupils were put in top set where they were nurtured.

If someone then developed a year or so later, they were simply moved to top set, without the social upheaval of having to move to a grammar school aged 14 or 16, as suggested by Theresa May.

If this was applied across the country, it would achieve the prime minister’s aim of creating a meritocratic society. It could help eradicate prejudice held by people – or future job interviewers – based on which school someone attended.

If we build more grammar schools, we will certainly create many outstanding individuals. We will also have more boys and girls crying in their bedrooms, feeling not just like they failed, but like failures.