Benefits of selective education?

[AmberTheCat]

I'm aware that I've been cluttering up the 11+ tutoring thread with discussions the OP said she didn't want, on the merits or otherwise of grammar schools in principle, so I'll stop doing that and start my own thread!

So, I genuinely don't get why so many people think separating children by ability (or potential, or however you try to do it) at 11 or even younger is a good thing. Why will they benefit more from that than from properly differentiated teaching in a comprehensive school? And what about the children who aren't selected? How does a selective system benefit them?

Genuine questions. I'm strongly in favour of comprehensive education, but would really like to better understand the arguments against.

Finicky
IGCSE : lots of comp schools are sending their set 2 and three students down the IGCSE route this year for maths and English this year, because they have discovered that the rote learning approach is better for lower ability subjects

IB : The mix of subjects is not adequate for any sort of science or Engineering degree at a UK univerity.

All of those in favour of selective / grammar schools must be equally overt about the fact that they regard all non academic subjects as second rate.
Or they are utter hypocrites

There is a slightly unpalatable fact with education too, in that sadly there is a hard core of pupils who have no intention of achieving anything, even if they're capable, and ironically will put quite a lot of effort into making damn sure that they don't achieve. Even the most enthusiastic and encouraging of teachers can't reach them. I wonder what could ever be done to change the outcomes for them?

I don't think wealth comes into it.

It's whether you see education as a route to self-actualisation, or as a production line for future workers.

I would support just as strongly that sports prodigies should have specialised separate coaching.

I don't think having bored, frustrated kids cooped up together in one building would help social cohesion.

IB : The mix of subjects is not adequate for any sort of science or Engineering degree at a UK univerity.

Bizarre thing to say, given how many of DD's friends went off to university this year to do science courses.

Why would they be bored and frustrated?

talkin iGCSEs are easier on the C/D border, it's true, particularly for those students who would benefit from the type of questions asked.

However, they are much more rigorous at the A* end of the deal. This is why the most selective schools choose them. Or are you seriously suggesting that Winchester, Eton, SPGS et al choose them because they're less challenging than GCSEs?

I don't necessarily see any evidence that my grammar school peers earn a great deal more than my non grammar educated friends. Most of my friends who went to non grammars still went on to university. Mostly they earn not that fantastic salaries because of where we live, because salaries are low here (with the exception of Drs obviously). The really big earners amongst my peers were the ones whose personal situations allowed them to move to England to look for work and access training that wasn't available here.

Amber. Sorry for the tardiness in replying, just finishing an Open University Social Science Level 1. Assignment at (42 Yrs).

Morethan. has stated that all the Comprehensive Schools in her area are poor, whereas in the neighbouring area there are excellent Grammar Schools available. It is therefore right to compare Poor Comprehensives to Grammar Schools ,as these are the options available to Morethan's friend in the educational pathway her Daughter will take.

The statistics that anyone can view on the Department Of Educations website ,under Performance Tables are conclusive In showing that in only the highest performing Comprehensive Schools that are located in the most affluent areas , do high ability students match high ability students in Grammar Schools .(The Definition is the same for high ability students Grammar or Comp)

If you were to look at the typical options available to Morethan's friend, it is likely that the average grade she could realistically achieve in a Comprehensive School in her local L.A would be two grades lower than in a Grammar School in the neighbouring area.

The potential difference is a life altering A grade average from a Grammar School , or a C grade average. The C grade average could end up putting the child on to a vocational rather than an academic pathway.

That is the reason this child and other's like her need "GRAMMAR SCHOOLS".

If you have talent and interest in a particular field which is substantially above the average, then it will be boring and frustrating to not be supported in fully exploring that.

I think that comps inevitably provide a generalist experience - due to questions of critical mass and aspirations.

The potential world class athlete is - actually - limiting their potential by slogging through their Geography and RE GCSEs while their counterparts abroad are putting in extra training. The potential world class mathematician needs a systematically extended curriculum from 14 in order to fulfil their potential.

What happens is that these kids go private, or struggle to achieve their potential in their field of interest. I don't see that as something for society to be proud of.

Exeter is getting a Mathematical School for 14-19 yo from this September, so I think things are being done to combat this, procrastinator. I'm not a mathematician but I think it's really exciting. They will work in cooperation with the university and have the opportunity to lodge there if they come from a way away.

Thanks for explaining what you meant, soul2000. But couldn't you equally argue that children like this need good comprehensive schools - with the added bonus that these would also benefit many other types of children?

I'm interested in the stat you mention - I haven't come across that data before. Would you be able to post a link to the table you mean? Thanks.

Sorry to distract you from your assignment!

( and back to the scientists - I wasn't being flippant when I said that our scientists were coming from abroad rather than from home-grown talent. Go to any RG science department - you'll find that British-born researchers are outnumbered 10:1 or more. Our education system is not delivering at the top level. )

Oh, and i completely agree with Procrastination- very talented teenagers, whatever their talent, need specialist teaching. People wouldn't dream of presuming that very talented young classical musicians could be as well served in their local school as at Chetham's, or dancers do as well at ballet in mainstream as they do at Elmhurst, so why is a child highly talented at maths or cricket or mechanics or art any different? A child who is truly gifted at maths will probably outstrip any their best teachers' capabilities by age 11 or 12.

That's interesting, Procrastreation. Do you know whether the systems that are delivering at the top level are all doing so as a result of selection, or whether some have found ways to do so without this?

I think the picture would be even more painful if you looked at where the contributing authors of, say, Nature were educated....

Procras- again I agree. Many state schools are making only very half hearted attempts to teach the full science curriculum at all- triple sciences seem rationed (or non-existent at the time I was hunting around for a school for DS) and they did not even teach Physics A level. On an individual here this wouldn't have been a problem for most kids as the FE college offers the full range of A levels. However, it spoke volumes about the focus and academic ambitions of the local school.

But duchesse, surely you wouldn't claim that all children at grammar schools are 'very talented' in a particular area? So that might be an argument for a small number of superselective schools, but not for the separate teaching of large numbers of children from 11?

I wouldn't defend the existence of grammar schools in an ideal world, Amber. But if it means that people like my FIL and DH can come to the fore without having to drum up assertiveness they just don't have, then their existence is better than not having them.

The argument was made upthread, that you would want the top 5% on the attainment spectrum in grammar school, but you would not get them with an exam that selected the top 5% at 11.

If you take off the top 20% at 11, the top 5% are probably there.

and the rest of society?

how much do you want to spend on unemployment taxes and crime prevention

because the whole emphasis is on the magical 15% that all posters assume their family will be within ....

what special provision will you do for the other half of selection

or will you admit that vocational courses are just for the thick?

I can't believe it costs any more to educate children in a grammar school than in a comprehensive. Probably less if you factor in the higher potential class sizes from being entirely an environment of people who find it easy to learn.