Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Benefits of selective education?

999 replies

AmberTheCat · 19/02/2014 12:41

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.

OP posts:
wordfactory · 21/02/2014 09:56

Well MI you're bound to like it if it suited your DD. But what about my DS? He sat his maths GCSE in year 9 and got an A*. How could he have gained anything from sitting in a set with DC who are aiming for an A in year 11?

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 21/02/2014 09:58

Word not everyone only likes systems on the basis that they serve their own children well, you know!

Am still not sure why the fact that there are superselectives with lots of extremely able mathematicians means that there are lots and lots of potentially good mathematicians who are wasting away in classes of children who haven't mastered basic addition? Can anyone clarify?

LaVolcan · 21/02/2014 10:00

Why is it the comprehensive school's fault, if an adult who managed to get 10 O levels with no effort, made a mess of his A levels and has then jumped from job to job? The ones who messed around in class would definitely not have stayed on for A level in those days, so he couldn't blame their bad influence, and it's up to him as an adult to sort himself out.

HercShipwright · 21/02/2014 10:01

Nit ^But the probability of a single good mathematician in year 7 in a class where an influential majority are barely mastering two figure addition would seem to me very low...

Of course the spectrum is wide in an age group, but in a maths class of 30, and particularly in a set maths class, it's illogical to assume the majority will be useless and they will be the bigger influence!^

That's exactly what happened to me at my comp when I was that age. Long time ago, but still.

word Our SS is chock full of superb mathmos, yes. (Not my DD). They come from a huge radius and were they to be distributed around their 'local' comp there probably would be v few comps with more than one of them in each year.

wordfactory · 21/02/2014 10:01

nit I haven't said the other kids in a top set couldn't add up. They are bright kids who will do well. But that is light years away from the mathmos in DS maths set. If they were alone in a normal top set it would be a complete waste of time and rather lonely.

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 10:02

I totally believe DC of all ability should get good education and achieve at least the basic standard of GCSEs.

I don't believe it could be achieved without confronting the issue of poor schools and the failure of the entire system to educate well the lower part of ability/ aspirations range.

And poor teaching among in your list in ime the least present of the conditions. If you could see the constant low-level disruption, the lack of will to complete any work displayed by a significant minority of pupils in our schools your head would swivel. Their parents seem to either have no idea or not to care- even when informed of problems they often remain unsupportive or blame the school for not enforcing proper discipline, whilst later kicking against any attempts at discipline on their child.

This is what I mean by problem is with poor teaching, low aspirations, disruptive culture. It is clearly present. I think the problem is in many respects due to social inequality. but its there.

Surely you need to tackle the problem to improve the education, not to argue that more children should suffer from it.

What is the rationale behind pulling bright kids into dysfunctional schools?

wordfactory · 21/02/2014 10:04

lavolcan I think its bbecause education works at its best with in a collegiate atmosphere so outliers need to be with others.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 21/02/2014 10:07

Yes, Word, but my initial post saying I didn't think it was common was in response to a description of one solitary bright child in a class of children who can't add. That's what I said wasn't common. But you said superselectives suggested it was.

I think we must have been at cross purposes. I'm glad we agree that it is not usual for a child who's potentially pretty good at maths to be sitting in a class dominated by children who can't add.

gardenfeature · 21/02/2014 10:10

An IQ of 167 is one in 251,515.

Apparently, the optimum IQ is between is between 120 and 145 so this guy might have had difficulties anyhow. I imagine the average IQ at at SS is going to be between 125 and 145 which still leaves him massively outside "normal" range.

Martorana · 21/02/2014 10:11

Frankly, I would want the style of my children's education to be decided entirely on their ability at maths. Word- there may only be one or two math is like your ds at a comprehensive school- but presumably he isn't exceptional at everything?

LaVolcan · 21/02/2014 10:11

Wordfactory: but this man wasn't failed by his school up to O level as far as we can tell, collegiate atmosphere or not. Most schools do have a different atmosphere in the 6th form,more collegiate if you like; part of this atmosphere is a requirement for the student to begin to direct their own work. He can't blame the school for the fact that he drifted from job to job as an adult, however much he might like to.

Martorana · 21/02/2014 10:12

Vanilla- it is impossible to debate with you if you start from the position that all comprehensive schools are dysfunctional and refuse to accept any suggestion that they aren't.

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 10:12

duchesse,

The letter from a parent you quote is a very sad example of how parents’ own low level of education, aspirations and judgement failed their gifted son and the educational system could not remedy this in any way. How awful.

we never pushed the boy - indeed we recognised the dangers in making him different.

Would this boy be better of in a grammar, where the culture would validate that it’s OK to be bright, it’s even cool and offers you opportunities…

Martorana · 21/02/2014 10:13

My post of 10.11 should say I wouldn'twant the style of my child's education.......

LauraBridges · 21/02/2014 10:15

We went for top 10 schools from age 4 where we could - North London Collegiate etc. They worked extremely well for the children. Fee paying.
Why do I like academic selection?

I think children do better when others in the class are very clever. The ideas bounced off each other even at primary level are better. The expectations are a lot higher too if 100% of upper sixth go to leading universities and expect to be very high earning women in top jobs. It's a wonderful environment and worth every penny.

LaVolcan · 21/02/2014 10:16

Would this boy be better of in a grammar, where the culture would validate that it’s OK to be bright, it’s even cool and offers you opportunities…

Or would he still have got his 10 O levels, and then been a lazy arse in the the 6th form, and drifted from job to job as an adult, blaming everyone else for the problems in his life? Who can say?

motherinferior · 21/02/2014 10:17

Er... I didn't say it was the only reason I like comps. And I rather gather that there are, in fact, some seriously good mathematicians in DD1's class - not DD1, who is a bright child but whose maths is never going to have the world weeping at its genius.

Martorana · 21/02/2014 10:17

Meanwhile, back in the real world..........

duchesse · 21/02/2014 10:17

Given the reference to O levels I would imagine that this boy was growing up in the 70s or early 80s when focus on education was very different on the whole. And I do think that very bright children who are never challenged are always at risk of becoming lazy and work shy. If you find everything easy, too easy, when do you ever experience the normal situations of overcoming challenges that forge most people's characters? That is why it's imperative not to let bright children coast.

Having said that, my 3 older children (all with IQs broadly between 130 and 140) have very different work ethics ranging from lazy toe-rag to ultra-motivated, so anecdotally I'm not sure how much can be put down to parenting.

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 10:18

Martorana,

I never said that all comprehensives are dysfunctional. The quote in my previous post about dysfunctional culture at school is from someone else upthread. This quote obviously illustrates what I am talking about.

I just state the fact that dysfunctional schools do exist and these schools are the onces that need to be fixed before pulling any more kids into them

Why are you in denial of the problem?

motherinferior · 21/02/2014 10:19

And I can assure you that at my child's unleafy comp, the geeky bright girls are rather sweetly supportive of each other. I know it's nice to have this reassuring picture of literate children weeping silently as they slink into the library where the one person who understands them will secretly slip them a book...but it's honestly not the case as far as I can see.

duchesse · 21/02/2014 10:21

I think the critical mass thing is crucial.

LaVolcan · 21/02/2014 10:22

Amber asked originally: And what about the children who aren't selected? How does a selective system benefit them?

We have all heard the arguments here about how wonderful the grammar schools are - even though they are an irrelevance for the vast majority of the population - there have been precious few arguments to answer Amber's question above.

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 10:26

And what about the children who aren't selected? How does a selective system benefit them?

None of the system benefit them if the system is poor and disfunctional. That is the real problem. Pulling grammar kids to share in their misery isn't going to improve it for anyone.

You need to address the problem with poor results, teaching methods, culture in the comprehensive schools, not to debate about grammar schools.

LaVolcan · 21/02/2014 10:36

Sorry, vanilla, I am not buying it. There are a few thousand comprehensive schools - three in my town alone. I am not prepared to accept the statement that they all suffer from poor results, teaching methods, and a culture which discourages learning.

The quality of teaching at my children's schools was more than a match for that at my rather mediocre grammar school, but I will accept that you can't really make comparisons between generations.