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:
motherinferior · 21/02/2014 10:40

I am feeling also that those of us who like comps are being hammered from several directions:

(a) You only say that because your kids are in one of those rare sought-after comps (see 'leafy', 'catchment area', etc)
(b) You only say that because your children are in the top set/s
(c) You only say that because your children are a bit mediocre.

Martorana · 21/02/2014 10:42

"Why are you in denial of the problem?"

I'm not. I am saying that the problem is not the one you think it is.

morethanpotatoprints · 21/02/2014 10:45

Vanillachocolate

Exactly, that has been my point throughout the thread.

Pulling grammar schools won't improve anything if all the other schools in the area and the system is disfunctional.

Coming from an area where grammar schools are relatively unheard of there is no problem for those who aren't selected.
This is how they should work, not the default schools that everyone is clamouring to gain admittance.
They are supposed to be for the brightest children and to aid social mobility for those who are deprived or less well off.
There are chances for children in this area, they have to travel and few parents know they exist, but to me that is the fault of the parents not the schools.

LauraBridges · 21/02/2014 10:45

Why does it matter that some mothers choose to earn enough to pay school fees and pick a selective fee paying school or choose a grammar school having moved to an area which has them and others are content with comprehensives? Just co-exist. 50% of children at Oxbridge come from state schools.

TalkinPeace · 21/02/2014 10:48

Wordfactory
You have repeatedly asserted on this thread and others that if parents cannot have selective schools they go private in greater numbers.

Please could you provide a link to the data that supports your opinion?

And note that I am not interested in the absolute numbers of private school places in an LEA because boarding schools are not generally full of children from that LEA (or even nation).

It is the proportion of children living in an LEA who go private that is of interest.

If you are right, it will be lower in areas with selective schools and higher in fully comprehensive areas.

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 10:51

I am feeling also that those of us who like comps are being hammered from several directions:

(a) You only say that because your kids are in one of those rare sought-after comps (see 'leafy', 'catchment area', etc)
(b) You only say that because your children are in the top set/s
(c) You only say that because your children are a bit mediocre.

But why are you debating about what other children should do in other schools, if everything is fine and you are happy with where yo are?
What is the motivation to talk about grammars, which are relatively few, if comprehensives work fine?

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 10:53

Talkin,

What is the problem you are trying to fix by debating about selective schools? What is your point?

TalkinPeace · 21/02/2014 10:54

vanillachocolate
because it is incredibly important that people learn about other systems and do not base all policy decisions on their own narrow experience

and as my mortgage is paid by visits to schools all over the country, comparing systems and approaches, the effectiveness of learning and methods in different schools is very relevant to getting my bills paid.

morethanpotatoprints · 21/02/2014 10:55

LauraBridges

I don't believe it should matter tbh and that is coming from somebody who could never afford fees for private school.
We are lucky to have so much choice in education for our dc.
Of course it seems unfair at times but that's life.
You just have to do the best with what you have, not argue that others shouldn't have what they have, because you can't have it.
To me, this is what it boild down to a lot of the time.
There are good and bad schools everywhere, irrespective of the type.

motherinferior · 21/02/2014 10:56

Vanilla, I am now truly confused. This is ostensibly a thread about selection. Some of us are saying we are not, for a range of reasons from the empirical to the theoretical, hog-whimpering wild about selection. Now you're saying well if non-selection works for you bog off out of this thread, it is only for people who like selection.

I am quite bright myself, but have clearly lost the thread here.

motherinferior · 21/02/2014 10:57

Morethanpotatoprints: well, not everyone agrees that the unfairness of the society in which we live is a given and can't be fixed.

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 10:59

Why do people need to learn about comprehensive system, if they have a bright child and can sent them to a selective school for free?

Are good comprehensive schools under-subscribed? Do they have unfilled places?

funnyossity · 21/02/2014 11:06

Laura Bridges it matters to the country as a whole if we are wasting our collective talents.

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 11:11

mother

No, my point is if you don't like/need/do selection for your DS and are happy with your comprehensive, why are saying other parents they shouldn't do selection?

I can't spot any grammar school parent arguing against selection and trying for a place in a failing comprehensive (of course not all of comprehensives are failing, but a very large number...).

I am sorry, but the problem is with poor schools and some of pupils at the lower end of ability spectrum. The problem is not with selection or not.

morethanpotatoprints · 21/02/2014 11:15

motherinferior
I understand this, but imo it isn't fixed by stopping selection on either academic or vocational talent.

There are many schools that offer specialist education that is more selective than the super selective grammar schools, what do we do, close them all because everybody can't attend.
You can't say close some super selective and let others stay.
This would be wasting talent.

motherinferior · 21/02/2014 11:16

No, but you've seen a number of potentially grammar school parents arguing against it - their choices have already been made.

And many of us fundamentally disagree with your belief that parents of potential/actual secondary modern pupils don't count, as they are already swirling unhappily down the route to nowhere in the sink-holes that compromise the majority of comprehensives throughout the UK.

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 11:19

mother,
I think you should look the other way. Tackle the poor education in comprehensives and address the issue of discipline, aspirations and standards for the students at the lower range of ability. If those schools would become great and send significant proportion of students in good universities, parents from selective schools will come stampeding into those schools.

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 11:24

fundamentally disagree with your belief that parents of potential/actual secondary modern pupils don't count

mother, I argued with you and Martorana on another thread that those parents, actually children do count and we need to focus on making the system work for them.

You are making them a disservice by denying the problem and focusing the debate on children who are receiving good education in schools appropriate for their needs. You need to look the other way.

Martorana · 21/02/2014 11:25

"Why do people need to learn about comprehensive system, if they have a bright child and can sent them to a selective school for free?"

Because in a civilized society, we should actually care about what happens to all children, not just our own, no?

LauraBridges · 21/02/2014 11:26

I never said comps waste talents - just that I prefer very very academically selective private schools for my children. IN fact I said half the children at Oxbridge come from state schools and plenty of those are non selective. Mind you plenty of comps are selective - by house[rice - posh white parents who are probably rich who can afford £500k houses send their children to them. Few have ever suggested comps are truly non selective.

Also within the comp there is usually setting for some subjects by GCSE level so they are selective.

wordfactory · 21/02/2014 11:26

martorana DS is pretty able across the board, yes. He took two other GCSEs too. The thing is this isn't at all unuual at his school. just as it wouldn't be at Tiffin or Colyton or SPGS or NLCS... Or may super selectives. Just as it isn't unusal to meet students at Oxbridge who could have excellewd in several disciplines.

LaVolcan · 21/02/2014 11:26

Most people seem to have lost sight of OP's questions:

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?

Those arguing for selection seem to be saying:
you can't get proper differentiation in a comprehensive,
all comprehensives are undisciplined
..... and we have hardly seen any arguments to support a selective education for those children who aren't selected.

wordfactory · 21/02/2014 11:31

lavolcan my view would be that removing the top 5-10 percent shouldn't have any great impact on the remaining cohort who will be mostly in the largest portion of the bell curve.

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 11:32

Why will they benefit more from that than from properly differentiated teaching in a comprehensive school?

At a selective school, they will benefit from grater resources, broader range of choices and the culture that values and motivates them.

If a comprehensive has disruptive culture of low aspirations and poor quality of teaching, the bright students will suffer rather than benefit.
You can't benefit from a bad school.

Vanillachocolate · 21/02/2014 11:33

You need to fix the problem with poor schools.