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.

And that is the thing.
People generalise based on a few areas or schools that they know, rather than seeking out the actual data and running evidence based statistical tests on it.

I have the DFE table on my PC : sorting by 5A-C inc E&M

London Borough of Redbridge does better than Richmond
Rotherham does better than Reading
Hillingdon does better than West Berks
Bristol is in the bottom ten

the Isles of Scilly results are based on 21 pupils
Kent has nearly 17,000

On this point :-

"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."

If you look at the private schools many of which are not academically selective you will find many a parent with a child who needs a very small class and a lot of one to one help and they are these non selective privates often at schools which are specifically designed for those with dyslexia or the not very clever child who needs contacts to get on so by herding those different groups into schools with their own they can get some of the be4st specialist teaching for disabilities around or get to know other rich children who are not bright either but who might help them in career terms. The lack of selection does not stop those schools ensuring the children are very good at sport - eg Millfield which has very non academic children at it but selection by income.

I have never understood the argument that the absence of my 5 children from the state school system is damaging to those in it. Mine aren't carrying some kind of golden halo and were they in the class their supposed talents might rub off on others. One of mine at present seems to delight in seeking to improve the grammar spelling and speech of his class mates (more fool him as I doubt it gets you very far in popularity contests but may be it helps them a bit...) but in general just being in the class with my children is not some huge benefit to other children surely? The fact 7% of children go to private schools relieves the state of the cost of educating 500,000 children a year and means there is lal the more money for the comprehensive system.

But how pupils did at 5 GCSEs tells us less than nothing about how the high ability pupils did. The evidence at the highest grades at A level, the numbers getting in to the most selective universities, taking up the most competiutive areas of employment seems to tell us that highly able DC perform better in selective environments. And if we don't offer such environments in the state system we hand everything over to the private sector even more easily than we do now. Which can't be healthy, can it? And I say that as someone with a boy in Westminster!

I don't understand why people channel all their passion to castigate pupils in selective schools instead of sorting the mess with bad comprehensive schools.

The debate about selection is a read herring. Pulling most able pupils into bad comprehensives will improve school's standing in league tables and get the poor teaching, culture and results to persist. It will do nothing to improve results for anyone.

You need to focus on improving bad schools, you need to reform education to make it work, not to spread poor standards to include the bright students.

Vanilla, why do you persist in this belief that comprehensive school= bad school? You keep on saying it. Of course nobody wants children to go to bad schools! Of course bad schools should be improved. And some of the schools that need improving are actually grammar schools.

I asked this question many time in polite form.

What is the motivation to want to see top ability students in poor comprehensives?

Why are educated middle class mother with children in top sets of reasonably good comp schools arguing so passionately against grammars and deny or explain away the existence of poor standards at the bottom of the ability range?

Why don't you confront the real problem?

And to be fair, this thread is about selective education- so it's not really surprising that people are talking about it......

Martorana,
All bad schools need improving. Why don't you discuss how to do it instead of arguing against selection. It's a red herring.

What is the motivation to want to see top ability students in poor comprehensives?

But you would be happy with a top ability child in a poor grammar or a poor independent?

Why should any child have to suffer a poor school? Grammar, comprehensive or Sec Mod or Independent? (Although if you pay for a poor independent then it's more fool you.)

I wouldn't be happy with my child being in poor school of any brand. I made an appropriate choice for my kids.

But youy need to prioritise the problems. I don't think education in poor private or poor grammars is the main problem with education in this country.

"Martorana,
All bad schools need improving. Why don't you discuss how to do it instead of arguing against selection. It's a red herring."

No it's not- this thread is about the pros and cons of selection. The thread about how to improve schools generally is over there---->

Happy to join you there- but could you promise to stop assuming that all comprehensives are bad schools and all grammar schools are good?

I think it is quite clear that you think comps are a bit crap, VC. Don't worry, we do get your point.

Clearly I don't want to see top ability children in poor comprehensives. I want to see all ability children in good comprehensives. And I do think that a percentage of children being removed from schools to go private and in some areas a further percentage being removed to go to selective state schools DOES have an impact on the children left behind, and makes it harder for non-selective schools in selective areas to be 'good'.

Lots of people are passionate here about the need for clever children to be surrounded by like-minded peers, suggesting a pretty broad acceptance of the fact that peer groups matter. Why, then, can't those same people accept that peer groups also affect less clever children? Children (adults too, in fact) generally raise their game to try to meet the standard they see around them. If that standard is lowered by the removal of significant numbers of bright children, that will inevitably have an impact on the other children.

I think many people also underestimate the effect a critical mass of intelligent, articulate, involved parents has on a school. By removing many of the children of those parents, you also remove the effect they would otherwise have on a school. Do you think motivated parents who don't have the get out clause of selective/private schools just shrug and accept poor schools? No, they generally roll their sleeves up, get involved and find ways to work with the teachers to help make the school better.

Amber - I think many people also underestimate the effect a critical mass of intelligent, articulate, involved parents has on a school

On the contrary, I think many people value that very much, and don't want that critical mass to be perturbed by any other kind of parent!

I don't understand why people channel all their passion to castigate pupils in selective schools instead of sorting the mess with bad comprehensive schools.

Where on earth are all these failing schools then? We've lived in two very different parts of England and the schools have, generally, been very good.

We now live in a city of 180k people and there are ten secondary schools here. Two are classed as outstanding, seven are good and one requires improvement according to OFSTED.

The one that requires improvement really needs improvement - best 8 VA figures across the board are significantly worse - but the rest are all generally doing at least quite well if you look at VA figures across the different groups of low, medium and high achievers. Some are doing particularly well.

Now this isn't a particularly posh part of the country and some of these schools have between 25% and 50% pupils with English not as first language.

Why the assumption that there are huge numbers of failing schools?

And we're not channelling all our passion. I have plenty of passion to spare. Passion agogo, in all kinds of directions.

Amber I really don't see how having the odd outlier in the top set affect very much at all, other than wasting their time.

"Amber - I think many people also underestimate the effect a critical mass of intelligent, articulate, involved parents has on a school

On the contrary, I think many people value that very much, and don't want that critical mass to be perturbed by any other kind of parent!"

And they certainly don't want it wasted on any other kind of child.........

Agree that the odd outlier won't make much difference, which is why the existence of superselectives taking tiny numbers of children doesn't worry me too much. But in areas where 20-25% of children are being taken out of schools, I think that would make a big difference.

Has anyone answered Amber's question about the benefits of selection for the children who aren't selected?

I know some bright pupils will achieve top grades at Comprehensive Schools, and end up at top Universities. My Eldest Daughter has done exactly that without any issues and achieved 3A* and 1 A at A Level.
This is in contrast to equally able younger Daughter who because of her emotional and other learning difficulties , has suffered at the same Comprehensive.

My younger Daughter must at times ( Finally Grown up, Hence Drastic Improvement In Grades and Behaviour) been a hell to teach. the best description would be a highly Intelligent Lauren from Catherine Tate , who's sole mission was to humiliate the teacher and entertain the bottom
set kids ( The groups she ended up in Because She did Sod All work) who egged her on and encouraged her Class Clown behaviour.

Everytime Elder daughter got an award or accolade (Student of the Year/Head Girl) DD2s behaviour would become more and more stupid or "Naughty" Swearing at teachers E.T.C This was not because she was not able to shine equally (She Is a County Standard Hockey Player) She is able to shine on the sport field.

The reason for for her behaviour was to distance herself from her sister achievements ( Due in part to her Sister being seen as the biggest "Geek" in the school.

I am in no doubt that if DD2 had gone to a Selective Prep school at 7 and then on to the Grammar School , she is asking for a chance . That despite her documented emotional and learning problems would not have behaved in the way she has.

The School had thrown the towel in with her, and just wanted rid of her as quickly as possible ( She Had been Excluded 3 times for "SWEARING"and other poor behaviour) but had done nothing that warranted permanent Exclusion. This was until the new Senco came to the School, a friend of mine who finally got in to DDS "Thick Skull" and made her see sense .

The point is some bright pupils need selective Education, others do just fine in top sets at Comprehensive Schools. I have seen both ends of why one Daughter needs a highly disciplined and focused environment surrounded by pupils at least as bright as her. The other Daughter is able to assimilate in to the Comprehensive School model and achieve to her ability level.

The question asked just above was if you want your own children in a selective school of bright children because of the impact of your peers as a teenager (and I think that's vital - in a sense I buy a peer group for mine of the kind I think will most benefit them 0- in my case single sex, private, academically selective) why would you not want those who are not very bright or whose parents have no money for school fees not to benefit from good peers?

That is the key issue. As a free market libertarian, I would argue our duty is to our own child. We read to that child at night. We don't leave our children to read to others every night. We don't feel our children junk food and serve beef down at the local council estate. Our primary duty is to care for and develop and help our children. It is what love is - the care for and bringing up of your own. Most of us other than the huge taxes we pay which help others, do not have a lot of time left over to help the other millions of children in the country too. We are not doing wrong by doing right by our own children - we are doing right. I am not going to put my children into a school with less clever children because it might have an infinitismal impact on those other children. That would be doing wrong by my child.

"Has anyone answered Amber's question about the benefits of selection for the children who aren't selected?"

No. Because all they can do is shuffle their feet in an embarrassed manner, cough nervously and move on.

Some people try. Somebody once told me that it was kinder for the less able children not to be in the same school as their more able peers.......

LaVolcan - a couple of people have suggested that it's better for lower achieving children not to have the high flyers around, as they could then a) receive more targeted attention, and b) not constantly be made to feel second best. I guess there could be something in the first point, though I'm sceptical that this would have more impact than the halo effect of having higher achieving peers around. And on the second point, surely they've already been made to feel second best by dint of not being seen as clever enough to get into the 'better' school up the road?