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.

Vanilla, you don't make an awful lot of sense, y'know. And you're pretty rude.

Vanilla

Look at Chalfont Community College and Amersham school. They are much better than most comprehensives in the country.

Chalfont certainly isn't and Amersham isn't for high attainers either. Have a look at the figures.

Amersham does do very well indeed with low and middle attainers on the Value Added measure. They are absolutely average with high attainers.

Chalfont is average with middle and high attainers but is statistically significantly underperforming when it comes to low attainers.

Nit, are you the the judge?

Vanilla I would argue that all students need to get the best GCSEs that they can. Perhaps it is possible for all students to get good GCSEs in academic subjects if they have the resources put into them in terms of smaller class sizes, outstanding teachers, great facilities and out of school hours support. We can all dream of schools like that and we can all demand that schools do what they can to keep getting better instead of resting on their laurels. In tandem with this we should demand that the politicians support this work instead of endlessly grandstanding with changes in the system and in the curriculum.

However, you are completely misunderstanding teacher's statistics re school A and school B - school B is getting some children who would under normal circumstances not get any good GCSEs up there. That means school B is doing something right.

Not all children are created equal. Some need and deserve more help to realise their potential. Unfortunately that help is usually not available.

Chalfont and Amersham schools are high schools in fully selective areas with top 30% selected into grammars. They don't have any real high attainers in the intake, they made high attainers out of middle ability students. I think this is good.

What is really good is that they are performing better than many real comprehensives.

My point is selection is not the issue, poor schools are. We need more good schools.

Vanilla,

Can you find me a school, of any type, in the country, where 100% of students who arrive at 11 at significantly lower than expected levels (remembering that some of these children with have significant SEN) and go on to achieve 5 good GCSEs? It s not 'social Darwinism' to say that there is a spectrum of academic ability, simply a statement of statstical and actual fact.

A school does not 'fail' an SEN child because they do not get 5 good GCSEs. For that child, a different tyope of marker of educatioonal achievement is both sensible and ambitious.

"65% of pupils who achieved Level 5 or above in both English and mathematics at the end of Year 6 failed to attain A* or A grades in both these subjects at GCSE in 2012 in non-selective schools"

Which would suggest that there are an awful lot of higher ability children failing to reach their potential in comprehensive schools. And that across the board, value- added can't be very high for the more able?

Pointy,

There isn't anything in your post that disagree with and actually I argue the same. The conclusion though is different.

Not all children are created equal. Some need and deserve more help to realise their potential. Unfortunately that help is usually not available.

The problem is not selection, but absense of resource and help for those who need it at the bottom of ability range. Mixing high ability kids in the same stew will not change anything for those at the bottom.

We need to sort education for those that don't get good GCSEs now, not dreaming of how to hide the problem by mixing in more high ability kids.

Agreed, vanilla - I just don't necessarily agree that we need segregation - the top of the cohort in a completely different building. I've already mentioned this in the thread. I don't agree with completely mixed ability teaching, that helps no-one.

teaching,

Most schools in top 80 or 100 graduate 100% of kids with googd GCSEs.

Can you find me a school, of any type, in the country, where 100% of students who arrive at 11 at significantly lower than expected levels (remembering that some of these children with have significant SEN) and go on to achieve 5 good GCSEs?

I can tell you my two DC with statements had level 3 in year 6 and are, fingers cross, on track to more than 5 good GCSEs. I will not name the school just not to identify myself, but it is a school in the top 80 list...

So your argument is just an excuse.

It s not 'social Darwinism' to say that there is a spectrum of academic ability, simply a statement of statistical and actual fact.

I completely agree. There are differences in ability and the brightest and those at the bottom have different needs.

Social Darwinism is to say that you can't educate bottom 20%, so the schools should not be accountable for them and should not be measured on their ability to successfully educate the bottom 20%... Let's just leave them on the scrap heap...

teaching, I agree with you too.

Vanilla

Chalfont and Amersham schools are high schools in fully selective areas with top 30% selected into grammars. They don't have any real high attainers in the intake, they made high attainers out of middle ability students. I think this is good.

You really just don't get it do you.

low/medium/high attainers for secondary schools are defined by the pupils performance at KS2.

Those two schools have 22% and 26% high attainers in the cohort that took GCSEs last year. This means that they entered those schools higher than level 4 at KS2.

So, given that their Value Added measures are generally just average then yes they are better than a lot of comprehensives but they are also much worse than many other comprehensives as well - that is what being average implies.

nicky,

You last post is a bit contradictory. You can wriggle behind technicalities, but schools that have bottom 70% of ability range and produce results better than the majority of true comprehensives are doing something right.
There is no question that there are other good schools.

The key point in you post is that the attainment at KS2 defined attainment later in life. The cause of poor GCSEs is in attainment gap developed in primary school.

Those in Amersham school labelled as high attainers are results of good work by local primaries.

I absolutely agree. We will never fix secondary education before we sort out primary schools.

So OP, if there were a world where you could provide a more suitable education to the top 20%, proven to be at no expense to the other 80%, you would prefer a system where the top 20% are held back even if it doesn't benefit the other 80%?

What about the bottom 20%? Would you object to a system that raised their attainment at no expense to the other 80%?

I'm not sure achieving between zero and three quarters of a GCSE grade less really counts as being held back, does it? That suggests to me that comps are still doing a pretty good job of educating high attainers, despite having a hugely varied intake to deal with. I'd also argue that it's not all about GCSE results. Yes, I want high attaining children to do well academically, but I also want them to feel comfortable mixing with a wide range of people.

But in theory, well yes, I would prefer a world in which already advantaged people aren't given greater advantage, but instead where less advantaged people are helped to level the playing field.

Chalfont Community College
www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=137215&superview=sec
Average grade of their low achievers is an E
as per this
www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=NAT&superview=sec&view=aat&set=2&tab=56&no=999&sort=ks4_13.avgrdgpeppav&ord=asc
its pretty average for a secondary Modern

Amberthecat
Hear hear

Talkin,

E is not average for secondary moderns, it's average for many comprehensives and this is not good.

You need 100% of those without severe learning difficulties to graduate with a C (that is pass= mastering 50% of course material) in something representing a minimum benchmark. It could be a GCSE, it could be a vocational course as part of the 5 . But it can't be a certificate of failure which is any grade below C.

But in theory, well yes, I would prefer a world in which already advantaged people aren't given greater advantage, but instead where less advantaged people are helped to level the playing field.

Surely you do that by making help and appropriate system available to the less advantaged.

You don't drag in the bright pupils because someone feels it's unfair they are so bright..

E is average for many comprehensives and this is not good
www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=NAT&superview=sec&view=aat&set=2&tab=56&no=999&sort=ks4_13.avgrdpeppcp&ord=asc
Bollocks

But why would you drag more high ability children into a system that, as it currently stands, has 65% of such children not making expected progress in English and maths? How does that help anyone?

But why would you drag more high ability children into a system that, as it currently stands, has 65% of such children not making expected progress in English and maths? How does that help anyone?
NOT TRUE

AS per the DFE data
70% of all pupils make expected progress in English and maths
86.2 and 87.8% of high attainers make expected progress in state schools
and as there are 6368 secondary schools, that has to include an awful lot of comp kids, because there are very few grammars

But why would you drag more high ability children into a system that, as it currently stands, has 65% of such children not making expected progress in English and maths? How does that help anyone?

Maybe it would help league table position of some schools and salaries of some HT. It would help some technocrats to submit a report and show appearance of 'improving standards'?

Talking,

You statistics have a very cynical inbuilt double standard. They assume little or no progress expected of low attainers. They assume schools and state does not need to take accountability for achiving results for what you call bottom 20%.