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.

Well, as I've posted (twice) Ofsted said:

"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 suggests that they expect them to achieve those grades if they enter with Level 5 or above. I've tried to find the equivalent figures for selective schools but haven't managed to as yet. But I'd bet my house that they're much higher. And in this instance we are comparing like with like.

vanilla
they are not "my" statistics.
I do not work for the Dfe
I merely sort them in the permitted ways

marni
ofsted are political and have been hauled up several times (al though less often than Mr Gove) for selective use of statistics

if it ain't on that website I keep linking to, it ain't true

It's here
www.ofsted.gov.uk/filedownloading/?file=documents/surveys-and-good-practice/t/The%20most%20able%20students.pdf&refer=0

Are you saying they've made it up?

I think she's saying that Ofsted isn't the DfE.

But how does your argument help with OP's question of what benefits does a selective system have for the children who are not selected? Answers to this are mighty thin on the ground.

To take up nicky's point about the Amersham and Chalfont school having 26 and 22% of high attainers: if the 11+ were such a perfect test, these children shouldn't be there anyway because they should have gone to the grammar school.

No, Ofsted isn't the DfE. But those statistics would be very easy to check for anyone with access to the raw data, so I'm not buying that they're a fiction.

It doesn't answer the OP. I'm just questioning the assertion that more able DC do just as well in non-selective as in selective. This evidence would suggest not.

So the children I instanced from my children's comprehensives, who went to Russell Group Universities, Medical School, or in the one case became a Harvard professor, were held back by a Comprehensive education?

Other children at other comprehensives I know of went on to be heads of international research labs, Oxbridge professors.

Held back? Have I got to believe that all these people are a figment of my imagination?

But those are anecdotal examples. Obviously some comprehensives are serving their more able children well but the statistics I've linked to suggest that many aren't..

La Volcan,

If they are professors now, they wen to comprehensive in the bygone time where discipline was OK. Not a relevant example.

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that it comes down to whether we think there is such a thing as society or not. I feel more comfortable in the camp that thinks there is.

Lavolcan. The Children you have mentioned may not have been held back by going to a Comprehensive, but my youngest Daughter sunk to the lowest common denominator. My youngest Daughter because of her "Character" and difficulties will always end up with the "lowest common denominators" If her behaviour and lack of work ethic is not stamped on from a great height. the Comprehensive School just let her get away with her Behaviour and her lack of work "Hiding Behind her problems"

The new Senco who was head of English/Latin at an Highly selective Girls Independent School immediately stamped on her behaviour when she joined last January . It was because of her demands that she made of my DD ( Selective School Behaviour and Effort) that DD has turned it round and is not on a Level 1 NVQ now.

LaVolcan, it is flawed to only consider the benefit to those not selected without considering the benefit to those selected. You also need to balance advantages and disadvantages.

On balance selective system is better suited to meet the needs of broader spectrum of ability and improve achievement for larger number of students.

It helps the most able students
It helps middle ability students in good schools
In theory it offers space to better serve those at lower end of ability, provided they were given good schools with adequate resources and methods.

The fact that lower ability students do less well is born out entirely out of political choices made in resource allocation (i.e. leaving less able behind).
This was a political choice nothing to do with selection as such.

The main barrier is that there are bad schools and that the attainment by the least able is not vewed as a priority. Selection has no incidence on this.

There is no case to be made to drag bright students in bad dysfunctional schools. There is no moral argument in that.

We need more good schools.

To help middle and especially low ability students to achieve, you need to improve outcomes in primary education and review the whole system to better serve the least able and socially disadvantaged.

Removing selection will do nothing to help standards and raise attainment among low achievers. It will only limit the opportunities for the brighter students.

On balance selection is doing good for one group and no harm to any other group.

Then there will always be those , who argue it's not fair that bright kids are bright. True, but no action necessary on this.

Vanilla, so the discipline in these schools is not good now? If anything, I would say it has improved.

Your argument seems to be 'all comprehensives are bad'. They are not. Some are very good indeed. Undoubtedly, some could do with improvement, but this will be the case with whatever system we have.

If you worry about society, you need to look the other way and improve the education at the bottom end of attainment.

You are losing me here vanilla. So we need more selection, so that primary schools, which are non-selective, can somehow be improved.

I agree that politics comes into it. If we were really serious about improving things for the disadvantaged we would start at the nursery level. Remind me who has been closing the Sure Start centres down? Can't afford them is the argument. Can't afford not to have this investment, I would say. (Not that a change of government would reverse this.)

I am not arguing for selection in primary.

Completely agree we need to start in pre-school. This is where the gap opens up.

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

That wasn't what I asked. I asked you to give me examples of schools in which 100% of all children who entered at level 3 or below in Y6 attained 5 good GCSEs.

Many schools in the top 80 or 100 schools do not have ANY children who enter at these levels in reading, writing and maths. No selective schools will, and some 'high performing' comprehensives have vanishingly few (without identifying it, my DS's nice leafy comp has so few to be regarded as statistically insignificant when analysing their GCSE results).

Rememebr that I said 'or below'. Pupils I have taught will enter secondary school below Level 1, because of the degree of SEN they have.

Can you really judge a school that may have 30% + low achievers, including many with moderate learning difficulties, against one with less than 1%, and judge the first to be 'failing' and the second to be 'succeeding', simply because a accident of intake means a difference in output figures??

"There is no case to be made to drag bright students in bad dysfunctional schools. There is no moral argument in that."

As I said when you made this staggering point before- no shit, Sherlock.

I agree with LaVolcan and dash of lime in that our expectations of children who are not at grammars are way too low. I went to a grammar school and it was expected that we all worked hard and achieved high. I am sure that I would not have got straight As and got into a top uni if I had not gone to a grammar school.

Further, having lived in Japan for some years where about 95% of all school children achieve the equivalent of A level, it is clear that many more children in this country could achieve much higher than they do, whichever school they go to, if we all believed and expected that they could do it.

Martorana, we need to fix those schools, not to increase number of students they fail.

"Martorana, we need to fix those schools, not to increase number of students they fail."

How many schools are you talking about? Actual numbers, please.

in Japan ... where about 95% of all school children achieve the equivalent of A level, it is clear that many more children in this country could achieve much higher than they do, whichever school they go to, if we all believed and expected that they could do it.

Absolutely

What motivates you, Martorana?

I don't think you are agreeing with me Yamagirl - I haven't been arguing about the wonders of grammar schools. Mine was pretty poor, but it's a long time since I was there. It's miles better now it's a comprehensive.

For most of us in the country there isn't an argument about grammar schools - they have been gone for 40 odd years. What people want is a good school for their own child, where there is a positive attitude to working, and where bullying is clamped down on hard.