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.

No one is arguing that bright kids should be dragged into bad dysfunctional schools! Most comprehensives are serving their children well. The addition of a tranche of bright, well supported children is likely to make them even better.

CorusKate, can I ask you the same question you asked me, but reversed? If some way were found to improve attainment for the bottom 20% which could be proven to have no detrimental effect on the other 80%, would you reject that?

Thought you wouldn't answer the question.

in Japan ... where about 95% of all school children achieve the equivalent of A level,
evidence please
as this does not support that comment
www.oecd.org/edu/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/49802616.pdf

I think there is always an overestimation of the power that individual schools and teachers have to change the outcomes of individual children without fully recognizing the importance of motivation, parental support, aspiration and all round 'baggage' that kids come with. Schools do not operate in a bubble. I always wonder why individual hospitals and doctors are not assumed to have the sort of responsibility and ability to change outcomes in the same way as schools.

A good comprehensive should be able to enable each child to achieve his or her potential. If you cream off the top x percent you are going to skew not only the outcomes i.e. raw results but also the ethos and social mix of the school. It should be no surprise that the school performs worse.

It is not a question of 'dragging in' bright students to comprehensives as the poster upthread said so much as not 'dragging them' out.

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

Why are you convinced so many schools are failing children? The stats in the report I quoted earlier suggested that selective schools enable high achieving children to get between zero and a three quarters of a GCSE more than similar children in comprehensive schools. Yes, it would be better if that difference didn't exist, but it hardly sounds like wholesale failure to me.

Well, according to the OCDE reports we are failing on the world stage.

*OECD

So arguably, instead of attempting to flatten out the top tier achievement as some seem to be suggesting, we should instead be encouraging all pupils to aim for the stars, and encouraging better achievement among currently under-performing pupils.

Japan is doing very well in PISA, far ahead of UK.

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.

Absolutely. Selection has no incidence onthis

Duchesse
please bear in mind that in the PISA test,

China would not allow its national results to be included (including dirt poor rural areas with shite schools) so they got away with putting Hong Kong and Shanghai in all on their tod
its a bit like the UK saying : just measure Winchester College and Colyton school

India refused to participate
the questions asked in each country were not the same
the children were "selected" for the test
some countries have a policy of no SEN in mainstream schools so were allowed to exclude them
etc etc etc

the OECD report is well dodgy because they will not release the raw data / methodology

Vanilla- how many "bad, dysfunctional" schools are there?

Who is suggesting that the top tier of achievement should be flattened out?

I do take issue with those who won't accept that there are good comprehensives, where children can and do achieve. Early one we had someone saying that her comprehensive didn't offer Further Maths. It does not follow from that, that 'No comprehensive offers Further Maths', but some people seem to believe it.

Or they seem to believe that all comprehensive children are feral and will end up on the dole. No amount of evidence seems to convince them that yes, actually, plenty of local comprehensives getting children into Oxbridge/Med School, but are also offering good support to the children with SEN. In short, plenty of schools have dedicated staff doing a damn good job and I am fed up of seeing them knocked.

It is not a question of 'dragging in' bright students to comprehensives as the poster upthread said so much as not 'dragging them' out

In practice you would achieve grater segregation by income. Middle class parents would opt out of the 'flattened' dysfunctional comprehensive by going private or moving house.

You will end up with 'flat' leafy comprehensives and 'flat' sink comprehensives.

You won't achieve the mix of students you hope for, unless the schools and teaching really improves. If comprehensives would offer grater opportunities than grammar schools, parents would charge in there crowding out all the weak students into grammars ..

"So arguably, instead of attempting to flatten out the top tier achievement as some seem to be suggesting, we should instead be encouraging all pupils to aim for the stars, and encouraging better achievement among currently under-performing pupils."

Why is this "arguable"? Does it come as a surprise to some people that all pupils should be encouraged to achieve, not just the top 2%?

Vanilla
How many comprehensive schools have you actually visited during the school day ?

How many secondary modern schools ditto?

How many grammar schools ditto?

How many non selective private schools ditto?

How many selective private schools ditto?

I also think Japan/China have Suicide rates amongst pupils that are far higher than the UK and demonstrate "Child Abuse". As for Singapore they birch misbehaving and underachieving students.

I think they has been a recent case about a family from Singapore living in the Uk who can not understand why using a belt to a Child is against the Law .

Why anyone would want to compare against such countries that have nothing in common with us is beyond me.

We need to compare ourselves against European / Commonwealth Countries U.S.A and Canada. I know Singapore /Malaysia are in the Commonwealth but are countries that "Hang" people for supplying Dope.

An odd post, Vanilla. There already is selection by income. It could easily be argued that most selection is ultimately based on income.

Schools became more skewed when league tables began giving parents the illusion of choice which, in fact, means choice for those who are already privileged.

Comprehensives DO offer great opportunities but to a great extent schools can only be as good as their intake.

It is bizarre to think that grammar schools, private schools and faith schools are 'better' without understanding that they perform better because they select.

Where exactly are you talking about Vanilla? There are literally thousands of comprehensives, and only about 160 grammar schools, so it's impossible to generalise and say that comprehensives don't offer the same opportunities as grammar schools. Some will be offering the same opportunities and more (but shh, we musn't admit that comprehensives can do good things ). Then in Kent especially, and parts of South London, you get posters referring to Comprehensives, when by definition they can't possibly be because they are not catering for the full spectrum of ability.

'In practice you would achieve grater segregation by income. Middle class parents would opt out of the 'flattened' dysfunctional comprehensive by going private or moving house.'

Your tone suggests that you think 'segregation' is a good thing . Approx 7% of parents opt for private education, significantly more play the system by opting for state grammars and faith schools.

I think we are still waiting for clarification about what you perceive as 'dysfunctional' comprehensives.

Comprehensives become less comprehensive the more people who 'opt out'. It stands to reason that if the top end is creamed off, they will perform less well academically.

PISA/OECD data also shows that countries with less stratified education systems tend to perform better overall. Hence my argument that comprehensive schooling is better for society as a whole, not just for lower attainers. The potential small drop in the results of the highest achievers is more than compensated for by increased achievement elsewhere, leading to a net increase in overall performance. Is that not a good thing?

countries with less stratified education systems tend to perform better overal

It's not less stratified education, it's less stratified society. The existing social stratification in UK distorts all the school landscape. It is a reality on the ground. You won't change it by debating selective schools.

'you think 'segregation' is a good thing'

I think the culture at school is important and the wrong culture does affect negatively achievement of all pupils including the brighter ones.

My DS was bullied in primary school. Now DS doesn't have this problem, while his bullies are in a sink school. I am sorry for them, but my DS is not rejoining them any time soon.

If the problem is a stratified society, how do stratified schools help?