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.

'I think that theoretically at least grammars do not discriminate socially except on an individual's ability'

At least you acknowledge that the discrimination against poor people is 'theoretical' and, in practice, does exist.

However, why is ability somehow a more moral discriminator than faith?

'This thread is venting anxieties of middle class mothers seeing diminishing social mobility and chances of their children slipping away. '

I agree. Those appear to be YOUR anxieties.

Vanilla you continue to duck the questions posed to you:

'direct their aggression towards non wealthy bright kids '

Please find an example of this aggression.

Please find a single argument on this thread that even implies that non wealthy or even wealthy bright kids should somehow be held back.

'Selection by wealth is the biggest injustice in education in this country, not selection by ability.'

The evidence tells us that the two go hand in hand.

Look at the number of FSM in state grammar schools and top performing faith schools.

'Grammer schools are some few places left to offer social mobility to non wealthy capable kids along with outstanding exceptional comprehensives.'

By and large they don't.

Vanilla, at some point you need to actually deal with the evidence rather than continuing to make the same old tired assertions.

I am not the one trying to tell other people to put their kids in less suitable school as a gesture of fairness...

It really is terribly straightforward. As a mother of three older children with IQs in the 130-140 bracket, my nearest comprehensive would have to offer the following for me to subject my children to 7 formative years of it:

• decent language teaching, including "dead languages"

-three separate sciences at GCSE and decent A level teaching in strong academic subjects -plenty of opportunities for music- including orchestra and various ensembles -ability to properly stretch higher ability pupils- ie teachers teaching in their degree level subject area -range of SMT driven extracurricular activities that did not depend on an individual member of staff to run (ie when that member of staff moved on, someone else is appointed to take over their club/society, not just let it fold) -reasonable staff absence rates. -strong headteacher

The school had none of these things or was patchy in its provision. I chose not to consign my children to a secondary schooling through their teens that was unimaginative and unambitious.

Does that make me a bad mother? No

Does it make me a bad social engineer? Maybe. Two of my children had enough social problems at school as it was without my deliberately sending them to a place they'd get their heads kicked in every day for being odd.

Evidence for example:

'THE 6% OF PUPILS AT PREP SCHOOLS PROVIDE FOUR TIMES MORE GRAMMAR SCHOOL ENTRANTS THAN THE 16% ENTITLED TO FREE SCHOOL MEALS – SUTTON TRUST?'

www.suttontrust.com/news/news/sutton-trust-prep-schools-provide-four-times-more-grammar/

'I am not the one trying to tell other people to put their kids in less suitable school as a gesture of fairness...'

Erm, who has said this?

I grew up in France, where there is a terrible division in state schools between the supposed "top-notch" secondary schools, mainly in Paris, that feed into the grandes écoles and positions of power, and the schools out in the suburbs and provinces that barely get a look-in. it is truly shocking how inflexible France is socially in that respect.

I have never felt so constrained socially as I have since I came back to the UK. It's not about what you know, it's about who you know here. Just look at the Cotswold smart set- they have the whole country stitched up. The rest of us are just peasants.

Apparently buying a public school education may not come cheap but it reaps dividends long-term.

Taking advantage of selective education in order to do one's best by one's own kids is understandable.

Taking advantage of selective education in order to do one's best by one's own kids while saying that such selective education also benefits all the kids who are not able to take advantage of it, less so.

That was directed to Duchesse btw.

As I said yesterday, I don't believe that grammar schools benefit those not selected. I also don't believe they cause them harm. I questioned yesterday whether they need to provide social benefit to those not selected (ie justify their own existence). I don't believe they do.

It is the job of each school to educate its pupils to the best of its and their ability.

Kate- on the IQ tests my children took, 139+ was top 2%, so not genius bright, but enough to be a problem. Both the odd children of mine are at the upper end btw. The least odd scored 130-133 depending on tests and is the most socially adept of the three. Don't know if there's a link.

Oh and none of them passed the 11+ for the nearest (only) superselective. Most socially adept child came closest.

When, you are focussing on the wrong problem.

'THE 6% OF PUPILS AT PREP SCHOOLS PROVIDE FOUR TIMES MORE GRAMMAR SCHOOL ENTRANTS THAN THE 16% ENTITLED TO FREE SCHOOL MEALS – SUTTON TRUST?'

This shows that:

1. Better teaching at primary level, harder work, more effort, high aspirations by the students pays off and gives access to grammar schools

1. Pupils on FSM are not getting good teaching, good work habit and good aspirations in primary school and are therefore less likely to be competitive in secondary education and beyond

It is not the problem of selection it is the problem of poor standards.

Fix bad schools starting from primaries.

Duchess, those children who don't get into the grammar schools might dispute your assertion that their rejection doesn't 'cause harm'.

'It is the job of each school to educate its pupils to the best of its and their ability'

I agree but I do not see how it can be moral to use public money to fund public institutions that exclude on the basis of ability (or faith).

This would not be considered morally acceptable for any other public institution.

Vanilla, it does not show that at all.

Vanilla, once again, there is no evidence whatsoever for your rather bizarre assertions.

I can see that you won't respond to evidence though. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating what you blithely believe to be true.

I am reminded of this . I can never watch this too often.

Yes we could open everything to everybody. Let's just let anyone into Oxbridge who wants to go and we'll see how the high level research goes.

I agree with vanilla about foundation skills being crucial.

'THE 6% OF PUPILS AT PREP SCHOOLS PROVIDE FOUR TIMES MORE GRAMMAR SCHOOL ENTRANTS THAN THE 16% ENTITLED TO FREE SCHOOL MEALS – SUTTON TRUST?'

This also shows that a handful of kids on FSM were identified as talented and taken out of the context and peer pressure of low attainment into an environment of high aspirations, high expectations which is more suitable for them.

'The study finds that the overall rate of FSM eligibility at the top schools is 3.0%, compared to a national secondary school average of 14.3%. Only 6 schools – or 3% - within the top 200 have FSM rates which are equal to or above the national average;
two thirds have 2% or fewer of pupils eligible for FSM. The intake of the top 200 is significantly more affluent than the school population as a whole.

· The findings also suggest that the top schools do not reflect the social make up of their immediate areas: the average rate of FSM eligibility in the postcode sectors of the top
200 schools is 12.3% - almost 10 percentage points and more than four times higher than the schools’ average rate. In only 11 of the top 200 schools does the FSM eligibility rate reflect that of their local area.
'

file:/C:/Users/R/Downloads/1RatesOfEligibilityforFreeSchoolMealsattheTopStateSchools.pdf

Oh and by the way. Child who came closest to entering superselective (the least high IQ of my oldest children, remember)- they asked for her exercise books from primary school. What do you suppose they wanted to see to make up their minds?

I don't know how you would extrapolate from this that the reason so few children on FSM get into the top schools is that they coincidentally all badly taught.

Utterly, utterly bizarre.