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 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

Public money belong to all the public irrespective of ability and is generated mostly by those in more skilled occupations, i.e. proxy for higher ability.

It is not the purpose of public funding to flatter self esteem of the envious people with low ability.

Vanilla, are you seriously now arguing that it's fair enough for rich people to take the lion's share of public money because they have earned it?

Do you also think rich people should get the better doctors and drugs?

Utterly objectionable.

'It is not the purpose of public funding to flatter self esteem of the envious people with low ability.'

I am honestly struggling to understand what you mean by this.

Please explain how providing good and non-divisive education to all children would 'flatter the self esteem of the envious people with low ability'.

Is this what the NHS does somehow?

In what way are richer people taking the lion's share of spending?

I do not agree with you Vanilla- I think public spending should be aimed at tempering the inevitable negative effects of capitalism. Therefore providing a good education service to give children the chance of social mobility and a bite at ending up at the top of the pyramid for a change.

The problem is that for some people to move up the economic pyramid, others need to move down it, and obviously those people fight against that.

'Yes we could open everything to everybody'

The public should be able to take advantage of the services they pay for.

I have given up trying to fathom out what Vanilla is trying to argue.

'The problem is that for some people to move up the economic pyramid, others need to move down it, and obviously those people fight against that.'

I'm not sure it is so obvious that people who are OK will 'fight against' other people doing better for themselves. There's a lot of that attitude on this thread and TBH it's not pretty.

I think that's an objectionable attitude which is more evident in class-bound Britain than in other countries.

Hence why we have the most divisive education system in the world and the least social mobility.

Not the least social mobility. But certainly less social mobility than those countries with less social exclusion in their education systems.

when, you arguments are completely chaotic and flawed. You don't display an ability to use evidence critically. You just proclaim unconvincing slogans.

The only way poor kids can get into good jobs is by demonstrating good performance, having skills, being able to achieve the same exam results are rich kids, or Chinese kids for this matter.

Prep schools helps kids whose parents can afford them to reach a standard of performance necessary to pass a selection and enter state funded grammar schools (this is what you example shows).

Poor kids should be getting the same standard of preparation from their local primary school.

If they don't, they are just not fit for the top jobs because they don't have the skills.

Fix primary schools.

When, that's ridiculous. I don't need services for paraplegic people- why should I be able to walk in and demand to use them? Most services are rationed to users that need them, not just ones that want them.

'when, you arguments are completely chaotic and flawed. You don't display an ability to use evidence critically. '

For example?

Vanilla, you have ducked almost every question that has been posed to you and are unable to support a single one of your assertions.

duchess, are you being deliberately obtuse? Should you have the misfortune to become paraplegic those services would be open to you regardless of your faith or IQ.

You do understand this right?

Public services should be (and generally are with the exception of education) available to those who require them.

There is no IQ test or letter from the priest necessary to get into a hospital or go to a public park.

Vanilla: I thought it was 'abolish Public schools'?

Or are you now going to tell us that 'all primary schools are bad', because from previous posts it seems that your DS's may not have been up to the mark?

"As I said yesterday, I don't believe that grammar schools benefit those not selected. I also don't believe they cause them harm."

Duchesse, but mathematically, since fully-selective areas achieve slightly poorer results on average than non-selective areas, grammar schools must be harming someone, relative to non-selective schools.

Many on this thread have argued that they are better for educating the most bright, which means by simple statistics that they MUST disadvantage those who are not selected.

OR the only mathematically plausible explanation is that they don't benefit EITHER the children selected OR the children who are not.....

A case in point might be a child who excels in 1 area - lets say Maths - while struggling in English. Or who is dyscalculic, but a very able linguist and writer. The way in which not being selected harms such children is by taking away their peer group for their strong subject. So, for example, the able mathematician does not have sufficient near-peers for the school to offer e.g. additional maths qualifications at GCSER, in which they would get high marks and be better prepared to get high marks in A levels - whereas in a comprehensive, those near-peers would be able to make up a full top set who would all do these qualifications. Equally, the able linguist, having failed the 11+ due to poor Maths skills, may not be offered the 2nd / 3rd / dead language options that would have been open to them in a comprehensive, because there is simply not the staffing available to offer such options to a tiny minority of able linguists in a secondary modern.

Yes when, and any child who needs the services provided by a grammar school in in theory at least entitled to them.

Do you "get" my analogy now?

But tax payers money is poured into universities when...are you suggesting that they should stop selecting by ability?

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

But IF that were true, THEN fully selective areas would gain better results than non-selective, comprehensive areas.

Statistically, the reverse is true - selective areas do slightly worse than non-selevtive areas with similar demographics.

Which doesn't seem to fit the argument?

'Yes when, and any child who needs the services provided by a grammar school in in theory at least entitled to them.

Do you "get" my analogy now?'

Duh! There is no analogy. Grammar schools exclude the majority of children, discriminating on the basis of ability, or at least, attainment on a particular test.

No other public service does this.

I do appreciate that you have no intention of letting facts get in the way of a good spot of assertion. though.

I demand my rights as a tax payer to be allowed free access to a prison!! Straight after my utterly unnecessary heart surgery. And then, I think I'll be Chancellor of the Exchequer for a while.

Universities discriminate on the basis of ability. So do sixth forms.

Shall we do away with them?

Interesting thing ....
some of the Kent Grammar schools have distinctly fewer teachers to staff (ie larger groups) than the average
www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=LA&superview=sec&view=swf&set=1&tab=37&no=886&sort=swf_13.ratpuptea&ord=desc

lots of possible reasons
but they seem to pay their staff above the average ...

surreal things selective schools

and BTW
I agree with those who are utterly against religious selection in state schools
you want a segregated education of any kind?
go pay for it.

It's hardly worth responding to those last ridiculous comments duchesse. You DO benefit from prisons and should you commit a crime you wouldn't have to go to a particular prison dependent on your faith or intellectual prowess. You ARE entitled to heart surgery should you require it. As for being Chancellor of the Exchequer, that is an elected post and there is nothing to stop you standing for an election.

Why do you find these concepts so difficult to understand?

Ah yes, that old stalwart- personal attack.