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.

wordfactory
after the age of 16/18 kids can take their chances as they do in the workplace
it is NOT justified to do so at 11

and BTW have you found evidence for your flight to private in comp areas yet?

It is an interesting point about universities - I think the point (for me) is that this is post-compulsory education, and also at a point at which most students will have 'displayed' their ability, rather than it being 'latent / potential' as much is at 11. To determnine at 11 how academic a pth a child can follow seems unreasonably earkly, at 18, shutting off some options to some students feels more reasonable.

Otherwise, one could make an argument that all applicants shiould be entitled to all public service jobs, as selection is unreasonable.

Universities are no longer free. But I do have a problem with the fact that only 45 kids on FSM got into Oxbridge last year also, yes.

(Like When, I think that universities should take account of the barriers that may have prevented some applicants from displaying their true ability by 18...)

You DO benefit from prisons

That depends on whether you believe the restorative or punitive models of justice.

As it happens, I agree with you that prisons play a social role. But your analogy should surely extend to me having free access to them as well?

Replace prison with grammar school in that sentence and see how it floats.

I see what you're saying teacher...but to be fair even at university level we are still looking for potential, which is what widening access and contextulaised offers are all about...

But either way this is a publicly funded service which does not admit most people. No getting away from that. But we know that for those attending to get the very best education, selection must apply.

And at the top end of universities, ever more selection applies because we find that a collegiate atmosphere of the exceptionally bright provides the most challenging environment.

So, is anybody saying that the education provided in grammar schools should be extended to all children in all schools?

I would be fine with that- in fact it seems like a very good idea to me. What could possibly be the drawbacks?

duchesse, you DO have free access to prisons and hospitals and public libraries.

Seriously, why is this such a problem for you to understand?

when I have a huge problem with that too.

Despite the idiotic numbers talkin tries to peddle on all these threads to prove there's no problem with access to Oxbridge from comprehensives...

But the answer isn't to shut Oxbridge, or make it less selective. The answer lies in widening access so the brightest have access to that sort of education whatever their background.

I think the same applies to selective state schools.

when, no I do NOT have free access to prison. I would have to do something quite bad to be put into prison. I would have to be SUITABLE for prison.

Similarly, I would have to be ILL to use hospital services.

Children who are BRIGHT may be selected to go to an academically challenging school.

'But we know that for those attending to get the very best education, selection must apply.'

Do we really 'know' that?

Personally, I would dispute that.

But universities are a complication in this debate partly because of their dual role to educate and research.

I would also question whether the 'best' universities are actually the 'best' at educating. But that is a whole different debate.

SDuchesse, can you tell me how 'the education provided in grammar schools should be extended to all children in all schools' would be different from a comprehensive school?

Because if the education is to be the same for all pupils in all schools, then there would be no need for selection. You would end up with all abilities in the same school, all having access to a wide range of academic subjects...in other words a comprehensive school, exactly like those that the majoprity of English school children already attend...

duchesse you are being ridiculous in order to attempt to make a point that's going to backfire anyway.

There's not much point in going to a prison if you haven't committed a crime is there? Likewise a hospital if you're not ill although I doubt you'd be kicked out if you went and sat around in A & E for a while.

To attend a school you would need to be under 18.

You are able to use all public services as you require them regardless of your ability, faith, sex etc.

Except some schools which are the only public institutions that exclude on the basis of ability and faith.

Children in comprehensives do not get the same education even within the school, teacher. I am talking about the same subjects, at the same speed for all.

Either that or providing accelerated enough teaching for the highest achievers within comprehensives, which emphatically does not happen now.

I can tell you from experience that many year 9 top set comprehensive children are achieving about the same as an average year 5 in a pretty normal (ie not one of the Eton feeder types) prep school.

The point is, there is no magically 'different' education provided in grammar schools. Same exams, same syllabus, same exam boards, same qualifications, teachers qualified in the same way as in comprehensive schools.

A 'grammar education' rolled out to all = a comprehensive education, although the latter does tend to offer a broader range of options because of the need to ensure progress even for those who are less able - and I am sure that you aren't advocating preventing less academic children from accessing the very courses that will be most valuiable to them in their future workplaces as well as the academic subjects also provided.

And no, you don't have to be ill to use a hospital. You can be pregnant or go for genetic testing or a whole host of reasons unconnected with your faith or ability.

teacher except you dont end up with a critical mass of same ability pupils at the end of the bell curve.

So the top 5 % say, will have no peers or one if lucky.

Super selectives only work because of their wide catchment.

By top 5% I mean nationally, not in the school - sorry didn't make that clear.

wordfactory
Universities are indeed a whole different debate,
and if my numbers are idiotic, what percentage of students at top universities do you think should come from non selective state schools?

and FWIW I find that FSM / Oxbridge figure disgraceful too

if nothing else because a friend who went to Oxford from a very poor household cottoned on to the fact that college rent in a non historic building covered 52 weeks a years so was much much cheaper than any redbrick!

the children of several friends are at / have just graduated from Oxbridge.
All of them went to State schools -but we all went private
so the widening participation still has a ways to go

and Grammar Schools that separate most of the RG students from the others are not going to help

Duchesse,

Have you ever been in a classroom? So in a varied class, from P5 (moderate learning difficulties, semi-verbal) to a NC level 4, you are proposing that I offer EXACTLY the same speed and type of learning to all? I agree that it is my job to ensure that every child makes the absolute maximum progress they are able to. but that does not equate to exactly the same input for all.

DS is top set maths, year 8, in a decent comp. He is currently finishing off a set of GCSE A / A* level algebra questions. I don't think he'd be douing much better in a local prep school - in fact as I sent one of my Y5s to one last year, I know that locally the prep schools are a little behind the state primaries in their level of work.

I am all for academic subjects being available to anyone regardless of ability. I am broadly in favour of comprehensive education. I never anticipated spending £££ every year for years and years. I just wish that what my children needed and wanted had been available in the state system where we live. I wanted them not to feel like pariahs all the way through school- in short I wanted them to be happy at school. And broadly they have been, in a way they were really not when they were in state school. (apart from the year we spent in Canada, when they were really happily integrated into our nearest state school and no teacher told me they were autistic once all year)

teacher- I've been in quite a few as it happens, yes.

Word, you may or may not remember that I have said previously on MN that I would support a 'special school' model of superselectives, taking a small percentage - probably in practice significantly less than 1% - of exceptionally able children, assessed by Ed Psychs in collaboration with primary schools in the same way as access to existing Special schools is organised. I agree that such exceptionally able children - those who are working 3,4,5 years ahead - deserve a peer group and a different model of education.

Like many existing Special Schools, they might be co-sited with comprehensives so that a child e.g. exceptionally able in maths but average overall could attend both.

Duchesse, so you would suggest that i offer the same inoput to all of those children? To teach e.g Level 4a work to even the semi-verbal child, because 'that is the grammar equivalent education'? Or should I do the - much harder - task of teaching every child what they need next to make proress?

FWIW, duchesse, I believe that EVERY child should be able to maximise his or her potential at school. I do not believe and have seen no evidence to support the idea that grammar schools are necessary to achieve that.

I do think more needs to be done to achieve more personalised learning in every school but that has nothing to do with grammar schools. If anything grammar schools and other ways of separating children academically encourage teachers to teach at one pace to one level without responding to individual needs.

So, it is the case that all children need and are entitled to a free education just as people are entitled to free hospitals, libraries etc but it is NOT the case that any child needs or is proven to benefit from a grammar school education.

Grammar schools, unlike schools in general, are not a necessary public service. The fact that there are only a handful left in the country is testament to this. In segregating and privileging the rich, they perpetuate and exacerbate social inequalities.