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.

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

This depends on the school, some do. So you can't say that it emphatically does not happen.

The difference between university and school education is that we are required by law to see that our children are educated from the age of 5 to 16, and then it's changing, so you are supposed to be either in education, training or apprenticeship at 17(?) currently. As yet, there is no requirement for everyone to have a university level education. Of course, one University, namely the OU, does not require prior qualifications. If we made a university level education compulsory then yes, we should make the means to achieve it possible to all.

You want to go to prison? You must be mad, but women were locked up for refusing to pay their poll tax, cutting wires at Greenham Common, as well as more serious offences. 'Terrorism' however loosely defined, might get you a stretch now?

talkin I don't have a figure in mind. I just want to see a year on year increase in both numbers of applicants from and successful offers to non selective state schooled students.

Whenever you dole out those figures (and you do often) i can almost hear a collective groan, because I bet everyone on this thread except you, thinks that there's a hell of a lot of work to be done on this.

Hell, even Oxbridge knows they've a lot of work to do...

What I do know from going to lots and lots of schools (how many do you visit btw?) is that pupils with a lot of potential are out of the game before it even starts and some of that is squarely at the feet of comprehensive education.

teacher then I would be very cool with the model for selection that you suggest, though I would push up to 5% personally just to ensure critical mass. If every LEA had something like that I think we'd see a huge change around in how our society proceeds in the future.

word and teacher, I just don't think there's a need to separate kids physically or at least not all the time. I think there needs to be a massive investment in online education and conferencing such that kids can receive a more personalised education and work collaboratively with others with similar abilitites and/or interest.

teacher, as a primary school teacher, I expect you to send up to secondary children that are literate and numerate and able to access fully the learning at secondary school. Over the 6 years in primary school it must be possible to achieve this even with the lowest achievers (barring severe special needs). No way should more than 1/3 of a school year arrive at secondary school with a reading age below age 9.3, which was what I had to deal with as a secondary teacher. Frankly I don't actually give a damn whether they're a bit iffy about semi-colons or whether they can write in a convincing style suitable for advertising, if they can actually physically read.

I don't neccessarily when...

But for critical mass you do need to put 'em together somehow.

Also, I do wish urban schools could share facilities more than they do. In a town not too far from here, there are three schools all within walking distance. Each not challenging their high achievers, each with a poorly equiped library, each with an underfunded SEN unit. Madness! They should be allowed to pool their dosh and get better!

word, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Especially if they're within walking distance of each other, there are many synergies they could be exploiting.

Agree, word. Just wish the government would put some time and money into smart learning which may not even need big money but does need time and infrastructure instead of endless curriculum changes etc. Could do with better networking of subject specialists, G & T co-ordinators, teacher innovators etc and pupils. If only I were in charge ...

when, doesn't need the government to achieve it. Federating is happening more and more. A lot out here where we have a lot of very small village primaries.

Glad there's something we can agree on.

Right, going to hide thread now as too much to do.

word: I suspect the enthusiasm for Academisation has put paid to co-operation. With my children's schools, the rural ones especially, were encouraged to be in 'clusters'; the comprehensives had a 6th form consortium which widened the choice of courses on offer considerably. All co-ordinated by the LEA. Who will co-ordinate this now?

The percentage of children attending current special schools is around 3%, and that is across a full range of disabilities and SEN.

There does not seem to be a need to push the 'high ability Special School' higher than this, and it would probably be very significantly less, becauser the numbner of children whose education is significantly harmed by being in the comprehensive system because that system cannot cater for them is likely to be very small. I once calculated that our local superselective grammar caters for around 0.01% of the children in its efefctive catchment area, and there uis nio local 'scandal' that the 4.99% below this are not being educated well in the remaining schools.

Anecdotally, both my children would fall within that top 5% - DD, for example, will dain 6s across the board at the end of Y6 in all likelihood - but are not in need of 'segregated' education. The boy I know who completed the secondary maths syllabus at the end of Y5 and started on univeristy level in Y6 WOULD have benefitted from the type f special scholling I describe,.

Critical mass would simply be achieved by pulling from a very wide area - I envisage there being 1 or 2 at most per LA area.

Oh but teacher you don't want kids having to travel for hours...that's simply putting another barrier in the way of providing properly.

Colyton isn't full of genius level DC nor is Westminster. Just very bright DC who are thriving enormously in the company of like ability peers in number and benefiting from the targeted education that seems to benefit these DC.

wordfactory
YES YES YES to Federating : insane that it has fallen at the altar of Academies

you are correct that I do not visit schools (nasty, smelly places) but DH would utterly agree with you that the low aspirations
in some schools come directly from the teachers
in some places from the parents
rarely from the kids

but removing the kids who were sharp at 11 from the school may not correctly identify who is sharp and motivated and curious at 16 / 18
and those, surely, are the ones we want to support

If they have been told at 11 that they have missed the cut, why should they try later?

I agree to some extent talkin and I wouldn't suggest that anyone have to leave their comp. If a child or their parents would prefer them to remain whatever their ability, then they'd be free to do so.

The pace in highly selective schools can be punishing and not everyone would thrive.

My own DD attends a mixed ability school. At 11 she just didn't want that highly charged atmosphere and refused to go the grammar or selective independent on the table.

She was right.

But as she approaches sixth form, she knows that now she does want more selection and will attend her brother's school.

I would heartliy support that in the state model. More fluid movement.

The social effects of being a catholic seem on the whole to suit the school and learning environment (although there are some shite catholic schools). Maybe that's why so many catholic schools are so successful academically (that and the fact it's a quite serious hoop to have to jump through so more likely to keep in the motivated parents). I can see why schools might want or find it easier to teach only like-minded pupils.

That notwithstanding I still reject the very existence of faith schools.

word
so an option is comps to 16 and then specialist 6th forms / colleges
some of which rigorously select by academic results?
scary that ....

duchesse
DH loves going to catholic schools as they are always so disorganised !

but any form of selection based on parental religion is wrong in the State funded sector.
Welcome to it at fee paying, but not taxpayer funded

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

The level of debate in this thread really deteriorated, coinciding with the appearance of new supporters of comprehensive system on the scene.

Should we draw conclusions from this 'fact'?

When,

Unfortunately a certain level of ability is necessary to be a neurosurgeon or a rocket scientist.

There are no reliable data showing that fully comprehensive areas are better than selective areas, because the data are strongly distorted by income levels, availability of private schools and loca catchment area demographic.

The general picture is that bright kids are doing better than non bright, and middle class kids are doing better than kids on deprived estates. Nothing to do with selection.

The Sutton Trust found that areas which only have comps (most of the country) did no worse at getting into Russell Group universities than areas with grammars, or so I remember.

That of course does not remove in my view the moral imperative on parents to pick the very best school for their children even if they pay for that and even if that damages other children. It is what we are here for and it is a good, not a wrong. It is exactly the same as feeding your child good food and reading to it rather than putting it in a dark cupboard with no food so its position is as bad as abused children to even the score. There is no moral rightness in that attempt to equalise everyone - in fact it is a moral wrong in my book.

Vanilla- just wondering if you're ready to say how many "bad, dysfunctional" schools there are in the country?

That of course does not remove in my view the moral imperative on parents to pick the very best school for their children even if they pay for that and even if that damages other children.

I would certainly agree with the first part of your statement: it's a poor parent who doesn't want to do their best for their child. I can't agree with the other part about if 'it damages the other child'. So there's a wish to feed one's child good food - fine. Does that make it acceptable to take all the available food so that another child has to go without and starves? Not in my book.

I find the idea that it is a moral imperative to walk on the faces of the less fortunate deeply depressing.