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.

soul she was a sweetie and unusual. All the others since ....
but I've been doing NI and tax records for Poles since the first wave
their visa applications were depressing to the half arsed kids at YC

its a fact of migration that the dynamic leave and the lazy stay behind.
THe UK is a departure country ...

ventura the only people I patronise in that situation are the over entitled, under qualified British
(at which times I'm glad to be forrin)

but to stick to the thread point : telling kids at 11 that they have missed the cut will not help their motivation

nor will telling kids who have made the cut be driven to keep striving

age 16 is a different matter ....

Ambercat, your post of 19.52 says it all.

I must be a very naive optimist: I don't actually intellectually understand how anyone could read amber's posts and not get it!

it's off thread for which I apologise but boy......! A 'sweetie' now!

The Polish in me tells me that if kids don't make the cut at 11 then it's tough and their bloody look out. They had seven years to show their mettle. They should have tried harder :)

The juxtaposition of TOSN and Ventura's posts is deeply depressing.....

Do most people really not care what happens to children apart from their own?

And, if they don't care, from a point of view of sheer unadulterated self interest, do people really not see the dangers of an increasingly frustrated, disaffected underclass?

Martorama

I do think people care, but of course their own children are more important to them than other peoples.
I think parents are finding it hard to find the right school/education for their own without worrying too much about others.
I think there has been a huge change in the expectancies of parents in many areas but especially education.
I'm not saying it should still be put up with what you have and just get on with it, but we seem to have gone the other way, where everybody expects the best education for their dc. What is wrong with working with what you have and trying to improve your children's choices.
I'm not sure we will ever find the perfect solution because one size will never fit all.

OK, so to out my location, I live near Peterborough.

I wonder what Vanilla would make of some of the schools here.

There was one primary school that was identified by the Daily Mail in one of it's ''shock horror'' stories as being a school where EVERY pupil had English as a second language. Here is the coverage from both the Daily Mail and the Guardian. It's worthwhile reading both, by the way, as they are both generally supportive:-

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286798/Gladstone-Primary-School-An-inspirational-visit-school-pupils-speak-English-language-reveals-town-breaking-point.html

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/feb/28/school-20-languages-gladstone-primary
.

A lot of these pupils would never be selected for grammar schools - if they existed here - simply on the basis of their level of English. However, if you look at their maths ability, a lot of them are really really good.

There is a local faith school that is very good. Even on Value Added scores it comes out very high, especially for high attainers where it statistically significantly outperforms. Incidentally, it is also the nearest secondary school to the primary school mentioned above.

But, if you don't have evidence of CofE worship - and it is specifically CofE any other Christian denomination isn't good enough - for 5 years prior to entry then you will not get in. Unless you are a good enough singer to be a chorister.

So, all the very bright children, both British and other nationalities, whose parents did not have the foresight to start attending their local CofE church five years previously has got little or no chance of going there.

The reason I mentioned ''very bright'' children is that this school does statistically significantly outperform when it comes to Value Added measures for high attainers who enter the school at 11.

Two of the other schools in the city significantly outperform on Value Added measures for low attainers but fail high attainers.

My personal view is that a large part of the problem is down to low expectations from the teachers.

In the examples above, I would suggest that the teachers at the faith school are pushing high attainers to achieve their best but are, relatively speaking, ignoring the rest.

Likewise, in the schools that are outperforming in motivating low attainers, I would suggest that the teachers are really not stretching the high attainers enough.

Both schools could learn from each other about the best practices in different areas from each other.

Sorry that this was a very long rant. I guess that I'm saying that I'm really anti selection but that there is also room for improvement in how comprehensives are organised.

Forgot to do the thing with the links:-

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286798/Gladstone-Primary-School-An-inspirational-visit-school-pupils-speak-English-language-reveals-town-breaking-point.html

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/feb/28/school-20-languages-gladstone-primary

Is it not possible that a "Secondary Modern" could be a better fit for a particular pupil than a Comprehensive. Apparently according to Laura on page 26 my Private School was a "Modern".

It is quite funny really because I read a lot of posts about which Selective Private School DS/DD should go to ( In fact the School Across the road gets posted about a lot Current thread , not Talkin About Royalty though).
The kids with their RG/Oxbridge Degrees end up working for the kids from the Private "Modern"....

"Is it not possible that a "Secondary Modern" could be a better fit for a particular pupil than a Comprehensive."

In what circumstances?

Martorana what I wrote about Talkin's condescension to Poles I meant but I might well have been brutal in my wording re. 11 yr olds who don't 'make the cut'. Nevertheless, it is half way through their school career and it does seem to me that that's easily enough time to make a judgment about which students are able to benefit from a selective education and which students are likely to prosper better elsewhere.

I'm not clear why that should depress you - the talents of individuals don't all lie in the same direction, it would be a dull and unfunctioning world if they did.

"which students are likely to prosper better elsewhere."

Ah. We've been waiting for you on this thread. You seem to be the person who knows how the majority of children who aren't "selected" benefit from a selective system. I will be incredibly interested in your ideas.

ventura
I get your point about 11 being half way through school in years, but most definitely not in learing
the early years of primary school (and why many countries start formal schooling later than the UK) are nowt to do with learning and all about socialising : KS1
in the UK, KS2 is about learning how to learn
in KS3 the real learning starts
in KS4 it consolidates
in KS5 in specialises

therefore selection at the end of KS 2 is inherently not the best option for most pupils
selection at the end of KS4 is inherently sensible
selectin at the end of KS5 is a no brainer

Martorana. In the circumstances that you have two areas next to each other one a Fully Selective the other a comprehensive area. The comprehensive has a Adequate rating and Statistics as follows:

Comprehensive: 1282 Pupils FSM 7.6% Ability range 9% Low 52% Middle 39% High Gcse: 5 A* to C English/Maths 57% Average attainment High Ability B ,Middle Ability D+ , Low Ability E A level 2 Facilitating Subjects AAB percentage of 8% Average grade : C Vocational Average D-

Secondary Modern ( Or deemed that by Government Classification)
1337 Pupils FSM 4.4% Ability range 10% Low 60% Middle
29% High Gcse: 5 A* to C English/Maths 63% . Average Attainment High B+ ,Middle C Low Ability E+ Average A level Grade C-
AAB 2 Facilitating subjects 5% Vocational average C-

The Comprehensive school was the one that parents ran to to avoid the Secondary School 30 years ago , and happens to be the one that left me unable to hold a pen at 14 years of age.

Which one is the better school,and like the previous statistics I showed earlier , it is Dangerous and unfair to label a designated Secondary Modern.

In the examples above, I would suggest that the teachers at the faith school are pushing high attainers to achieve their best but are, relatively speaking, ignoring the rest.

Likewise, in the schools that are outperforming in motivating low attainers, I would suggest that the teachers are really not stretching the high attainers enough.

This is exactly why a selective system benefits both sides. One school cannot optimally maximise the achievent of all three levels of ability. They choose their focus and leave behind the low attainers or they do not stretch the brighter kids. Selection and separation should allow to meet the needs of every group better.

The 'non selected' do not have to receive inferior standard of education, but they should receive education that is best tailored to their needs and maximises their achievement. The physical presence of high attainers will not change anything if education is not reformed and set up to maximise the attainment of the less able.

Ah, vanilla- there you are! Before you rush off, could you post that number of "bad dysfunctional" schools you keep forgetting?

"One school cannot optimally maximise the achievent of all three levels of ability"

How about taking out the middle ability children then and put them in a separate school and leave the low and high ability together........

Talkin

Maybe you are so passionate because you see 'secondary moderns' exactly as they were in yester-years, not intended for learning?

That was awful indeed. But this is not the issue of selection and the schools referred here as 'secondary moderns' have the same comprehensive curriculum as true comprehensives and state grammars. They only differ in intake and results.

Selection in itself does not need to imply inferior standards, but it should imply a different approach and different methods.

"That was awful indeed. But this is not the issue of selection and the schools referred here as 'secondary moderns' have the same comprehensive curriculum as true comprehensives and state grammars. They only differ in intake and results."

A perfect argument for putting secondary moderns and grammars together to make comprehensives.

What about that figure. You know- the number of "bad! dysfunctional" schools?

Martorana,

How about taking out the middle ability children then and put them in a separate school and leave the low and high ability together........

Please continue... I think you put your finger on it.

You show here that you understand that mixing kids is a red herring. What really upsets you is that your kid is in the lot with the low ability kids and the brighter DC seem to have gotten away.

So the problem for you is actually what happens when your DC is in the mix with the bottom ability kids...

That is why the real problem is not selection or not, but improving outcomes and experience for the bottom lot. It will solve all the problems.

Neither are Faith Schools. The comprehensive was rated Inadequate about 10 years ago and was a great shock to them as they had been coasting for 30 years. it is now rated Adequate, their defence was that they suffered a double whammy of losing able students to either the Selective Area next door or to selective Private schools.

The secondary school 30-25 years ago was seen as a sink school but has been on a upward curve for the last 15 or so and has been outstanding for at least the last 12 years and some parents Choose it over the Grammar schools even if their child passes.

Many people avoid the Comprehensive if they can , and it now busses pupils in from less desirable areas who think its a "Posh" school.

If you want to use Secondary Modern Terminology , the schools have switched and every year the "Comprehensive " losses out to the Modern

No. You said that no school can deal with all three ability bands, so the higher ability bands have to be taken somewhere else. I suggested that one of the other bands could be taken off instead- just to show what a ridiculous idea it is.

And your reference to my own child is completely wrong and irrelevant.

Are you ever going to give us the number of "bad, dysfunctional" schools in that country?

Oh, and soul- there is no such rating as Adequate.

So far I haven't seen any credible argument for fully comprehensive system with the exception of the argument that "if we have that. than so should everyone [except the rich as we can't touch them, but we can get at grammar lot]" This is just a distraction.

The real problem is that too many schools are not good and 53.6% of students don't get 5 good GCSEs at 16.

Ok Grade 3 Satisfactory , I have just checked and the last Ofsted in 2011 was Grade 2 Good . There are no ratings since it became an academy in 2012.

I am Sorry I gave the wrong terminology .....