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 suggested that one of the other bands could be taken off instead- just to show what a ridiculous idea it is.

Martorana, you already made clear that the true point that gets you going is that your DC has to share a school with the lower ability lot. But thank you for reiterating that.

Your perversion of my point is of course ridiculous. One school can't tailor to the very brightest and the very weakest simultaneously, the two groups require teaching method, culture, environment that are too divergent. Putting them together would be a disservice for both, and it is called comprehensive.

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

Yes, but many of us are struggling to see why you need a one or two day test at age 10, to then hive a small percentage off to a separate building, which then governs what happens for the next five years.

Many of us can't see what is wrong with forgetting about the test; taking children in at 11, probably giving them a half term to settle in whilst observing their progress and getting the measure of how they perform overall, then being to set them as appropriate.

Or if this separation is really so very very good, why not have a test for the middle and lower groups, where you ask some people to produce some craft/art to gauge potential vocational skill or getting them to run a race or swim or cycle to test their sporting ability?

Just to take one example of which I have had a little first hand experience - Buckingham School is a specialist sports college. Does the Bucks 11+ check for sporting ability? I am pretty sure the answer is No. The school says, "As a Sports College we position PE and Sport at the centre of the curriculum". Pity the poor kid then who has precious little interest in sport but is 'selected' to go to this school on the basis of not getting a high enough mark in a written test about something completely different. There doesn't seem to be any scope for the kid to say, well I'm not good at sport or maths or English, but I would prefer to go to the school which concentrates on Maths.

"Martorana, you already made clear that the true point that gets you going is that your DC has to share a school with the lower ability lot. But thank you for reiterating that."

I have said nothing of the sort. At any point. Rather the opposite.

Why are you refusing to say how many "bad dysfunctional" schools you think there are?

46% 5 A* To C is crap.

I drove past Buckingham School when looking for A Coffee in the morning when on the way to silverstone. Could not found a Decent coffee though

"46% 5 A* To C is crap"

In a lot of cases, yes. But it depends on the school, the intake, what other qualifications the kids do.........

Vanilla, since selection is not the problem in your book, and you keep telling us about your concern for the disadvantaged, but at the same time you think the three different strands of ability can't be taught in the same building, how about selecting the other way round?

How about devising a test on the premise of really concentrating on the 20% who really aren't going to be able to access the full curriculum? Let's identify them and take them out of the system and offer them the best resources we are able to afford. We'll really work hard to make sure that they are up to standard with literacy because this is a key to so much of our curriculum.

That gets round the problem of having to teach across a full ability range. Somehow, I don't think you are going to go for that option.

But yes, soul Buckingham School looks crap......

LaVolcan,

I actually see your point about how the child feels. I think the selection should be top 10-5%, not top 30% like in Bucks. Some real effort should be made to identify strengths and interests of less academic children. I agree..

LaVolcan,

How about devising a test on the premise of really concentrating on the 20% who really aren't going to be able to access the full curriculum? Let's identify them and take them out of the system and offer them the best resources we are able to afford. We'll really work hard to make sure that they are up to standard with literacy because this is a key to so much of our curriculum.

This is exactly what I proposed in another thread, and Talkin and Martorana argued even more passionately against this, than they argue for comprehensive education here.

Addressing the bottom 20% is the core problem. Other things will follow.

But educating well the bottom does not meanabolishing grammar schools.
You need appropriate education for each strand of ability.

Actually, that's a really good idea, seriously. Take the "bottom" 25% and put them in a separate school. Find a way of telling them that they are there because they are "the elite" or "the leaders of the future". Give them all the advantages that apparently grammar school kids have- not forgetting the kudos. And see what happens.

The top and middle ability kids will now be in a smaller school and will obviously be fine because their teachers will only have to deal with two ability bands, not three.

I am up for La volcan option in fact I probably would have benefited from Helping the bottom 20% of pupils. I have said that these pupils should study English/Maths up to the age of 18 and offer pupils realistic chances of decent employment if they follow the "Plan".

"46% 5 A* To C is crap"

In a lot of cases, yes. But it depends on the school, the intake, what other qualifications the kids do.........

Martorana, it shouldn't depend, especially on the intake. All schools should provide minimum benchmark of secondary education to all children.

The state policy is that 5 GCSEs from A* To C including English and Maths is the minimum benchmark. Most schools in the country fail this benchmark. Not good.

The number should be 100% of 5 A* To C. It could include equivalent vocational employable qualifications in addition to Maths and English. It could excuse children with severe learning difficulties. But it should not be allowed to excuse itself because of 'intake'.

Given that our curriculum is so literacy based I really wish that we did concentrate on getting children to read. I say this based on limited experience of doing a PGCE in maths, a good number of years ago. I could see that the mathematical part of some kids' brains was fine - they were logical and could reason things out, but they struggled to read the questions, so never got to the part that they could do.

Whether starting to read at age 5 is the best approach I am not qualified to judge, and other countries prefer to teach children to read at 6 or 7 but I really would like to see it being one of the key objectives for the first year of junior school. (Maybe it is, I am out of touch with the latest objectives and didn't specialise in primary.)

Martorana, Yoy are starting to get a handle of things.

What is the cut-off in verbal reasoning test in fully selective counties?

I assume it will broadly be indicative of the IQ of 120...

bottom 10% scoring below IQ 80

Corus, I think the low aspirations and disruption comes at least in part from those with IQ above 80, but with social issues.

Vanilla You say "Most schools in the country fail this benchmark of % getting 5 A* - C . Not good."

Dfe Stats show:

England - All Schools 53.5% 59% 59.4% 59.2% for the years 2010 - 2013 inclusive.

By whose understanding is more than 50% for all years and almost 60% for the last three years interpreted as 'most' failing to reach the standard?

To be fair though lavolcan since the vast majority of DC sit within the middle section of the ability bell curve ie 80% of kids, most schools with a fair spread should be getting 80% 5GCSEs. This isn't a big ask and the majority of those 80% have the ability.

Something is going wrong between ability and achievement.

Interesting to read about the 3 students with top 2% IQs that all failed the 11+. My DS would definitely fail despite top 1% verbal reasoning. So when you are talking about "middle ability" students that are more suited to a SM, you are talking about these kids too.... When you talk about selective education letting down the brightest kids, to me, you are talking about these bright kids that "fail".... the student who failed by being top 31% rather than top 30%. As someone said further up, the 11+ is a "blunt instrument". Those that just fail are going to be seriously let down and as has been said, these are more likely to be those from poorer backgrounds. Take two students who are just in the top 20%, both with exactly the same intelligence levels. One gets the tutoring, music lessons and horse riding. The other gets nothing. Guess which one passes and which one fails. Wouldn't the "failure" be better off at a comp than a SM?

Talkinpeace
I look out for my children first and foremost : that is why they are not at yobcentral my local school

I read that as; you have selected a school for your children based on what you think will be best for them. You don't want them at yob central.
Based on the arguments you have previously out forward about parents leaving some kids on the scrap heap by choosing selective education for their own children it doesn't set to fit with your own choices of not choosing yob central.
You have made a considered selection. What about the children who have no choice but to attend yob central? Based on your own opinions it is short sighted and narrow minded to ignore those at yob central because we will end up paying for them. So why didn't you send your children their to even things up a bit?
Out of interest, what would you have done if there had been no other state option except yob central?

Word - I wasn't arguing about whether 5 A*- C was a good or bad target. It is the one which has been defined as the acceptable standard. Vanilla made a blunt statement that 'most' children fail to reach this standard. The DfE's stats show that for the last 4 years that this statement has not been true.

We are still waiting for her to provide her stats to show that 'most' schools are dysfunctional.

Martorana I haven't any idea, none whatsoever, why you say I appear to be vocal about the benefits of non selection for those not selected. I don't believe I've ever expressed an opinion on MN on the subject at all! Come to that, I similarly don't believe that I've expressed an opinion on the benefits of those who are selected. There are enough other posters to do that :) When you work out which poster you're confusing me for, let me know. Cheers :)