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.

[Vanillachocolate]

I don't think tax money should be spent on a system that marginally, if at all benefits a minority, and disadvantages the vast majority. Simple, really.

This is a very selfish thing to say, a vested interest and the example of social envy

The selective system helps the brightest to achieve their potential, so the country and all people could have great doctors, scientists, innovators, teachers, those people that create new treatments, new technologies and new industries, jobs, create wealth, drive the living standards and contribute most of the taxes, which fund education in first place (not to mention benefits).

If you hold them back, that role will be fulfilled by the bright Americans, Chinese, Poles, Russians etc.

[TalkinPeace]

vanilla
please do me the courtesy of spelling at least part of my name right
Talking piece, your argument also reflects your priorities in using your income

and please, tell me, how my "income" affects £11 a week in bus fare per child which is the difference between the two schools?
and which 500 other children from this area also find every week ...

must not feed the Mrs Gove troll

[wordfactory]

But talkin say you had three kids that would be 33 per week in bus fares...

that's massive for lots of families.

[LaVolcan]

Or selection by faith, or sex.

Some people who live in the poorer end of my town, where the primary schools are reputed not to be good, seem to have a sudden religious conversion when their child is about 2, so that they can go to a couple of Church schools (Cof E and RC) across town. Strangely, this poorer end of town is in the catchment for what is currently considered to be the best comprehensive, and they seem to lose their faith by the time the child is 11.

Not all, I hasten to add, but I suspect that you can tell the genuine RC parents by those who chose to send their child to the RC school in the next town at 11+ rather than stay local.

[Vanillachocolate]

LaVolcan, by the dame argument, taxes should not be used to fund Olympic sports, because your DS cannot be part of the Olympic team...

[Martorana]

Vanilla- we are going round in circles. What do you think happens to "the brightest" in the vast majority of LEAs that have no selective schools?

Oh, and please explain "social envy" to me?

[TalkinPeace]

word
yup
but parents round here have given up sky to find that money
the afternoon bus has nearly 100 kids on it
and I'm at the upper, upper limit of local earnings
even poor parents can see which way the wind blows
the really poor ones cycle the 5 miles each way

[Vanillachocolate]

Martorana,
The brightest in non selective areas are in private schools, superselective grammars or are subject to the post code lottery and social divide. Those in leafy enclaves or political show piece - schools get through, others don't. It ain't any fairer.

[TalkinPeace]

lets look at god and gonads for a change shall we ...

as every LEA has "religious schools"

round here the catholic ones are full of turbans and anything single sex is full of muslims

[LaVolcan]

Vanilla: which dame same argument? That people shouldn't 'catch' religion? Or that people shouldn't live in rural areas?

Should we be busing our children from one end of the country to another, so that they can try for a Kent or Bucks GS?

[CecilyP]

What about brightest kids who have parents whose incomes are too low to consider private, have no superselective grammars anywhere communable and, while they may be subject to the 'post code lottery' may live in the wrong post code?

[wordfactory]

martorana I know you addressed vanilla but I'm happy to give you my thoughts from my experience in the widening access prog at Oxbridge and in being given an insight into the latest selection process.

I'll be frank. I don't think that the top students in many comprehensives are being sufficiently challenged. Yes, there are some students who will take themselves to the next level, but many many won't really know how. Why should they?

Also, many schools and subsequently parents believe they are being sufficiently challenged. As long as they're doing 'well' everyone's happy.

Yet, when I see what highly selective schools in both sectors are providing these students, it's chalk and cheese. And that just can't be fair.

[duchesse]

LaVolcan- people do move for the 7 years their DC is in secondary school. I know people who've applied from wherever then moved when their child got into Colyton. There is no catchment area for application, although obviously in practical terms no child actually lives in the term-time further than 30ish miles away.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Martorana

Haven't had much to say until recently but we live in such an area.
There are a couple of schools we would just be in the catchment for but travel would be long and expensive for dc here to attend.
Most parents don't know about the schools, the ones that do don't feel they have a choice tbh.
We have high schools and I think 1 academy.
Most of the schools are dire and most parents put up with it.
My dd won't attend any secondary school in this area, even if we have to continue to H.ed
I'm glad of selective schools because if my dd happens to gain a place in the school she longs to attend, she will be with like minded people.

[Vanillachocolate]

LaVolcan, nobody should be busing kids if they don't want to.

Everybody should focus on improving their local schools by improving the system and outcome for those bottom 20% that pull comprehensives down. When that happens, there wouldn't be a point discussing selective schools. The question will become irrelevant to all except a small fraction of people.

[TalkinPeace]

wordfactory
your views on comp 6 th forms I'll let slide : we do not have them round here
what about the / comp to 16 / selective 6th college model
the one that gets over 60 kids a year into Oxbridge from one state college, that one?

[Martorana]

"Martorana,
The brightest in non selective areas are in private schools, superselective grammars or are subject to the post code lottery and social divide. Those in leafy enclaves or political show piece - schools get through, others don't. It ain't any fairer."

So there are no bright children doing well in comprehensive schools in this country? Really?

[Martorana]

All those LEAs with no selective schools- no bright children getting their A*s in any of those comprehensives?

[CecilyP]

I don't think the bottom 20% are that relevant to the majority of parents. If you are the parent of a reasonably bright child considering whether to go for a comprehensive or have a stab at the 11+, I can't think of anything that could be further from your mind than the support afforded to the bottom 20% at the comprehensive.

[TalkinPeace]

duchesse
although obviously in practical terms no child actually lives in the term-time further than 30ish miles away.
I find that comment deeply disturbing.
How many children outside the to 10% of earners have the luxury of deciding where they live?
The impilcation has to be that Colyton is for those with the money to get there : unless the buses are completely free to outliers....

[Vanillachocolate]

So there are no bright children doing well in comprehensive schools in this country? Really?

May be there are, certainly there are some, but this is not relevant to the point of this discussion.

The point is an individual parent is concerned about the schooling of their individual children and for many children selection is the best choice and local comprehensive is a no go area. Selection doesn't 'harm' other children, it is the policy of this country to leave behind on the scrap heap those at the bottom of attainment rage that created enclaves of underachieving sink schools, not selection.

You won't equalize the school landscape before you fix the problem with underachievement.

Abolishing selection will only help teachers in failing schools to get salary raises...

[Martorana]

Frankly it's a shame people don't have more faith in their children.

[wordfactory]

Ah well that state sixth form is trully outstanding (assuming we're considering the same one) and a model for all to follow...though of course because of its infamy its ability spread is unusual .

I do think though that comprehensive to sixth form is simplyt too long. The most able need to be properly challenged before 16. They also need to be ereceiving really soluid advice before then.

It drives me bonkers that so many schools don't want to talk to their pupils about university until sixth form by which time too many have chosen the wrong subjects and under performed to boot!

[duchesse]

Talk, there was absolutely NO value judgment contained in my post, so why are you attacking me over a bald statement of a fact?

[Martorana]

"The point is an individual parent is concerned about the schooling of their individual children and for many children selection is the best choice and local comprehensive is a no go area"

Well, I am an individual parent, and I actually think that while I am concerned about the schooling of my individual children, I am also concerned about the society in which they are going to live. This thread happens to be about selection. Selection could only be morally defensible if the majority of children who don't get selected benefit from the system as well. And in selective areas, the children who don't get selected, and also, by definition, don't have the option of a comprehensive school do lose out practically and psychologically. How can you justify this?