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.

[soul2000]

Why Cant we have 25-30% of pupils in selective education , and still give another 50-55% an education that ensures at least C grades in Maths /English, The remaining 15-20% should drop every subject after 14 years of age with the exception of Maths/English and that it should be compulsory to continue until 18 years of age with Maths/English but this has to be linked to companies and learning a trade (Government Backed) that offers realistic job prospects to pupils should the pupil achieve as expected .

There should be 4 types of schools Grammar 25- 30% of pupils expecting all or most pupils to go to University. High Schools expected to educated pupils to fulfil skilled jobs U.TC could be crossover Grammar / High schools offering technical as well as academic education.

The bottom 15-20% need to be educated to be literate and numerate. What is vital is that they actually see a chance of jobs that could offer a chance. These chances should be total reliant though that they never deviate from the path and obey what they are told.

I appreciate these will not be popular views on here , and maybe derided by some , but the facts are the UK has 7% Unemployment.This is unlikely in reality to drop much below that and most of the Unemployment and benefit costs come from the bottom 15% (Obvious but true).

kids from poor or deprived backgrounds need to be taken out of their environment and placed in to environments , were being a " Swot" or a Geek is cool" . Bright kids from these areas need to be in Grammar schools aware from the elements that keep them entrenched and routed to their surroundings . These bright kids deserve Life Chances and go to Russell Group and Oxbridge Universities ( With The Exceptions that I have mentioned on the previous thread) they have no chance if educated in a inner city or deprived comprehensive.

We all know that the system will never be changed apart from tinkering at the edges , like Gove does and that actually makes things worse.

Tristam Hunt would just be as bad , because he would just undo what Gove has done, not for academic reasons but just to show that he can.

[TalkinPeace]

soul
but what will be your selection criteria?
because whatever you choose you will be excluding kids who may be late developers or bad at maths but amazing at English and art

ONLY in a Comp school with setting can EVERY child be pushed in EVERY subject

and very very few comps now tolerate anti geek attitudes : DH goes to lots and lots and lots every year
that attitude is from when we were at school
it is not happening now

Parents have got to put aside their memories of school attitudes and look at what is happening in schools NOW

[gardenfeature]

Soul2000
Which school is my DS going to?
Top 1% verbal reasoning (Oxbridge potential)
50% maths - currently borderline C/D?

[pointythings]

soul I take your point, but I don't like the idea of this selection taking place in separate buildings. The school I used to go to in Holland took pupils going for the equivalent of AS/A levels only when I went there - now it has expanded on its site and takes pupils across the spectrum of the options available - including the options you describe for the bottom 15-20%.

You also seem to imply that taking certain groups of people away from their family homes on purely educational grounds is a good idea - I think that could do a huge amount of harm. Obviously if there is a genuine need to take a child into care then that should be done - and we should emulate the care system in Scandinavian countries, where outcomes for care leavers are far, far superior to ours - but if there isn't then robbing a child of their family is likely to do more harm than good. I hope I have misunderstood you on this.

The culture of low achievement being cool is one of the worst problems affecting education, I absolutely agree with you on that.

[Martorana]

"placed in to environments , were being a " Swot" or a Geek is cool"

I honestly don't think there are any. Even in grammar schools it is much cooler to do well without appearing to do any work at all!

[Martorana]

"BUT AND ITS A HUGE BUT
Kent is fully selective
Hampshire is not selective
and across the whole LEA their results are indistinguishable
surely that is proof if proof were needed that selective schooling does not result in better outcomes"

This should be pinned to the top of every grammar school thread.

[anothermakesthree]

The boys superselective grammar in our area takes the top 180 from over 2000 applicants.

I don't believe for one minute, as suggested earlier on in the thread, that any of those 180 have a 'poor' standard of English.

[TalkinPeace]

numbers of applicants is always a red herring
because lots of kids apply for lots of schools / colleges
and lots of kids are way below the standard needed to pass

boys superselectives already exclude half the potential candidates
and the carbon footprint of such schools offends the planet

[Procrastreation]

They might in the sense of writing fluently - if selection was done by VR &/or comprehension

[AmberTheCat]

Thanks for all your views - really interesting. So, ignoring for now the downsides of selection and focusing only on the benefits for different groups, I think so far we have the following:

For selected kids

• ensures a critical mass of students of a similar level, enabling schools to provide a wide range of academic subjects, to provide suitably high level work and to encourage an atmosphere where being clever is cool and kids stretch each other
  
• means students are there because they're bright, not because their parents are wealthy enough to live in the catchment of a leafy comp (though lots of caveats about a. how much background also plays a part in getting into grammar schools and b. whether the received wisdom that the best comps are in leafy suburbs is actually true)
  
• schools can be smaller as don't need the number of kids comps do to set effectively
  
• possibly provide better prep for Oxbridge/RG unis
  
• enable kids to be surrounded by people of similar abilities, which may be better for mental health
  

For non-selected kids

• the same point about schools being able to be smaller
  
• the same point about like-minded people and mental health
  

For society as a whole

• not sure I've seen any arguments that show any overall benefits for society of selective education - did I miss anything?
  

So I can see the benefits for selected kids (though would argue that most of these can also be provided by a good comp), but I'm struggling to see any benefits for non-selected kids or for society as a whole that outweigh the disadvantages. Any other thoughts on that?

[soul2000]

I certainly am not talking about putting kids in to care.... Although many of these kids could benefit from boarding Grammar schools Monday -Friday. This could help the pupils do Homework in caring and disciplined environments and with qualified teachers on hand tell help them, offering the same level of assistance that many parents (With Higher Qualifications
offer their kids at Homework time)

Garden Feature , I think if Grammar Schools are 25-30% and with a Discretionary element, so that children who would benefit from Grammar Schools would be admitted ( your DS would be fine).

I want to see bright kids with Dyspraxia/ Dyslexia and other learning disabilities regularly admitted to selective and academic education, this helps to explain my views on a student who is 1% verbal Reasoning and skills/ but average at Maths though probably better than he thinks, and is probably down to confidence in Maths and poor teaching .

I am very Dyspraxic and suffer from As symptoms and got zero help at school from anyone, so are very aware how bright your DS is.

[TalkinPeace]

soul2000
The big problem with the unemployed and the lower achievers is that they feel they they are unvalued so have no incentive to work hard

Selective education that tells them categorically at 11 or 13 that they have missed the cut because art or sport or music are not the valued subjects will only make that WORSE not BETTER

Only by striving to include people will we be able to drag them up

maybe wiring a plug should go into the 11 plus
or fixing a blocked drain
a those are some of the skills the country has to hire in from abroad

[cory]

morethanpotatoprints Wed 19-Feb-14 20:33:26
"I don't agree that abolishing selective schools won't disadvantage current users.
There aren't any selective near us but we fall into catchment (just) for a couple.
Secondary schools are dire around here and if the nearest selective were abolished, those who attend from round here would be clearly disadvantaged."

And this is a reason why Talkinpeace and I should envy you the selective system?

My point here would be that the comprehensives where we live are not dire. And because they also contain a proportion of gifted and ambitious children it would be harder for them to get away with being dire.

A comprehensive is not what you get left over once you have removed the intake of the selective: it is the combined intake of the selective and the comprehensive, with the shift in expectations and ambitions that comes with that.

Mine is not a well-heeled suburb; dh and I chose to settle here partly because it was cheap. Demographic of lower middle to working class, with a fair bit of social housing. Typical jobs among dc's friends' parents are nurses, shop assistants, taxi drivers, delivery drivers. Some people on income support. And the occasional lower range academic.

[TalkinPeace]

And where I live is in between two huge council estates (on the opposite side of the city from Cory) just near an alcohol dispersal zone and in the catchment for one of the last remaining fully funded Surestart centres because deprivation levels are so high.
Not many academics live round here
This city is 10% Polish after all.

[treaclesoda]

I'm not sure I agree about it not being cool to be a swot when you're at a competitive school.

When I was at school it was all 'oh, you only took three hours to write that essay last night? I stayed up until 2am because I wanted to get it just right'. I remember girls boasting about how they didn't take time out to eat dinner because they were just so keen to not interrupt their studies. Those who did well without all the drama study were considered to be a fairly low breed.

I have teenage relatives at the same school and nothing seems to have changed. One was roundly criticised by her peers when she got 98% in an exam as 'that's what happens when you don't make an effort, if you're happy to be an underachiever...'

[Martorana]

Treacle- sounds ghastly.....

[treaclesoda]

It was

[treaclesoda]

and don't start me on competitive dieting/refusing to eat lunch etc...

[TheRaniOfYawn]

Mine was the other way around. We would stay up late writing essays but claim we'd gone clubbing instead.

[Martorana]

"Mine was the other way around. We would stay up late writing essays but claim we'd gone clubbing instead."

Absolutely. I do think that- with exceptions, treacle!- the idea of schools where working hard is cool is wishful thinking.

Mind you, my ds has made himself pretty cool with many of his mates in the lower sets by whipping through their homework for them in break........ I was wondering why his bag was always full of chocolate wrappers.......

[TalkinPeace]

Martorana
yup
my DS has "earned" chocolate from friends for that ....

[morethanpotatoprints]

Cory

Definitely yes.
My dd has best friend who is a level 6 in Maths and high 5 in year 5.
She and others like her should be encouraged to take 11+ and go to selective grammars in next town/city.
The others including my dc when they were at school wouldn't pass and have to go local to the comprehensives.
It is the state education that needs improving not chances taken away from gifted children.

[TalkinPeace]

morethan
not chances taken away from gifted children
I do not understand.
Why does having the top set of academically bright kids on the same campus as those who excel in other subject areas limit their chances?

Not all of the kids in the Orchestra are in top English, but they are great musicians.
Not all of the kids in the sports teams are great at Maths, but they succeed at sport
Not all of the kids in the stage productions would pass an 11+ but they enrich the opportunities offered to all at the school.