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.

Well, I have a child in a secondary modern school, and I can confirm that he is doing past and present tenses in his MFL in year 8. Perhaps I should tell the department head to dumb down a bit- otherwise people might have to challenge their prejudices.........

Martorana

I think they are talking from their own experience. Maybe your child is at an exceptionally good school.

I think what is common to many posts is that the state system needs improving and brought up to the standards of the super/selectives.

state system needs improving and brought up to the standards of the super/selectives
So are you saying that DDs A*s in her GCSEs are dumbed down from those at Tiffin or Colyton or Dover Grammar?
How exactly?
AQA have published the Exam timetable, she will be sitting the same paper as everybody else.
What should her school do to bring itself up to standard ?

CE = common Entrance, duh, I'm such an idiot.

I have found several syllabus/ syllabi? for various subjects and printed them off, dd is only 10. I was wondering why she was struggling with some concepts.
Oh, I feel bad now. She is managing History very well though as she loves this.
I just thought they were a better standard and used in private primary schools.
They are for age 11 and 13 so it says.

martorana I don't think anyone suggested GCSE French didn't include past and present tense did they?

But frankly that's hardly tough stuff!!!!

And the ways of testing are so daft. My niece is sitting GCSE spanish and had a controlled assessment of 250 words. She was given the questions in advance, drafted her response, sent them to me (I speak spanish) for corrections, then learned it off by heart. Oh yes, and she could take in 30 words for any difficult spellings.

I mean, come on!

My child is not at an "exceptionally good school"

Unless following the national curriculum and preparing children for GCSE makes a school "exceptionally good"

They don't have special GCSEs for private and selective schools, you know!
An A is an A, whether it's from private, selective, comprehensive, secondary modern or HE.

"martorana I don't think anyone suggested GCSE French didn't include past and present tense did they?

But frankly that's hardly tough stuff!!!"

I agree. But somebody downthread said that you only need present tense. And everyone else was saying oh yes, it's all dumbed down for state schools.....

martorana- that is exactly what he should be learning. Present tense and a range of common verbs in y7, more verbs and present, passé composé and beginnings of futur simple in y 8, imparfait and some conditionals in year 9 along with a GCSE-like range of topics and much more vocab. All schools should be teaching at least one past tense by year 8.

In many schools though, for some reason there is a huge turnover of MFL staff- year 7s might get 5 different teachers in the same academic year, with no continuity between them as the school privileges the GCSE pupils and salvaging them into the A*-C bracket. So they neglect the younger ones more (a big mistake when they are often so keen at 11 and 12) and the cycle continues.

Sticking with the MFL theme (sorry, feels like a bit of derail) Year 8 is where the divisions really start to show in MFL- the least linguistically able will simply not understand the tenses or how to construct them, will be flummoxed by a mention of the 3 verb groups (even though realistically they will probably only have come across -er and the more common reflexive verbs by that stage) and may not even know what an infinitive is. They may not find it easy to memorise vocab and not manage to find a method that works for them. "Learning homework" is extremely important in MFL and many don't view it as proper homework, so don't do it. They therefore come to lessons unprepared The highest achievers meanwhile will understand the grammar and memorise the vocab straight from the lesson, they will complete assignments and revise their vocab. Even by the end of year 7 they will be way ahead of those struggling. They generally are unsetted until the end of year 8 at the earliest in most schools, sometimes into year 9 as well.

For the teacher the task is monumental- you have a class ability range from those approaching a good B standard at GCSE by the end of year 8, and those who've not managed to remember much more than how to say their name and ask (possibly) somebody else theirs.

Martorana, nobody but nobody surely has claimed that you only need the present tense?

The students at Colyton sit their GCSEs in year 10 and have never ever taken the endless modules/resits so popular with so many non selective schools. It has always chosen terminal exams.

So yes, actually, their A*s would historically have been seen as harder to achieve than other GCSEs.

Things have now been tightened up thank goodness.

However, an education is not all about the net score of As. It's about so much more. Two students attaining an A won't have had the same breadth or depth of experience. It's just silly to think that!

word

No not at all. That isn't what I'm saying at all.
The point I am making is some state schools are not as good as the selectives and if they were up to the same standard then maybe fewer people would be calling for the selectives to be abolished.
I know there are some good state schools, we don't have secondary modern here, just dire comprehensive high schools.

Sorry I meant talkin not word.

Anyhow...must bow out now. Time for dinner here - two hours ahead of you guys and can almost taste my glass of fizz .

morethan
some state schools are not as good as the selectives
well no shit sherlock, that is because they do not SELECT

how are they supposed to improve without adding in selection
and then what do you do TO those who fail the selection

your arguments are as offensive as they are insulting to kids like my DD who is sitting all (28) of her exams at the end of year 11 : along with every child in the country this year

wordfactory
how did Colyton manage to take modular exams in a linear manner?

They take end exam only exams. My DC did at their fee-paying school. The modular exams were introduced for a very good reason at the time (girls seemed to do better with courses that required regular sustained work vs last minute dash to cram stuff in before exam that boys on the whole seem to prefer). Unfortunately it's made many GCSE courses dull, pedestrian and mundane, not to mention subject to all sorts of abuse. The MFL modular GCSEs are just unspeakable. I wouldn't want to learn a language in such a dull way and I'm a linguist.

And the "goodness" or otherwise of a school does absolutely not imo depend on its results. What is far more interesting to me (and to most parents I suspect) is whether or not they allow each child to achieve his or her potential. This requires teaching academic subjects that many schools shy away from, and the basic skills that many schools also shy away from, as well as offering a rich environment that allows children to discover their own tastes and to flourish within them.

Most of the state schools I have worked in did none of these things. A couple of them tried to.

duchess
which exam board and curriculum?

Can't remember but I suspect OCR Talk. Shall ask DD1 when she gets home- was 2.5 years ago for her and 4.5 years ago for DS!

Talkin

2 of my dc went to these shit schools, I'm determined that dd won't.
How am I insulting anybody.
I think you are lucky to have such a good school tbh and that your dc will reach potential. That certainly wasn't the case for my dc.
As I said upthread, if you have a gifted child and the local secondaries are dire why shouldn't your child go to a selective school.
I wasn't automatically assuming that state schools were all bad and not the same standard.

I think there are children who without selective schools would not reach their potential, there are children in state schools who won't reach potential.
This imo is what needs addressing not which school they attend.
Very few parents where we live know they live in catchment for 2 selective grammar schools. The default is to attend the high schools where many bright dc don't reach their potential.
The little girl I mentioned up thread is so bright and would flourish at a good school, her mum is now aware of the possibilities for her dd, because I told her. She will no doubt take 11+ and gain a place, but she'll be one of a few if not the only one.
If we abolish selective schools we are letting children down who will greatly benefit from such an education.

I think super-selectives are probably the fairest - as the flip side of the coin of providing specialist facilities for teenagers who excel in sport, music etc.

The point is that there is a cohort of children for whom an A really isn't a challenging target - and a comp will never be able to serve such outlier in academic achievement - any more than a comp would be a best choice for someone heading to be an Olympic standard gymnast.

Morethanpotato In my DC's comp there are several children who entered Yr 7 on L6 across maths and literacy, and were on SATS L8 by the end of yr 7. Comprehensives offer selective education in the form of setting.

I was in the bottom set for Maths. I didn't feel 'written off, I felt supported by a kind and patient teacher who explained things slowly and against all the odds got most of us through GCSE with a C grade. I think I might have felt written off in a Secondary Modern - in my school I could be in the bottom set for maths and G&T for English. I was picked to attend a special series of lectures at the Royal Society of Arts for high achievers on English and Art. I don't think that would have been offered to me in a Secondary Modern.

Sooooooo - lots more arguments here for why selective schools might be good for the kids who get into them. I'm still struggling to find a single compelling argument for how a selective system might also benefit those who don't.

Anyone?