Article arguing for selective education

[BonsoirAnna]

Here

"The only truly fair solution is lotteries for all state school places."

Y, but only if we ban private schools as well, which would be a bad thing for all sorts of reasons (not least that then no-one would ever get to do Ancient Greek).

and it would still be postcode lottery in the sense that the schools in Hull would still be worse than those in Harpenden with house price differentials to match.

Kathy, yes but there are nice parts of Hull and not so nice parts. At least people would have the choice of all the City's schools.

I don't want to ban private schools - those who use them are full of praise. I don't hear of people who attend minor public schools demanding Eton should be banned because it's better and the £30K per annum fees are too expensive.

I'm amused that paying school fees in a straightforward and clean transaction is a higher crime than paying for selection in a catchment area of a state school.

I'm not a bit interested in education for my sons as a means of keeping ahead of the pack. I want them to be well educated - something that will be a joy to them for the rest of their lives. Nothing to do with GCSE grades or university places or anything. And a million miles from the National Curriculum.

"I'm amused that paying school fees in a straightforward and clean transaction is a higher crime than paying for selection in a catchment area of a state school. "

me too....particularly as sometimes (especially if you only have 1 child) private school is the cheaper option than upgrading to a house in a better catchment.

also particularly bemused at the people who see selection by ability as worse than selection by house price.

kathy - there may be some people who genuinely believe that there should be no selection by ability, and bright children should be taught in the same classes as children of much lower ability.

But I think most people are just very concerned that previous methods of 'selection by ability' have been deeply flawed. Any kind of fairly narrow exam which tests children at one particular point in their development and then segregates them into different schools is deeply flawed. You only have to read MN threads about 'How much coaching is your child having this summer for the 11+?' to realise that this isn't about innate intelligence, but about being coached to jump through a particular set of hoops, which is just as bad as jumping through National Curriculum hoops. The old grammar school system failed many bright children. Fortunately many '11+ failures' have gone on to have hugely successful lives but you don't hear about the ones that haven't.

Surely in the 21st century we can come up with a better solution, which enables access for children to be taught appropriately to their ability, without huge swathes of the population being written off.

I would also like to see an end to the restictive NC, and ideally, an end to the need for anyone to feel they have to pay again, on top of their taxes, to buy an adequate education for their child.

I believe in setting by ability. I teach in a very good state school that has a tradition of setting. In my department they want to move to mixed ability classes and it makes me feel very uneasy. Their argument is that as we are a small option we have mixed ability GCSE and A Level classes and we have a history not only of very good results but also of enabling students to overachieve by a number of GCSE grades every year. I dont agree tbh, I taught our grammar stream (we are in a grammar school catchment and because we are a good school we keep a good number of very bright students) and like to think I did a very good job of ducating them in the manner of a selective state or fee paying school. I can see that even within that high ability set there were students of different abilities so maybe all teaching is mixed ability.

I think the major motivation for this desire by some of my colleagues is because some of our bottom sets are difficult to teach and learn in. I think they see mixed ability teaching as a way of dealing with this. I see that as a cop out tbh and think we should address the issues in those classes rather than move towards mixed ability teaching.

Setting by ability is used in all the good state schools I know of and it works - it enables children to be taught in classes of children of similar ability, while allowing the flexibility to move up or down within the same institution.

I would be really worried by the move to mixed ability as you obviously are Ionlyread

"kathy - there may be some people who genuinely believe that there should be no selection by ability"

well it seems to be a fairly widespread view among the political classes Violet - Charles Clarke in particular made some fairly extreme statements along those lines when he was education sec!

You only have to look at the negativity the G&T programme attracts (and again, there is a LOT wrong with it, but a lot of people's objections to it are simply per se) and the way opportunities to select in other ways (eg by aptitude in specialist schools) have met with opposition, to see that there is a great deal of general hostility to the principle of academic selection of any kind, not just to the idea that we should go back to grammar schools as they used to be.

Personally, if bright children had an entitlement (a real one, not just theoretical) to a particular kind of academic education (say, triple sciences, a good variety of languages not just French and Spanish, the opportunity to work with other children of similar ability sometimes, the opportunity to work at a pace suitable to their ability, maybe even IB or IGCSE if necessary) it wouldn't bother me whether it was delivered via a comprehensive or grammar school system and indeed I can of course see the social advantages of comprehensives. Of course it would be better if the local school catered for all abilities, rather than for them to need to turn a city comprehensive into a grammar so bright children from outside the city would have to travel several hours a day and not go to school with their mates from primary. But I suspect that ultimately it would be much harder to achieve than simply allowing the academic children who are not being catered for by the comprehensive to be selected by ability by a school that already offers that kind of thing to start with

My very bright DD1 won't be eligible for any of the top state secondaries near us because DH and I don't believe in God, and won't pretend we do. Can't see how selection by academic ability is any more unfair.

I'm very much for setting by ability, but am not sure that selection by ability in the state system necessarily works well anymore as such a large proportion of the wealthier children will be tutored heavily for years in order to get through the 11+ and able children who have not had that benefit must be at a disadvantage. I would also imagine that far fewer boys than girls would be selected for a more academic education at age 11.
However, I live in a semi-rural area where the local schools are generally pretty good - and there is almost no choice as to which one your DC will go to. If I lived in an area with sink secondaries or where the only decent schools were faith based, I might very well think differently.

Unfortunately there are millions of parents in Asia who ARE very competitive for their children and won't have any truck with dumbed-down qualifications or anti-elitism. I don't entirely agree that this is the be-all of education myself, but this is where we are.

Those children from Asia are extremely clever and well-qualified. Globalisation means they can work anywhere they want.

As a country can't afford this anti-elitism. We need grammar schools, albeit on a more fluid model (so you can move 'up' to one if you're a late developer and show academic promise at, say, 13).

Elitism has a lot going for it. When my child is ill you can be darn sure I want the best-qualified, highest-flying, sharpest surgeon operating on him. If that's someone from Delphi or Beijing or Singapore, so be it. But it might be there's a kid in Wapping or Liverpool who's bright as paint and should be in that operating theatre.

Some of the best comprehensives are in grammar school areas though - eg the area of Essex where I grew up, which is still a grammar school area, also has some of the top comprehensives, and East Yorkshire where I live now has doesn't have grammars but the comprehensives are mostly not much cop if you are academic (though some are excellent at catering for SEN and children who need to do vocational rather than academic subjects). So while I agree with Lilymaid that setting by ability doesn't always work I don't think the 11+ is currently the root of the problem.

I suppose what I am trying to say at root is that there are always going to be comprehensives where the academic children are a tiny minority and it's very hard to cater for them cost-effectively; grammar schools might be simply a cheaper way to do it.

btw Violethill I agree absolutely that the current situation with 11+ coaching is a nightmare.
There's a thread right now about someone whose friend's dd is having coaching at the age of 8!!!!!

I think for us being in a grammar school area works, we do loose some very clever students because for their own reasons some parents want a grammar system. Some parents choose to stay with us because they want a comprehensive education but a quality one and we provide that. I know when I get my top set year 7s that if I want to keep them I need to work bloody hard. Infact I know for all of my kids if I do not provide an education that I would want for my own daughter many of our students will leave either to the grammar or an independent school. It is good for schools to compete with other very good schools, it keeps you on your toes.

On a personal level unless dd really wants to go I would not enter my dd for the grammar. Their facilities do not compare, we have outstanding staff and life can be unpleasant for some of the girls there.

Hmm, the article lost credibility massively for me when he cited the German system as one to admire. now, it is not the same in all parts of germany - postcode lottery here too - but where we are its a selective nightmare.

I had professional coaching for my children when they were 8 too, btw - its common here in bavaria - does that tell you owt?

If children only get into grammar schools because they have been tutored and not because they actually are more able, why do children from grammar schools get, on average, higher results at GCSE/ A level?

I can only think it is because of one of the following reasons:

1. The children are more able.
2. The school is better.
3. The children are made to work harder at grammar school and have to do a lot more homework.
4. The parents are more supportive and involved.

Bit of a change of topic...

In terms of equality, I do think there has to be some equality of outcome for certain professions. It may not matter if all of our stockbrokers come from an elite background. It matters an awful lot if all of our judges, politicians, lawyers and psychiatrists have no experience of mixing with ordinary people because they have been brought up and educated in an elitist bubble. It is undemocratic for elite people to make judgements about, and create laws for, a population that they have never really mixed with.

So there is a tension between our international competitiveness and maintaining a liberal democracy.

MIllyR
I don't think that the problem is that the tutored pupils continue to do well at grammar school - they are academically able children anyway - the problem is that those who are not tutored may be equally able but haven't had the exam practice and it may mean that they then miss out on the chances they could have had - e.g. triple science GCSE, academic style of teaching etc.
I don't have an axe to grind about this as both my DCs have finished school and we don't live in a grammar school area anyway. But, I would like to think that children from less privileged backgrounds with ability have the chance to fulfill their potential.

Kind of off subject a little bit. While I agree with what the article says from what I have personally noticed is that the support of the parents has a lot to do with how the children fare at school.

I don't mean those overly pushy parents, or well, they are one kind. There are also the parents who don't care or don't want their child to achieve anything. They are probably quite happy that the other children at the school are all dragged down to one level. Heaven help if their little darlings got ambition and wanted to change their lives. Because in the current system children from "poorer" backgrounds don't stand a chance to get out of the loop they are forced to remain in.

IMO anyway.

"I think the major motivation for this desire by some of my colleagues is because some of our bottom sets are difficult to teach and learn in."

I am sure you are right. Here in France, where mixed ability teaching goes on right through the collège (11 to 15) years, the big argument in favour of not setting is that mixed ability classes are easier on the teachers.

I don't really understand why people object to coaching on grounds of extra skills acquisition ("jumping through hoops") - there is nothing wrong with teaching children useful skills and then testing them on those skills. I do have more sympathy with people who claim it gives children an unfair advantage because some children cannot afford coaching.

I don't believe passing the 11 plus is about money. My DS passed without a tutor. Past papers to try out are available online for free, and you can go online for free at the library.

A friend of mine was saying that it was unfair because some parents will get past papers and help their child and some parents will not do that.

At our local grammar school, year 7 children have to do one and half hours of homework each school night, and this rises each year to 3 hours a night by year 10. If a parent cannot even be bothered to prepare their child for the 11plus, is it really that likely they are going to advise and support a child for an hour and half every evening with their homework? If not, that child will struggle at grammar school.

Parental support is essential, and the only way I can see to challenge that is by creating a system of education that minimises the need for parental support.

Or at least schools could be very straightforward with parents about what they should do, how they should do it, and provide all the required resources for free at the start of each school year.

yes aqnd fgs tutors arent teaching they are doing practice papers

"It matters an awful lot if all of our judges, politicians, lawyers and psychiatrists have no experience of mixing with ordinary people because they have been brought up and educated in an elitist bubble."

Surely when those people hit the real world, they come into contact with all sorts though? All upbringing and education is something of a ghetto.