Debate – group 1 – handout
Are selective schools better for children?
Affirmative constructive
1. Selective education produces better
results. Studies have shown that children
of equal ability at age 11 go on to have
different results at 18, depending on
whether they were at a selective school or
a school with children of a mix of abilities.
2. The widespread use of academic
streaming to separate children in a mixed-
ability school into classes of different
abilities recognizes that children have
different needs. This should be taken
further. It is a more efficient use of
schools wholly to stream or be selective.
It is also more meritocratic, as bright
students from poor homes get the kind of
academic education that the rich can
purchase for their children in independent
schools.
3. The pupils of all abilities benefit from
selective education. Rather than aiming at
an ill-defined and vague medium,
selection allows specialist teachers to
stretch the table or give proper support to
Negative constructive
1. The results are skewed because the
mere presence of selective schools means
that certain able pupils and certain able
teachers move on, not giving others a
chance. A fully comprehensive system
would ensure good results for everyone.
The process of selection is also unfair as
the tests children take at 11 attempts to
measure their current ability rather than
their long-term academic potential. Social
class and parental pushing, the quality of
their primary school, recent illness, etc.
can all play too large a part for the
process to be objective.
2. If the student/child does not pass the
test to get into the selective school, their
parent/guardian might pressure them to
work even harder to get into the selective
school the next year. They also might get
punishments from their parents which
might lead to depression and/or sadness.
3. Effective streaming within a mixed
ability school can do this. The difference
is that in-between lessons, at break times
and lunchtimes and going to and from
school, pupils mix together socially. This
fosters a sense of community, prevents
 students with learning difficulties.
4. It is not fair on the majority in a class
to have their lessons ruined by
troublemakers. Those that want and have
the potential to learn should be allowed
the chance to be educated properly. If
selective education is not provided free by
the state, there is a danger that parents of
bright students will opt for private
education or home schooling instead, if
they can afford it, further isolating
brighter children from poorer
backgrounds.
5. Our standing in the world economy
depends on a skilled workforce and jobs
that can be filled by educated people.
For the best to be stretched they need
to be challenged and educated to the
top. Selective education produces these
world-beaters.
stratification, and means that the less
able feel valued and more able feel less
ostracised. In addition, even in
unstreamed classes teachers everywhere
succeed in teaching to a wide range of
abilities; often the most able students can
help to support the slower learners, and
gain themselves from the experience.
4. Whilst the rest are dumped! The bad
schools are those where all those who
can get out. Funding, pupils, teachers all
move on and you are left with those who
can’t. How is it equitable, or morally
justifiable to dump kids on the scrap-heap
at eleven? Abandoning the easy option
leaves good teachers open to all, thus
showing the troublemakers that are
valued and thus remain feeling that
nobody cares about them.
5. This is not necessarily true at all –
many leaders of industry, politics and the
arts have gone to mixed ability schools.
The negative effect is in also producing an
underclass. Studies show that those who
commit more crimes, truant more, have
children earlier, take children earlier, take
more illegal drugs went to schools in sink
areas. It is not acceptable for this to be
happening. We cannot abandon the
majority at eleven to concentrate on an
elite few. All children deserve a good
education and the only way that this
happens is by ensuring that good
teachers and good pupils are taken along
the same path as not so able children.
6. A selective school gets motivated
children on track for specific purposes
further down the road in their
education. A selective school rewards
academics or some other standard to
place like-minded pupils in a similar
environment to prepare them for
whatever specified goal they want. A
selective school's goals can be college
prep, vocational training or some hands-
on career experience. In those respects,
selective schools are better for children
in that those who really want to learn
can do so.
6. The plan is flawed in that not all
children who are good at English are good
at Mathematics, for example. Streaming
allows a child to be in a high-ability class
for one subject and a remedial class for
another, which is not possible in a fully
selective school. Yet the main objection is
that the system is shockingly and openly
elitist. Education is a right, not a privilege.
A good education should be available to
all, not just the elitist stratum whilst the
majority are left to rot.