Academic Selection

[Owen-]

Ok, Im in a grammar school in Northern Ireland. Theres a new law coming in about removing academic selection, i.e. at the moment here there are the transfer tests at the end of primary school, to select those going for a grammar school, and they want to abolish this. This will mean everyone going to schools in their area.

A Socialist is bringing in these reforms. I dont know why shes doing this. Any ideas?

Anyway my argument against is goes as follows.

1. If there is a class where the naturally intelligent and less intellinget have mixed, surely this will keep those "naturally intelligent behind.

2. The teacher cannot possibly cope with this diversity in intelligence.

Help??

Cheers :)

[Post-Something]

Why would you argue against this? This is a good thing surely.

First of all, I'd like to say that your argument simply isn't true to reality. If you would actually look at the evidence, you'll find that everybody benefits and ups their grades in a school system where children aren't "banded"; whereas if they are, like in the Beachside Comprehensive study that was done by Ball; while the top band of pupils did as expected, bands 2 and 3 did exceptionally worse than expected. Different bands were taught different subjects, and the teachers had a horrible bias to the pupils (look up labeling theory). It's quite clear that pupils should not be divided. Especially not based on some test taken when the pupils were 11 years old (seriously, to basically have your life planned out at that age is terrible; and yes, the system is that deterministic).

Secondly, our aim as leftists is to create an "egalitarian society". This means one without classes and any other type of division. How can it be possible for a society like that to come about when we have unequal opportunities in education?

Well, you make a valid point, but we have to understand what things like "intelligent" mean. First of all, how do you define intelligence? How do you measure it? Can you be intelligent in multiple areas? For example things like interpersonal intelligence, and creative intelligence?

I think you'll find that there are many different intelligences out there, but most of these aren't measured in school. I'll also tell you now that the main aim of the education system is not to increase your knowledge, or the capability to learn; nor has it ever been. No, the only reason the education system even exists is to provide the state with a half decent workforce.

If you look at the UK before 1870 for example, there was no formally organized education system. Access to any sort of education was entirely based on your social standing, and most kids went to church run charity schools.

Then, as you know, the industrial revolution happened. This coincided with the 1870 Education Act. It ensured basic education to all children from 5-11 and introduced the idea that taxes should be used to pay for schooling. It was still quite heavily based on social class.

THEN, The 1944 Butler Act came. Aiming to give all pupils an equal chance to develop their potential in state run education. This introduced three structures:

Primary: up to 11

Secondary: 11-15

Further: non compulsory.


If you haven't noticed already, it's quite clear that the idea of a state run education only came about as a result of the industrial revolution, and the need for workers to be intelligent enough to run them for the bourgeoisie.

I'm sure you will have some knowledge of the old system, where at the age of 11 it was decided whether you go into the grammar schools, the middle schools, or the technical schools. It was quite obvious what standing these kids backgrounds came from, and that very rarely changed in the children's future, if at all. There was next to no "social mobility".

So, how do we end all of this? How do we take away this horrible deterministic system that we have? In short, if we eliminated "class", then we would have a system where the emphasis would be on content; where education would be about comprehension, not simply a means of secondary socialization for the Bourgeoisie to indoctrinate us with their values and ideals.


TL;DR, the only way we'll ever have an egalitarian society is if we take away this system which divides us and replace it with something a bit more fair.

[Bud Struggle]

Maybe the same: here in the US we have these courses in Middle School (12-14) and High School (15-18) called the International Baccalaureate program that syphons off the best and the brightest and sets them in an advanced program that meets their intellectual capabilities. My daughter's in the program and it's really quite fantastic. The kids aren't held back by the slower or the disruptive children and can progress quite quickly and easily through advanced work.

It's much better for people to advance at the levels that they are most comfortable rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[Dr Mindbender]

Ok, Im in a grammar school in Northern Ireland. Theres a new law coming in about removing academic selection, i.e. at the moment here there are the transfer tests at the end of primary school, to select those going for a grammar school, and they want to abolish this. This will mean everyone going to schools in their area.

A Socialist is bringing in these reforms. I dont know why shes doing this. Any ideas?
that should be obvious. Academic selection has only succeeded in keeping access to public school in the domain of privileged families who have a higher pedestal in terms of providing for their children's educational nuturing.


Anyway my argument against is goes as follows.

1. If there is a class where the naturally intelligent and less intellinget have mixed, surely this will keep those "naturally intelligent behind.
I disagree that there is even such a thing as 'natural' intelligence. Class culture has a bigger impact on a child to utilise their mind than any other factor. Genetics is only one small factor, there are many other variables such as the parents drug usage, emotional environment etc etc. Each of these negative factors has an impact on the way in which a child develops their attitude regarding life prospects and as a rule of thumb each of these factors is synomonous with underpriviliged circumstances. Each of which have nothing to do with intelligence.



2. The teacher cannot possibly cope with this diversity in intelligence.

Your analysis is based upon the material and social circumstances produced by the current status quo.

Combat the above cultural factors, and you have your solution.


Furthermore, the 11+ exam should have been abolished decades ago. It is repugnant that pre-adolescant children should be expected to sit through what could potentially be a 'fife crossroads'. Many people have longer learning curves than others, but may well have the potential to acheive higher academically ( i believe Einstein did not say his first word till he was 5 years old) than their peers who attended public school. I see no logical argument to brand such people a failure for the rest of their days.

[eyedrop]

I can inform you that the IB system has spread to skandinavia too. I can attest as I went to one.
Lousy thing is that the lower levels is just a private school while the last few years got public covering too.

[Bud Struggle]

I can inform you that the IB system has spread to skandinavia too. I can attest as I went to one.
Lousy thing is that the lower levels is just a private school while the last few years got public covering too.

In America we kind of use it as a way to legally segregate schools--at least in the South. Black kids are let in--but can't compete and drop out leaving the kids the IB program in the schools looking just like the kids in the IB program in Norway.

[Post-Something]

I know the program. I have friends in DC who are doing it. Sure it's great for them, they can go off to foreign countries with these new qualifications that will be accepted almost anywhere. But what about the other people who are sieved out and put in schools where they don't have access to materials that are anywhere near as good, or the realistic ability to climb up into the grammar schools? It's unfair to decide who goes into which social strata at such an early age.

I'll tell you now, people who do the IB course get access to things like Questia (The biggest online resource for Books and Journals); while other elementary schools in the area are using twenty year old textbooks.

I think it's much fairer to just invest in schools for everyone and improve all levels. This way everyone benefits, and the gap gets reduced. I'm not saying I don't want people to do well, I'm just saying it shouldn't be at the cost of others.


Also, intelligence doesn't play as big a part as you think. People are not "naturally intelligent" because of their genes, and even if they are, the society which they are born into influences them far more than their genetic make up. Bourgeois children are not naturally more intelligent. It is because they are born into families which provide a better environment for "learning" in the education system. For example, they may use more varied speech. Therefor lower class children are mostly at a disadvantage from birth.

[Bud Struggle]

Also, intelligence doesn't play as big a part as you think. People are not "naturally intelligent" because of their genes, and even if they are, the society which they are born into influences them far more than their genetic make up. Bourgeois children are not naturally more intelligent. It is because they are born into families which provide a better environment for "learning" in the education system. For example, they may use more varied speech. Therefor lower class children are mostly at a disadvantage from birth.

I half agree with you there. Intelligence does play a large part in how well a kid can do in schools--but kids are intelligent (and not so intelligent) across the board. But you are right about about the bourgeois families providing a better envornment for learning. In the American South (where my kids are both in IB) the kids in the program are almost all bourgeois. Everyone is allowed equally into the program--so that part is fair, but then the kids without the support at home get weeded out, suprisingly quickly. And almost all the blacks go--that's the American racial component.

And here I wonder why. I would think that lower class (and/or Black in this case) families would really jump at the opportunity to hyper educate their kids--especially if the kids show an inclination for learning. When I was a kid in Connecticut (that would be the mill town CT not the rich CT) the brighter kids of the poor working class Irish and Italians and Polish immigrants--all went to the local Catholic high school, which taught more advanced studies than the public schools, and then zoomed of to the great colleges and financial success. That's what I did. My HS has 98% of its students go off to college.

I have no idea why the poor don't take more advantage of a really good educational system.

[Demogorgon]

The eleven-plus in Northern Ireland is ridiculous. How can you possibly tell kids potential for the rest of their life at the age of eleven?

[Post-Something]

I half agree with you there. Intelligence does play a large part in how well a kid can do in schools--but kids are intelligent (and not so intelligent) across the board. But you are right about about the bourgeois families providing a better envornment for learning. In the American South (where my kids are both in IB) the kids in the program are almost all bourgeois. Everyone is allowed equally into the program--so that part is fair, but then the kids without the support at home get weeded out, suprisingly quickly. And almost all the blacks go--that's the American racial component.

And here I wonder why. I would think that lower class (and/or Black in this case) families would really jump at the opportunity to hyper educate their kids--especially if the kids show an inclination for learning. When I was a kid in Connecticut (that would be the mill town CT not the rich CT) the brighter kids of the poor working class Irish and Italians and Polish immigrants--all went to the local Catholic high school, which taught more advanced studies than the public schools, and then zoomed of to the great colleges and financial success. That's what I did. My HS has 98% of its students go off to college.

I have no idea why the poor don't take more advantage of a really good educational system.

Of course it's a shame. The working class are often more interested in gossip and football than closing the gap between the rich and the poor; but that's due to the false class consciousness that is being injected into them in their daily lives. As a result, you get parents who might not place as much emphasis on bringing up their kids to be able to do well in schools, for example, the kids often have to come home to help out around the house and may not have as much time as others to do their homework. Cultural Hegemony is a larger issue though, and one which us communists have to work around.


I'll tell you one thing though, for the IB program to start up, there needs to be a certain number of teachers willing to take up the curriculum and do the teaching. In most of the built up cities, you will have the best teachers dispersed around who will be able to get enough support and get the course running. Unfortunately, you will have many of the less well off areas without any access to the course. There is always going to be a divide unless the whole system is changed.

[Robert]

I have no idea why the poor don't take more advantage of a really good educational system.


If you're talking about adults, in many cases -- I don['t say all -- maybe they are poor because they don't take advantage of the programs. Their kids have poor role models at home.

[careyprice31]

Ok, Im in a grammar school in Northern Ireland. Theres a new law coming in about removing academic selection, i.e. at the moment here there are the transfer tests at the end of primary school, to select those going for a grammar school, and they want to abolish this. This will mean everyone going to schools in their area.

A Socialist is bringing in these reforms. I dont know why shes doing this. Any ideas?

Anyway my argument against is goes as follows.

1. If there is a class where the naturally intelligent and less intellinget have mixed, surely this will keep those "naturally intelligent behind.

2. The teacher cannot possibly cope with this diversity in intelligence.

Help??

Cheers :)

I think its a stupid idea.

When i was a little girl we had that where if we lived in a certain area we had to go to a certain school.

at the school they sent me to, I was abused.

My parents had to fight to get me out of that school and sent me to another school where I was respected and appreciated and I did well in that school.

I think students should have the right to a school where they feel safe, appreciated and not abused and their individualness is taken into consideration. If that happens to be a school not in their area, well, so be it.

[Killfacer]

I cant see why a leftist would be arguing against this? We dont have the grammar schools anymore, yet people are not held back as the secondary schools are split into sets. Clever people in top sets and stupid people in bottom. That way people dont have to have their entire life effected by an exam they had taken when they were 11. It works well here, my education has been good and about 50% of people who go to my school intend on going to university.