Defending comprehensives

Schools shouldn’t select pupils by ability. That’s the message of a paper in the latest Economic Journal, an early version of which is here (pdf). Some highlights:

Countries that [select] their students before the age of 15 show a statistically significantly larger inequality in [secondary school tests] once the difference in inequality that existed already in primary school is accounted for...

The two reading [tests] indicate a statistically significant lower achievement associated with early tracking (selection). Similarly the mathematics results are always lower…For science however two of the three estimates indicate positive achievement effects in early tracking.

The increased inequality and decreased mean performance in tracked systems…come from the lower percentiles losing more than the upper ones...

Countries lose in terms of the distribution of outcomes, and possibly also in levels of outcomes, by pursuing selection.

Here’s more research by the authors, Eric Hanushek and Ludger Woessmann.

A warning for any supporter of comprehensive education wanting to recruit these as intellectual heroes; other research they’ve done (like this) shows that higher spending on education doesn’t improve performance.

Comments

[Dander]

if we wont to help all pewpils speek inglish we shud think abowt speling reform.

too much energi goze in to lerning how to spel - not liek italian, spanish or uther funetic langwiges.

then we cud spend ower tiem lerning uther things, erlier.

txt msages cud do this 4 us eni way

[FishAreFun]

An extremely thoughtful, and -provoking, post. Admit I've not read the linked studies yet. Two points, though. You seem to be stereotyping all who advocate Comprehensive education by assuming they also advocate increased spending on education. In my case at least, not true. I would look at education in highly developed countries (eg UK) versus developing, then compare the results - and conclude that the UK system delivers extremely poor value for a lot of money.
Second point is in response to Dander's comment (which may have been lighthearted in intent, but I think there's a serious point). Many 'consumers' (to put it crudely) of the products of the British Education system now complain bitterly of these products' inability to communicate (despite so many of them having studied "media studies"). I'd tend to believe their (often anecdotal) evidence based on my own (unavoidably anecdotal) experience in foreign countries - if you speak and write well (ie grammatically) in English, there's a much higher chance that your interlocutor will understand what you're trying to say. As an example, some Jamaican English speakers were seconded to a Russian posting. I, being a native English speaker, was easily able to understand their accented and colloquial speech. Russian speakers (including professional translators) later told me that they couldn't understand a word that our Jamaican colleagues had said. No racial comment is intended here - I am certain that the same situation would occur if Aberdonians, Orcadians, or Cockneys attempted to communicate with non-native English speakers without resorting to 'unnattural(?!)' Received Pronunciation (Queen's English) and correct grammatical structure.

[Mike Stallard]

OK, I think I understnad Comprehensives.
Two tiny whys?
1. Why do they have to be so enormous? Primary Schools aren't. Everyone knows everyone else and the discipline (at least here in difficult Wisbech) is excellent.
2. Why does every huge school have to be the same? Why cannot we have religious ones? Muslims, Christians, Jews, Catholics, like me, can all live together in a religious school and start the day with an act of worship. This could be either in the same school, or in a "faith" school. Why not? Why should the atheists dictate what everyone else has to believe? Isn't that undemocratic?