Jack Marwood's Icing on the Cake - An education blog
  • Home
  • Blog
  • MiniBlog
  • About
  • Contact

Why parents’ ‘Selection by Wealth’ is better than schools' ‘Selection by Ability’

25/10/2016

10 Comments

 
This is a follow up to a piece I wrote about claims about secondary school ‘selection by wealth’, in which I argued that secondary schools do not select by wealth, as implied by Theresa May and David Davis, amongst others and argued by Peter Hitchens, Hitchens continues to claim that ‘selection by wealth’ is a bad thing, and that it is something which schools do. He is wrong, however: Individual schools clearly can’t actively select by wealth, much as many might want to, and it was this claim that I railed against in my last piece.

It seems that Hitchens is so wedded to his mistaken belief that state schools choose who applies to them that he can’t see the logical impossibility of this position. There is little point reiterating the argument. We disagree.

On the second point, Hitchens is also wrong. Parents ‘selecting by wealth’ – if this means parents choosing schools based on in which school catchment area they can afford to live - is actually a very good thing. As I said in my last piece, parents will, naturally, select their children’s education as much as they possibly can. This is essential to the ongoing demand for high quality provision of effective state schooling for all.

Parents should not feel guilty for acting in a way which the school admission system requires of them. Furthermore, I’ll reiterate school selection by ability at 11 years of age, as proposed by those such as Hitchens who criticise parental selection by wealth, is a socially divisive anachronism which has never helped disadvantaged children as a group. Parents exercising choice over their children's schooling is a much better method of delivering high quality schooling to all than selection by ability, as argued by Hitchens, May and Davis.

Clarifying the argument

Peter Hitchens wrote a detailed response to my piece and summarised his argument clearly. “What it means,” writes Hitchens, “is that the principle mechanism of selection for many if not most of the better state schools is the parent's wealth.” Hitchens clearly believes that, in effect, schools select children based on their parent’s wealth, which allows them to buy (or not to buy) houses within school catchment areas. His argument is that ‘selection by parents’ is unfair because, Hitchens argues, “the selection (of better state schools) is only open to those who can afford expensive houses.”

This argument uses an economic argument, that of distinguishing between ‘notional demand’ and ‘effective demand’. Hitchens version of this can be summed up by his observation that lots of people might want to shop at Harrods, but only a few people are in a position to actually do so. As Hitchens put it, “if the parent lacks the resources to buy into the good catchment area, his or her desires are of no value.”

This argument - with which I strongly disagree - is based on ‘effective demand’ and the idea that ‘better schools’ have ‘good catchment areas’ populated by those who ‘can afford expensive houses’.

The simplistic idea of ‘better schools’

The idea that some schools are ‘better’ than others is taken as read by many who write about education. On the face of it, there appears to be some kind of continuum onto which schools can be placed. As with many simplistic ideas, however, further analysis shows that the situation is actually much more complex than it might initially seem.

As I’ve explained elsewhere, schools’ reputation, results and intakes evolve together. I’ve also explained that results are linked to factors which are external to schools. This is particularly important because Ofsted use test scores to judge schools. What is more, it has been well established that in-school variation is much greater than between-school variation in outcomes, so even within any given school, the results vary considerably, making the idea of 'better' seem meaningless. If ‘better schools’ meant ‘more effective schools’ and we had some way of disentangling all of the confounding factors which go into any measure of school effectiveness, then we might be able to say that some schools were ‘better’. We don't and it's simplistic to think that we do.

What those who refer simplistically to ‘better schools’ frequently mean by the term are those schools which have higher academic attainment and more exclusive school socio-economic composition, which we know parents value highly. It is, however, well established that higher academic attainment and higher socio economic status are, on average, directly linked. This makes Peter Hitchens’ argument that the “principle mechanism of selection for many if not most of the better state schools is the parent's wealth” entirely tautological: Higher SES children get higher results and therefore their schools are seen by some as ‘better schools’; ‘better schools’ and 'richer children' are interchangeable in this argument.

(As an aside, it is worth noting the obvious fact that we live in an unequal society, a feature of the compromise we have taken by selecting to organise the society the way we have. This means that, whilst most people shop in mid-range supermarkets, some people can afford to shop at Harrods. It also means that some comprehensives are in Harrods-level residential areas, but the vast majority are more ‘mid-range’, if you like. Not being able to afford to shop at Harrods doesn't mean that your supermarket choices are 'worse'.)

The simplistic idea of ‘buying into a good catchment area’

Peter Hitchens claims that ‘selection is only open to those who can afford expensive houses’ and that “if the parent lacks the resources to buy into the good catchment area, his or her desires are of no value.”

Putting aside the observation that it can be argued at a basic level that all homes in England are ‘expensive’, this argument is seems to be based on the idea of a ‘good catchment area’ which is clearly defined by the wealth of those living near a given school, and therefore of the children who attend a given school and, in turn, by those who get the results in a given school. ‘Good catchment areas’ are defined as those which have ‘good schools’, and vice versa. It is, once again, tautological.

The idea that desires of parents who can’t afford to live in the most expensive part of town have no value, as Hitchens does, is again simplistic. It assumes incorrectly, as above, that schools outside the most wealthy areas of towns are ‘worse’ than those in the wealthy areas; this is the snobbish suggestion that mid-range supermarkets most people use are somehow ‘worse’ than Harrods. This is clearly only true in an extremely limited sense.

Parents selection of schools is not only a good thing, it is essential

There is, however, a key point regarding parental ‘selection’ of schools. In essence, every parent, at whatever income level, has some degree of choice in where they choose to live, and therefore in which school catchment area they live. For a great many reasons, people in England tend to live in the most expensive housing they can afford. And therefore, at a very basic level, a majority of parents absolutely do select schools by wealth. What’s more, on balance, this is a good thing. It gives most parents a substantial degree of choice of where to school their child and simultaneously puts pressure on schools to provide schooling which appeals to parents.

This dual function – parental choice and pressure - has been an essential aspect of the provision of effective state schooling since universal selection by ability ended. Whilst reforms thirty years ago altered the system a little, allowing parents to express a preference for a given school, the vast majority of parents have always known that their choice of school has been based on where they are able to choose to live. The expensive parts of most towns and cities have been expensive for a long time, and it is disingenuous to suggest that they have become more so solely because of schooling rather than as part of a basket of factors affecting escalating house prices.

To argue that parental ‘selection by house prices, selection by wealth’ is a negative, as May, Davis and Hitchens have done, or is in any way a recent development, is disingenuous. Parental selection by house price has long been an essential part of comprehensive education and should be applauded, not criticised.

Of course, what Theresa May, Peter Hitchens and others really signal when they criticise people 'selecting by wealth', is that they clearly want us to believe that schools in areas of disadvantage are authomatically ‘worse’ that those in more expensive areas. But this is simply equivalent to suggesting that Tesco, Sainsburys et al are inherently ‘worse’ than Harrods. It rather depends on what you expect from your local retailer.

Additionally, allowing parents to exercise choice in their child’s schooling based on the place they can afford to live does not automatically reduce any other parent’s access to a good education, unless – and this would be an odd position for a politician to take - you believe that it is impossible for all schools to provide a good education. It seems extraordinary that anyone on the political right would argue against individual choice – in this case, a parent’s choice, within their means, of where to educate their child - but this seems to be a feature of the odd arguments for selective schooling.

Why ‘section by ability’ is socially divisive anachronism which does not and has never helped disadvantaged children as a group

This argument has been made too many times to count, which is why I didn't make the argument in my last piece. Here's a short summary. Government commissioned reports in the 1960s made it clear that those who did not pass the 11+ were much more likely to be ‘children of manual workers, skilled or unskilled.’ Current grammar schools do not serve the disadvantaged, with just 2.6% of their pupils receiving free school meals compared to 14.9% nationally, and Grammar Schools increase inequalities in outcomes. Where children are segregated by a test at 11, a two-tier system is created with clear winners and losers. A short but comprehensive rebuttal of selective myths is here.

Headteacher Tom Sherrington has written eloquently on the problems selection at 11 creates. As he says, “There is no evidence that supports the claim that selection (at 11) improves outcomes across the system as a whole. It doesn’t.  Extending selection won’t either. It can’t.”

Tom summarises the case for comprehensive education as follows:
  • Selection in the system does not improve outcomes across the whole system.
  • Selection is explicitly about elitism; it’s absolute folly to make claims for social justice through selection. Even if, anecdotally, this was true for some in the past, it absolutely isn’t true now.
  • Selective schools do not necessarily deliver better educational outcomes in the round even for those who attend them; the majority of students at selective schools would get just as good exam results if they went to the local comprehensive.
  • The testing process is complex and the test for FSM is far too crude to provide a robust and fair basis on which to base selection
  • Even though existing selective schools might be fabulous for those who attend and work in them, that does not necessarily justify their existence let alone justify opening more given the wider needs of the whole system.

In Summary

No system for allocating children to secondary schools is without its downsides. Parental selection by wealth and school selection by ability can lead people to believe that some schools are better at educating children than others, based on outcomes heavily influenced by factors external to the schools. Some schools in the comprehensive system struggle to compete with schools with more favourable reputations and results. Some children miss out on an elitist education and are separated them from a third of their peers. Some schools find it easier to attract keen staff and supportive families in the comprehensive system.

Returning to widespread ‘Selection by Ability’ will create a system which privileges a minority of children who already do very well within the comprehensive system, and is demonstrably worse for those deemed to have failed at 11, which has always included the vast majority of the poorest in society.

We should aim for an effective education for all, and be wary of those who define 'better schools' by those who attend them. On balance, parents’ choice of schools (May, Hitchens and Davis' negative ‘Selection by Wealth’ criticism) keeps up pressure for a good education for all children, whist allowing a majority of parents a large degree of choice over where their child goes to school.
10 Comments
Janet Downs
26/10/2016 09:43:01 am

'The research evidence from a number of countries was accumulating to show that it [selection at 11] was a very uncertain method of allocating benefits. Intelligence was a much more complicated commodity than people had once thought.”

The selective system caused 'injustice and waste'. It 'tried to divide children at the age of ten into two types, which for all the tactful circumlocution might just as well be called for the clever and the stupid.'

Socialist dogma? No. The above was written by Tory MP Christopher Chataway, junior schools minister under Edward Boyle whose critique of selection was summarised by Chataway and is quoted above. Boyle's views, aired in the early 60s, cost him his career.
http://schoolsweek.co.uk/who-was-the-first-politician-to-announce-the-end-of-grammar-schools/

Reply
Peter Hitchens
28/10/2016 02:43:34 pm

The Tory Party has long been home to social liberals more or less indistinguishable from socialist, of whom Boyle as one ( Macmillan in many ways was another). The appointment of Edward Boyle to the then Ministry of Education was a sign of how little the Tories cared about the issue and of how influential Butskellite leftist thinking was in that party and government. It can hardly be said that such views cost him his career, as his anti-grammrr policies were adopted and continued in 1970 by one Margaret Thatcher. The research mentioned is not cites. Do we know what it was?

Reply
Jan
26/10/2016 02:52:35 pm

I'm old enough to have sat the 11+ first time round. I failed. I did go on to secure a university place so that's alright then........ I was living in rural Surrey at the time and there were 44 kids in my, then, 4th year junior class plus a parallel class of about 20 kids who were deemed to be ESN so didn't sit the exam. Six children passed. The envelopes were given out in class; a fat one if you'd passed and a thin one if not. We had to sit there and endure this common ritual humiliation as it was way before self-esteem had been invented. It wasn't until I was studying education many years later that I realised that there were significantly more grammar schools in some areas of the UK than others. My part of Surrey had fewer so the pass mark was altered accordingly. I have since met numerous folk both professionally and socially who also failed the 11+. Why does it still rankle after so many years? I guess because we were publicly labelled as failures and in those days the options for perceived academic failures wasn't great .In most cases it was the local secondary modern which was full of disaffected teachers and equally disaffected pupils. Here's a question for the supporters of grammar schools. If the system was so good and helped so many achieve their 'potential' why did so few go on to sit ‘A’ level and even fewer go on to any form of higher education? For every national treasure who’s wheeled out to rattle on about the way in which they were lifted out of their working class poverty by a grammar school place there are legions of 11+ failures that missed on any number of possibilities. I don’t believe that academic ability out classes vocational, technical or any other type in fact. For some reason the UK has an institutionalized snobbery about an education system based around a 17th century curriculum which is in no way designed to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Please don’t let’s go down that road again.

Reply
Jack Marwood
28/10/2016 08:38:19 am

Still no response to this piece from Peter Hitchens. This seems odd given that Hitchens says that, “it is necessary to rebut any attack of this kind on the Internet to ensure that no reader thinks that I have conceded the points made.” (In the comments below http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/10/a-reply-to-a-pro-comprehensive-diatribe-against-me.html)

Unless, of course, Peter Hitchens has conceded on the points made…

*I’ve also commented on Hitchen’s piece above, but my comment hasn’t been approved by PH. A pity, as I’ve approved all of PH’s comments on http://icingonthecakeblog.weebly.com/blog/stop-repeating-nonsense-about-selection-by-wealth.

Reply
Peter Hitchens
28/10/2016 10:16:54 am

1. I am on holiday and have just returned from France. I was unaware of this posting until Mr Marwood made a false claim on Twitter that I had conceded his point. 2. It is not my job to publicise Mr Marwood's website. I entirely refuted his last posting and have dealt with his latest rather feeble arguments many times in published work. I direct anyone interested to my archived, indexed blog, the chapter'The Fall of the Meritocracy' in my book 'The Cameron Delusion' , and my essay in selection by wealth in a recent Civitas publication on the subject.

Reply
Jack Marwood
28/10/2016 10:52:40 am

Thanks for responding, Peter.

1) You have been tweeting regularly since 25 October when this blog was published. You responded to my previous blog on the 26th October. There was no indication that you were away on holiday. Saying that it ‘looked like’ you had conceded the point is not a false claim. It does look like you have ‘run away’ as you might say (https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/785501246161580032). If you don’t concede the point, offer an argument – see 3 below.

2) Accusations of publicity seeking and ‘feeble arguments’ are ad hominems. I’ll leave readers to make up their own minds as to who is doing this here.

3) You’ve clearly stated that you respond to those who mention you by name and that you rebut arguments to ensure that ‘no reader thinks (you) have conceded the points made’. Feel free to do so.

Jack

Peter Hitchens
28/10/2016 01:15:59 pm

My answer is as given above. I am (so far as I know) under no obligation to publicise my travel plans, nor to keep Mr Marwood personally and regularly informed of my holidays. Occasional visits to Twitter during brief periods of internet access do not signify that I am actively present full-time on the web, or aware of everything taking place in every obscure corner of it.

Mr Marwood has said nothing here I have not many times rebutted and in my view refuted elsewhere, as explained above. The account of his behaviour on Twitter is not 'ad hominem' but a simple description of events. He made no discernible effort to alert me to the second posting, but did claim falsely in a pubic place that I had conceded his arguments. Far from impelling me to respond, which I might otherwise have done, this behaviour has made me determined to have nothing further to do with this site. If he regrets this behaviour, and finds my description of it unpleasing, I am pleased. He is clearly trying to use me to bring attention to his blog. I decline to do so. If he wishes to argue the matter further, he can do so at my blog. Otherwise it's goodbye.

Reply
Jack Marwood
28/10/2016 04:53:26 pm

Thanks, as always for taking the time to respond, Peter. I really do appreciate it, as I did when you responded at length to my first post on this subject. As will be clear from reading my two posts (this one and http://icingonthecakeblog.weebly.com/blog/stop-repeating-nonsense-about-selection-by-wealth), in the first I argued that there is no possible way in which schools can actively select pupils by wealth and in the second, I argued that parents can and should select their children’s schools based on wealth. These are related but quite different arguments, and whilst you addressed the first, you haven’t addressed the second.

Far from making no discernible effort to alert you to the second posting, I tweeted it to you twice, once on October 25th ( https://twitter.com/Jack_Marwood/status/790980081636220929) and a second time on October 27th (https://twitter.com/Jack_Marwood/status/791540847905009665). Given you responded to my first post within a day of me posting it, and then made your comment about rebutting anything you regard as an attack on your ideas, it seemed reasonable to expect you to have a go at doing so. When you didn’t, I pushed you a little harder by suggesting that you *might* have conceded the points in my second post (https://twitter.com/Jack_Marwood/status/791907268711317504). There is no ‘false claim’ that you ‘had conceded (my) arguments’.

You are, of course, free to choose not to respond to the argument I have made that parents – not schools – select by wealth, that this is completely different to schools selecting by ability, and that parents doing so is both positive and necessary. It would be pity not to hear your arguments against the points made in this post.

I am not ‘clearly trying to use me to bring attention to (my) blog’, although I’m touched that you think that any of your readers might be influenced by me or particularly interested in what I have to say. I’ve had little but insults as a result of discussing this with you on Twitter and I don’t tend to appeal to Mail readers in general, and I’d be amazed if many returned to read anything else I have to say.

At your suggestion, I will comment at your blog and I look forward to reading the ensuing discussion there. And thank you for responded, once again. I’ll echo your words and say that I also “do much of my arguing online for the practice it gives me. All opponents, however feeble, help me to hone and improve my own case and I am grateful to them.”

Jack

Reply
Kieran McLaughlin
17/4/2017 08:51:24 pm

‪An interesting analysis. I agree with your final paragraph but your argument seems self-contradictory. Schools aren't really better than others but it's a good thin‬g that parents choose the better schools? The corollary of your argument is that the schools for which parents won't love to be bear will struggle. I understand that lower attainment in those schools are due to factors largely beyond their control, but they will struggle to recruit good teachers meaning performance will decline etc. The outcomes for the pupils at that school can't fail to be worse.

Reply
Richard Selfridge
13/9/2018 01:51:55 pm

Kieran - apologies for the inordinately long time in responding to your comment, but I've just re-read this piece and realised that I didn't reply. I'm also writing as Richard Selfridge, having come out from behind my Jack Marwood pseudonym last year.

So, as to your points, which turn on the two word 'better' and 'good'; the twin ideas that there are 'better schools' and 'good teachers' are, as I've made clear at various points on this blog, nowhere as straightforward as many people (including you?) seem to think.

The easiest thing to get you to test your assumptions is to ask what you think makes a school 'better', or a teacher a 'good teacher'? If the answer involves pupil demographics or pupils outcome data, then the thinking is almost certainly circular.

A good teacher might teach children who get poor results, and parents choose the school which is most preferable to them given their circumstances.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Me? I work in primary education and have done for ten years. I also have children in primary school. I love teaching, but I think that school is a thin layer of icing on top of a very big cake, and that the misunderstanding of test scores is killing the love of teaching and learning.

    Archives

    February 2018
    September 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014

    Categories

    All
    Data
    FFT
    Follow Up Post
    Monday Article
    Ofsted
    Ofsted-schools-data-dashboard
    Ofsted-schools-data-dashboard
    OSDD
    Performance Tables
    Proposals

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.