0
0
A recent study published in the British Journal of Educational Studies challenges the long-held belief that academically selective schools are essential for clever pupils to achieve good outcomes. This peer-reviewed paper casts doubt on the necessity of selective schools for academic success and long-term achievement.
Selective schools, which are government-funded and enroll only the highest-performing students based on standardized entrance exams, have traditionally been seen as crucial for bright pupils to reach their full potential. These schools are often lauded for their ability to match or exceed the performance of elite private institutions in final year exams, offering a pathway to a first-class education without the high fees. This makes them particularly appealing to children from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
However, the new research suggests that the benefits of selective schools may not be as significant as previously thought. The study, led by Melissa Tham, a research fellow at the Mitchell Institute at Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia, involved nearly 3,000 pupils from the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY). This nationally representative survey tracks young Australians over an 11-year period, starting when respondents were 15 years old in 2009.
As expected, students from selective schools showed higher academic achievement in mathematics and reading scores. Yet, when the researchers looked at the educational and employment outcomes at ages 19 and 25, the differences between those who attended selective schools and their peers from non-selective schools were minimal. At age 19, 81% of selective school students had secured a job or university place, compared to 77.6% of non-selective school students. This slight difference disappeared when key characteristics such as socioeconomic background, gender, and geographical location were accounted for.
By age 25, there were no significant differences in outcomes between the two groups, except for a slight increase in general life satisfaction among selective school attendees, who scored just 0.19 points higher than their non-selective school counterparts. The likelihood of attending university or securing a job was virtually the same for both groups.
“These very modest findings indicate that attending an academically selective school does not appear to pay off in large benefits for individuals,” said Andrew Wade, co-author of the study.
The researchers argue that the existence of academically selective schools in the government sector contradicts the principles of inclusive and equitable education that underpin Australia’s school system. They call for more research to determine whether selective schools truly benefit academically able students.
“Rather than tweak some aspects of the enrolment processes, we see greater value in conducting a thorough and critical examination of fully and partially selective schools, and scaling back selectivity if the supposed benefits are not found,” said Shuyan Huo, another co-author of the study.
This study suggests that clever pupils do not need to attend selective schools to thrive, prompting a re-evaluation of the role and necessity of such institutions in providing quality education for all students.
