This house supports selective education

Selection can take various forms but for the purpose of this debate it means the overt selection by ability, usually on the basis of a test. This usually happens at secondary level; very few primary schools are selective. Selection does occur in higher education, however this is a separate topic and will not be covered here.

Comprehensive schools, on the other hand, are mixed-ability and pupils are accepted regardless of their ability. The vast majority of education systems in developed countries are now comprehensive. Nordic countries are almost completely comprehensive, whilst German-speaking countries tend to be almost completely selective with a three tier system. English-speaking countries do have some features of both; England is almost completely comprehensive but has retained 164 Grammar schools[1], where, like some schools in some states in USA and Australia, pupils are selected following an exam. But what are the costs and benefits of each system? Which produces more equal outcomes? Does one produce more intelligent, more employable individuals than the other? Who does selection actually benefit? The debate below will focus on the arguments for and against comprehensive and selective systems and will look at each perspective in greater detail.