Recent research challenges the belief that academically selective schools are crucial for clever students to achieve success. The findings were published in a new peer-reviewed paper in the British Journal of Educational Studies.
Selective schools are publicly funded institutions that admit only the most high-achieving students based on standardized entrance exams.
Advocates of selective schools argue that they are essential for bright students to maximize their academic potential. These schools often perform well in final exams, rivaling elite institutions, but without the high tuition fees. This makes them accessible to students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
However, critics contend that selective schools primarily benefit students from affluent families who can afford private tutoring for entrance exam preparation.
Melissa Tham, a research fellow at the Mitchell Institute in Australia, notes, “Parents often believe that enrolling their children in selective schools will enhance their chances of gaining admission to a prestigious university and landing high-paying, prestigious jobs.”
To investigate the benefits of selective schools, Tham, along with Shuyan Huo and Andrew Wade, studied nearly 3000 students from the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) over an 11-year period. The survey began when the participants were 15 years old in 2009.
As anticipated, the study revealed that selective schools had a larger percentage of academically high-performing students based on math and reading scores.
However, by the ages of 19 and 25, there was little discrepancy in educational and job outcomes between students who attended selective versus non-selective schools. For instance, while 81% of selective school attendees had secured employment or university spots at age 19 compared to 77.6% of non-selective school pupils, the gap disappeared when matching students based on key factors like socioeconomic status, gender, and location.
At age 25, the differences in outcomes between selective and non-selective school students were insignificant, except for overall life satisfaction, where attending a selective school marginally improved the score by 0.19 points. Conversely, students from non-selective schools were equally likely to pursue higher education or employment as their peers from selective schools.
Andrew Wade, a co-author of the study, remarked, “The study’s modest findings suggest that attending an academically selective school does not provide substantial advantages for individuals.”
“We argue that academically selective schools within the public sector go against the principles of inclusive and equitable education that Australia’s educational system is built upon,” Wade added.
The authors suggest that further research is necessary to evaluate whether selective schools truly benefit academically gifted students.
Huo commented, “Rather than making minor adjustments to the enrollment process, we believe a comprehensive evaluation of fully and partially selective schools is warranted, and selective practices should be reexamined if the anticipated benefits are not realized.”
