Data Insight: Selective schools: Do they improve health?

This study looks at long term effects of education, specifically stratifying students based on their academic ability through selective schooling. We tracked those that attended Aberdeen secondary schools in the 1960s and found that those with higher test scores at age 11 had better self-assessed and NHS recorded health in their 50 and 60s and were less likely to die prematurely. However, the type of school they attended (selective schooling) did not contribute to this improved health.

Read publication

What we found

While we found that people who attended an academic focussed secondary school had better health, there was little effect of attending an academic focussed school itself on adult health. This was true of health measures that were self-reported or derived from government records, whether measured in mid-life or later life. For example, figure 1 (full publication) shows academic focussed school pupils (blue triangles) had better self-rated general health at age 50 than technical focussed school pupils (red circles). It also shows a higher school test at age 11 was associated with better health. However, at the cut point (11 plus test score of 0) for entry to academic focussed secondary school there was no jump in general health. If anything the difference at the cut point (shown by the black lines not meeting) suggests that academic focussed pupil’s health was lower but the difference is small.

Why it matters

Debates continue about the merits of selective schooling in the UK and elsewhere to improve education levels. Our results suggest that population health may not be improved by such a policy and so should not be used as a reason to argue for the return to grammar schools. More generally, studies such as these provide an evidence-base for policy and planning and show the long term effects of policy on people’s outcomes and lives.

Share this: