THe Disparity between Private and Public High schools.

[Mr. Study]

(I am just commenting on the bold parts)

Say the school I used to go to (before Scotch). Teachers were generally fairly decent. But think about it. Many of the people come from family backgrounds that may not take education as seriously as some. I myself had a student whose family denigrated her because she wanted to go to uni. That, and it was also perpetuated by what is 'cool' at school. Those in power set the rules, and quite often it is this:   Studying was, quite simply, not cool.

XD, I can definitely relate to that statement. At my old school, I was definitely bullied and harassed for studying. Well... I was asian for one thing and at my old school, I was a minority. (3 Asian students out of 500+ Caucasians). Also, Since I was Asian I got bullied for portraying a stereotype. (Typical Asian needs to Study and people played off this by adding that my english must be terrible, I probably eat rice only and I am socially awkward. Oh and the library was my habitat ... (Erm, If you know me personally some of that is true but that's beside the point)). So throughout the years at my old school, the environment was pretty piss poor. Yes, I did complain to the teachers about this but alas, they literally listened and that was it. Nothing else was done.

Socio-economics are at the centre of it.
And at the worst schools, the teachers are too busy trying to deal with the innumerable fights going on (I have this from a couple of people who came to my chem talk last year) - and those fights stem from family problems and being taught that violence solves problems. Achievement disparity is not self-contained - it is interconnected with all sorts of other socio-economic factors.

Just thought I should say a bit more about teachers being too busy to deal with fights. I remember an explicit conversation I had with someone, and he was complaining about his schools education/cohort/teachers. (Mind you, he did go to a 'bad' school but he was aiming higher than any of his other peers). A teacher overheard him and explained to him that the only reason the school is like this, is to support the majority of students who could not cope with demanding work/teachers. So, in my opinion, his school acknowledges that they must support their students but they could not provide the support for their one student who had a vastly different work ethic to the others'.

[alondouek]

To be fair, not every private school has brilliant opportunities for its students either. The school I attended, from Kinder to 12, was a private school but by no means was it wealthy. In fact, given its designation as a private school, it actually suffered from a lack of government funding. Luckily there were 2-3 families in the school community that could keep the school functioning.

Other than that, we got the same education that I would expect you'd find in most school throughout Victoria. The teachers, especially VCE teachers, avoided spoon-feeding and made sure we were understanding what we were being taught. I wouldn't say this is a feature of private schools alone.

Fair enough, my school often places in the top 10 in the state. However, I'd attribute this more to the fact that many of the students are driven and that we all come from a culture (it's a solely Jewish school) where education is highly valued by the community, rather than our successes being a result of personal wealth.

However, I acknowledge that personal wealth gives students advantages; being from a lower-middle class family, I was not able to afford tutors that some of my wealthier friends could. But, because my cohort was passionate about learning, I found motivation to study all the more intensely.

[spectroscopy]

my previous school (private) wasn't full of rich kids who had tonnes of tutoring, it was mainly working class people whose parents just worked more hours to be able to afford to send their kids there, and due to the mostly working class families of students, the students didn't overly study and they weren't the academic type, so the school would always come like ~250th even though we had crazy good teachers and resources

my public school im at now there are kids who misbehave but they dont go out actively bullying the people that study hard and want to get high atars, the "nerds" are left to study in piece and the teachers nuture them, as well as trying to bring the more carefree students back on track,
st albans secondary in '11 had a 99.95 and two other 99 + students, and if youve seen/been to that school you'd know they didnt get those scores from money, they got it from hard work and determination, so i'd say that it is unfair to generalise that public schools limit your capabilities, and that private schools churn out high achievers
but then again what do i know im a year 10

[MJRomeo81]

I think SEAS balances the playing field. I know students who scored in the 60s and used RMIT's SNAP scheme (and La Trobe's SALT) to land a spot in 80 ATAR courses. Even if you have to transfer courses to get into your desired degree, you can still reach your destination with hard work.

I hear these stories about how parents are paying ridiculous amounts of money for their child to attend a private school. In many cases the amount they're paying is more than you'll pay in comparison to a CSP degree. Is it really worth it?

Given the incredible number of learning resources on the net these days (including this wonderful website), I'd argue that it comes down to motivation. There's no denying that the upper end private schools have a better learning culture, but you won't get anywhere in life if you never dig deep yourself. I went to a below average public school from P-12. Yet it turned out to be a worthwhile experience. Public schools force you to work hard and personally I found this extremely rewarding. If you're a passionate student like myself you will push yourself to get whatever marks you desire under any circumstances. First day of uni people gave me 'that look' when I said I attended MPSC. Yet I was the last one laughing after the semester.

[Fantasia94]

Yeah I seriously know how you feel. I went to a government school that was in the bottom 24% in terms of vce scores and when I did get into VCE..it was seriously a large and stressful jump. Imagine going to a school where you are the only student doing the work and you are made fun of by others in the class because you're doing the school work, and yes being a young easily influenced teenager I was somehow swayed and I sometimes tried to fit in with those careless students ...well that was my school life from year 7-10. Yes, I think private schools and selective government schools are advantaged in two ways: - there is strong academic competition between the students - the facilities,teachers,environment are all probably better as well. You are correct Thush, atarnotes does aid those who want to excel in school despite the type of school they attended...but there are some who don't know that atarnotes even existed..no one in my class did and neither did I until I finished my end of years to check out suggested solutions lol.

[simba]

Socio-economics are at the centre of it.

Say the school I used to go to (before Scotch). Teachers were generally fairly decent. But think about it. Many of the people come from family backgrounds that may not take education as seriously as some. I myself had a student whose family denigrated her because she wanted to go to uni. That, and it was also perpetuated by what is 'cool' at school. Those in power set the rules, and quite often it is this:   Studying was, quite simply, not cool.

And these guys enforce the rules. Nerds get picked on, ostracised, even bashed up after school. Being a smart ass and treating the teacher like shit makes you popular (at this age, the distinction between 'popularity' and 'respect' is minute). So what happens? People are conditioned that study = negative, and those who DO want to study are often left unmotivated without a strong support network.

And at the worst schools, the teachers are too busy trying to deal with the innumerable fights going on (I have this from a couple of people who came to my chem talk last year) - and those fights stem from family problems and being taught that violence solves problems. Achievement disparity is not self-contained - it is interconnected with all sorts of other socio-economic factors.

This furthers Mr Study's point - I would say to that that the 'good public schools' and the 'private schools' have one thing in common, and that is a supportive school culture.

If you want to solve this issue, you have to go to the absolute core of the problem, and it's a mammoth task. You are talking changing an entire social system. If we could actually perform that task, it would be amazing.

I could honestly not agree with this more!!!

[slothpomba]

[slothpomba]

Socio-economics are at the centre of it.

This, 1000x over.

This furthers Mr Study's point - I would say to that that the 'good public schools' and the 'private schools' have one thing in common, and that is a supportive school culture.

It goes much deeper than simply a supportive environment at school. There are problems that can’t be solved by throwing money at them or changing school culture.

The school i did my VCE at was a VCE only school, solely year 11s and 12s. Every single teacher was a VCE teacher and had a full idea of what an ATAR was, how its calculated, which courses people, should do, etc. Many schools have a "VCE Coordinator" but as you can see, our school had little need for one, with every teacher filling this role.

It was one of the larger catholic schools in the state. The government threw tonnes and tonnes of money at it.

Back when K.Rudd was prime minister and Julia Gillard was education minister, we got one of those "trade training centres" the government promised. We now have a bakery, a picture-framing workshop, a full stage with all the sound production equipment, a restaurant and im sure there's more i'm leaving out. Huge chunks of our teachers are VCE examiners and a few contributed to textbooks.

The median study score of our school is exactly the same as the public school down the road. This school had a kid burn down one of the buildings and a kids parents + brothers come with baseball bats to attack another student because of a disagreement. It's pretty ghetto (although we had our fair share of events like this too).

Granted, the fees were very low, there are exemptions and most people take them, the school only ends up charging 2-4k MAX.

The point im trying to make is that its not necessarily how good the school is, its the backgrounds of the students. Many students there, like myself, had no family members go to uni. My parents didn't even finish high-school or complete their HSC (older style VCE). Many people had horrible family environments. A minority (not tiny by any means though) of people were rather bad off, living hand to mouth. In this thread i've seen a lot of talk about the middle class but not once have i seen someone mention the working class or whatever else is below the middle class. It's almost like it doesn't exist in some peoples minds.

Obviously, without much money, you can't hire hoards of tutors, unlike kids in wealthier areas or from wealthier families (regardless of the kind of school you go to). A lot of schools have wonderful, mind broadening extra-curricular activities and much better sports. I think a lot of the time people from these schools might not even consciously think about the fact that other schools lack a choir program, classical ensemble or have boating along with 19 other kinds of sport.

No way you're getting this at any regular old public school. Let alone one in a poor area where students have no chance to do many of these things outside of school. Going to Rome and Athens every summer is definitely off the books too. Regardless of the school, you miss out on so many other enrichment programs rich kids can get.

Until my family’s move to the foothills of Mount Buffalo, I’d been a student since kindergarten at a parochial private girls’ school in Geelong. At this school, crotchety but effective schoolmarms coddled their barbarian, middle-class charges in small, calm, girl-filled classrooms, an environment privileged by the school’s bourgeois values and the entitled bullishness of its parents.

I’d been introduced to literature, to Greek and Roman history, to chemistry in its science labs, and to new languages; I’d acted the best male parts in its pompous little theatre productions, become good at tennis in its sports ‘academies’, and taken up the piano with gusto. My spare time was spent in its brand spanking new library, my dirty little shoes up on its soft furnishings, consuming whatever the librarians, plural, had produced that week for me to peruse. I had, in short, thrived on the nauseating principle that, as a product of patrician entitlement and its money, I would be handed countless openings into bookishness, into learning and experimenting and knowing and doing, and feeling as though I was achieving something. I was a confident and outspoken child, often deliriously happy, who felt purposeful. I had adored the school’s focused, industrious, high-functioning atmosphere. - http://www.themonthly.com.au/public-versus-private-schools-across-great-divide-catherine-ford-4835

Monash sets targets to have a certain % of their students from disadvantaged backgrounds. I think it was something like 30%. A few years ago, i read a report where they said despite their best efforts, scholarships and SEAS, they still failed to even hit this number. Something is quite clearly wrong with the system.

[Mr. Study]

:3, Is this the report?

http://www.monash.edu.au/access/assets/pdf/high-quality-high-access.pdf

Either way, it's an interesting read.

[slothpomba]

:3, Is this the report?

http://www.monash.edu.au/access/assets/pdf/high-quality-high-access.pdf

Either way, it's an interesting read.

The one i read was a few years back but this is probably similar enough to what i was talking about. Thanks heaps for that though mate.

Some interesting bits for those who cant be bothered reading it:

The ATAR and socioeconomic status: Most significantly, achievement measured through ATAR reflects social patterns of advantage. Within the Australian school system, socioeconomic status continues to be correlated with school outcomes generally, and ATAR in particular: broadly speaking, students from lower SES backgrounds are likely to achieve lower ATARS than students from higher SES backgrounds. In particular, top ATARs are disproportionately concentrated in the highest SES deciles, reflecting the educational, financial and cultural resources of professional families.



Also added some lines, look how much bigger the top two categories get:



Even measuring it from slightly below the middle (3rd and 4th look pretty much the same), we can see how big the gap is and how large the top gets:



As a result, students from lower SES backgrounds are less likely than students from higher SES backgrounds to access university at all and, to the extent that they do, are less likely to access courses and institutions with high ATAR cut offs for entry. Clearly, if students are insufficiently well prepared to succeed at the level of their university cohort, there is only a limited amount that universities can do to overcome the shortcomings in their preparation. However, student results at university indicate that aptitude and readiness for higher education may sometimes be underestimated by ATAR, particularly amongst the least socially advantaged.



Notice the way the lines go....

[Mao]

The ATAR and socioeconomic status: Most significantly, achievement measured through ATAR reflects social patterns of advantage. Within the Australian school system, socioeconomic status continues to be correlated with school outcomes generally, and ATAR in particular: broadly speaking, students from lower SES backgrounds are likely to achieve lower ATARS than students from higher SES backgrounds. In particular, top ATARs are disproportionately concentrated in the highest SES deciles, reflecting the educational, financial and cultural resources of professional families.

This is going to be controversial:

Do you have support the point of view that any student has the potential to achieve very high ATARs? Alternatively, do you support the view that every district, arbitrarily drawn, has a population of students whose potential to achieve is the same as any other district?

Also, it is commonly believed that Asians and Jewish students tend to be overrepresented at the top end. (I have seen reports showing this, but I cannot find one right now) If you support the above views, what are your views on performance variation between racial and cultural backgrounds?

[slothpomba]

Do you have support the point of view that any student has the potential to achieve very high ATARs? Alternatively, do you support the view that every district, arbitrarily drawn, has a population of students whose potential to achieve is the same as any other district?

They're basically people. Unless there's some kind of massive intelligence gap between the poorer areas and the richer areas, there's absolute no reason why the below graph should not have much more equal bars, if not dead equal. The difference is in socioeconomics and all the other things that come with that.

Also, it is commonly believed that Asians and Jewish students tend to be overrepresented at the top end. (I have seen reports showing this, but I cannot find one right now) If you support the above views, what are your views on performance variation between racial and cultural backgrounds?

Race, especially applied to humans, is hardly a biological concept. It might of been decades ago but not now. We're all one species, everyones brains are basically the same. I don't think the idea of race, as thought of in the common imagination, belongs in science anymore. There are other more biologically correct terms that take into account all the things we have learned over the years.

If you take a "black" kid and raise him in a Japanese family, he will essentially turn out Japanese. He'll adopt Japanese norms, language and beliefs just like any other Japanese person would. The only thing that makes him different is that he doesn't look like anyone else.

Jewish or Asian people are the same species as White or Black people. Same brains. Almost identical DNA.

The differences are solely socioeconomic and cultural. I know in the USA, Asians and Jewish People earn more than white people do, so, this proves what i was talking about socioeconomics above. There's also a strong culture of scholarship and aiming high, hell, most people would not only call it a culture but a pressure.

Most of my Asian friends, even though they weren't well off like the rest of us, their parents actually cared about how they did in the school work. Even though they didn't have the opportunity to do it themselves, there was a big pressure on going into further education. Most of my white friends and even myself included, our parents barely cared at all. Of course, this is annecdotal but i think it'd be consistent with most peoples experiences if you ask them, based on all the people i've talked to anyway.

If you took a human being who looked black or white and put them into a family of human beings that looked Jewish or Asian, its concievable they'd get all the cultural pressures and traditions that belong to that group and probably achieve the scores typical of that group. Likewise, if you put a human being who looked Jewish, into a family of human beings who looked black or white, say in Footscray, there's a fair bet he'd achieve the scores typical of that group as well.

Regardless, we should have a much better public school system and a much better welfare system irrespective of any racial theories. What are the policy implications of what you're advocating (it seems you are anyway, lets not hide behind hypothetical shields) anyway? Should we just throw black or poor people to the wolves just because they happen to be black or poor, rather than improve public schools in the area or give them welfare to bring them up to an equal and humane standard with everyone else?

[Special At Specialist]

So out of the whole "nature vs nurture" debate, you believe that our "nature" is irrelevant and has no effect on who we are?

[slothpomba]

So out of the whole "nature vs nurture" debate, you believe that our "nature" is irrelevant and has no effect on who we are?

Didn't at all say that. It's quite obvious it does. If you have a specific allele for a genetic disorder, it's no surprise you'll get the disorder. If a baby has three copies of chromosome 21, it's no surprise they'll get downs syndrome.

I don't think anyone who's even studied a bit of biology will say there's no sense in one side. It's what those sides determine and where the difference lies people debate.

I stated my case towards the specific example Mao gave, if you give another specific example, you just might get a different answer.

Either way, we're going to go off into a tangent if we start talking about racial theories. The thread was about the disparity between public and private schools, it quite clearly exists. It's just pure logic that a school that can charge 10 or 20 thousand a year is going to be more well resourced than a public school. Economically, that seems to be the main reason why people are willing to pay more. People usually make rational choices. Most people would not pay the extra 10 or 20 k if they thought they could get it at a public school.

Indeed, Private Schools, by design, will always have to at least *appear* to be better than public schools. There will always be a gap of some kind*. What matters is shrinking that gap.

*Unless of course the government pours an unimaginable amount of money into making every public school so good, so well resourced, with such high wages, that private schools couldn't possibly economically compete. I can't see that happening. Other extremely unlikely scenarios are banning private schools or instituting some kind of large tax on them. Since it's almost certain none of these things happen, we can say there'll always be a gap.

[Mao]

Regardless, we should have a much better public school system and a much better welfare system irrespective of any racial theories. What are the policy implications of what you're advocating (it seems you are anyway, lets not hide behind hypothetical shields) anyway? Should we just throw black or poor people to the wolves just because they happen to be black or poor, rather than improve public schools in the area or give them welfare to bring them up to an equal and humane standard with everyone else?

I'm not really advocating for anything. I saw your statistics, but didn't see you argue why those statistics represented a problem from an objective point of view. Now you have.

Here's another controversial question:

From a pragmatic point of view, since resources are scarce, we want the best possible outcome out of investment in education. Education is not the only barrier in success though, and by an extension of your argument, aren't parents from higher socioeconomical backgrounds more able to provide further support beyond education, and thus maximising the chance of success after education? Wouldn't this mean private education is an attempt to maximise return from an investment in education?