THe Disparity between Private and Public High schools.

[enwiabe]

Having tutored literally hundreds of kids for 6 years now, I feel that I can confidently posit that it all comes down to academic environment. If you're supported in your learning from a young age, you will almost certainly do well. Obviously people with genetic mental disorders or learning disabilities are not addressed here, but the following applies to everyone else.

Supportive academic environments correlate with socio-economic status. That's where the disparity truly lies.

Sure, you'll find an occasional diamond in the rough who will perform anywhere, and in any academic environment. There's that kid who makes everybody's eyebrows pop "he got 99.WHAT at THAT school?!" That kid is a genius who will succeed anywhere.

What you miss is that that school had a median of 27. You miss the hundreds of kids who all got below 80. How is that possible? Out of a year group of 300 kids, why aren't 60 (20%) actually in the top 20%?

I see a lot of talk about Jews and Asians. Right now, you could possibly point to the Jewish community and say "hah, affluence pays". But you'd be disregarding history. The large majority of Australian Jews came to Australia 60 years ago with nothing. Their communities had been utterly destroyed in the holocaust. The Nazis robbed most of them of all their property and any wealth accumulated there. They rebuilt. They went to school and studied hard. You think MHS is overflowing with asians and sub-continentals these days? Go back 40 years and I believe 50% of the enrolments at MHS were Jews. And their parents were dirt poor. My dad tells stories about how he and his mates from MHS would sneak into the MCG because they couldn't afford the "2 bob" to get into the ground.

And what about asians? Many migrant parents from Asia come with nothing. They're dirt poor, working 3 jobs to support their kids. But boy do they support their kids. They make sure they're learning, they make sure they're going to develop a work ethic and study.

That's the important thing, here. Socio-economic status correlates with a supportive academic environment, but it does not cause it.

I see so many similarities between the migrant cultures of Asians and Jews. It's very much the same story. Both covet education and social status, so that's what they instill in their children. Nothing to do with genetics. As kingpomba pointed out, despite stark phenotypical differences, genetic variation between ethnic groups is tiny. It's all about the culture. Migrant cultures see academic success as a way out of economic hardship. Rich people generally see academic success as the way to maintain their excellent quality of living.

Culture of learning = culture of academic success. That's where kids succeed or fail. Support in home environment is the main factor, and then support from your learning environment at school is also huge. If you have neither of these, you are almost guaranteed to fail. If you're lacking just one, you're at a major disadvantage.

Carefully curated notes help. Extra practice exams will give you a slight edge. Nothing will prepare you better than having classmates who want to learn and parents who will be upset if you're not trying.

Where will a kid learn to value academic success if his parents are bogans who never got educated, never wanted to be educated and don't ever instill any sort of academic curiosity in their children? And then when they get to school, they get to hang out with all their mates who are just dying to drop out of school in year 10 because "fukin skool blows ull never lern nethin useful"

It. Won't. Happen. You could give them state-of-the-art everything and they wouldn't learn. They need to be nurtured towards that success.

These new selective schools popping up all over the place are fantastic, and I'd like to see quotas imposed such that socio-economically disadvantaged areas have more kids going to these schools. Doing this will save many, many young students from the academic wastelands that their circumstances force them into.

No amount of funding of schools is going to change a community that devalues education. That requires a consciousness raising exercise that will happen generationally. But you can save the individual students for sure.

It has nothing to do with their genetics. Nothing at all. It has everything to do with the social forces influencing them. Leave them in the mire, and watch them struggle. Get the ones who want to learn into classrooms with like-minded kids and watch them soar. It is truly as simple as that.

[abeybaby]

^ would LOVE to upvote.

Also, I don't see the problem with investing in education, if you can afford it. Sure there's a disparity, but that doesn't mean that the people who can afford to invest so much more in education should be put off doing it - they should be encouraged, imo.

[thushan]

Having tutored literally hundreds of kids for 6 years now, I feel that I can confidently posit that it all comes down to academic environment. If you're supported in your learning from a young age, you will almost certainly do well. Obviously people with genetic mental disorders or learning disabilities are not addressed here, but the following applies to everyone else.

Supportive academic environments correlate with socio-economic status. That's where the disparity truly lies.

Sure, you'll find an occasional diamond in the rough who will perform anywhere, and in any academic environment. There's that kid who makes everybody's eyebrows pop "he got 99.WHAT at THAT school?!" That kid is a genius who will succeed anywhere.

What you miss is that that school had a median of 27. You miss the hundreds of kids who all got below 80. How is that possible? Out of a year group of 300 kids, why aren't 60 (20%) actually in the top 20%?

I see a lot of talk about Jews and Asians. Right now, you could possibly point to the Jewish community and say "hah, affluence pays". But you'd be disregarding history. The large majority of Australian Jews came to Australia 60 years ago with nothing. Their communities had been utterly destroyed in the holocaust. The Nazis robbed most of them of all their property and any wealth accumulated there. They rebuilt. They went to school and studied hard. You think MHS is overflowing with asians and sub-continentals these days? Go back 40 years and I believe 50% of the enrolments at MHS were Jews. And their parents were dirt poor. My dad tells stories about how he and his mates from MHS would sneak into the MCG because they couldn't afford the "2 bob" to get into the ground.

And what about asians? Many migrant parents from Asia come with nothing. They're dirt poor, working 3 jobs to support their kids. But boy do they support their kids. They make sure they're learning, they make sure they're going to develop a work ethic and study.

That's the important thing, here. Socio-economic status correlates with a supportive academic environment, but it does not cause it.

I see so many similarities between the migrant cultures of Asians and Jews. It's very much the same story. Both covet education and social status, so that's what they instill in their children. Nothing to do with genetics. As kingpomba pointed out, despite stark phenotypical differences, genetic variation between ethnic groups is tiny. It's all about the culture. Migrant cultures see academic success as a way out of economic hardship. Rich people generally see academic success as the way to maintain their excellent quality of living.

Culture of learning = culture of academic success. That's where kids succeed or fail. Support in home environment is the main factor, and then support from your learning environment at school is also huge. If you have neither of these, you are almost guaranteed to fail. If you're lacking just one, you're at a major disadvantage.

Carefully curated notes help. Extra practice exams will give you a slight edge. Nothing will prepare you better than having classmates who want to learn and parents who will be upset if you're not trying.

Where will a kid learn to value academic success if his parents are bogans who never got educated, never wanted to be educated and don't ever instill any sort of academic curiosity in their children? And then when they get to school, they get to hang out with all their mates who are just dying to drop out of school in year 10 because "fukin skool blows ull never lern nethin useful"

It. Won't. Happen. You could give them state-of-the-art everything and they wouldn't learn. They need to be nurtured towards that success.

These new selective schools popping up all over the place are fantastic, and I'd like to see quotas imposed such that socio-economically disadvantaged areas have more kids going to these schools. Doing this will save many, many young students from the academic wastelands that their circumstances force them into.

No amount of funding of schools is going to change a community that devalues education. That requires a consciousness raising exercise that will happen generationally. But you can save the individual students for sure.

It has nothing to do with their genetics. Nothing at all. It has everything to do with the social forces influencing them. Leave them in the mire, and watch them struggle. Get the ones who want to learn into classrooms with like-minded kids and watch them soar. It is truly as simple as that.

A. M. E. N.

[Mao]

These new selective schools popping up all over the place are fantastic, and I'd like to see quotas imposed such that socio-economically disadvantaged areas have more kids going to these schools. Doing this will save many, many young students from the academic wastelands that their circumstances force them into.

This. this all the way.

[QuantumJG]

Having tutored literally hundreds of kids for 6 years now, I feel that I can confidently posit that it all comes down to academic environment. If you're supported in your learning from a young age, you will almost certainly do well. Obviously people with genetic mental disorders or learning disabilities are not addressed here, but the following applies to everyone else.

Supportive academic environments correlate with socio-economic status. That's where the disparity truly lies.

Sure, you'll find an occasional diamond in the rough who will perform anywhere, and in any academic environment. There's that kid who makes everybody's eyebrows pop "he got 99.WHAT at THAT school?!" That kid is a genius who will succeed anywhere.

What you miss is that that school had a median of 27. You miss the hundreds of kids who all got below 80. How is that possible? Out of a year group of 300 kids, why aren't 60 (20%) actually in the top 20%?

I see a lot of talk about Jews and Asians. Right now, you could possibly point to the Jewish community and say "hah, affluence pays". But you'd be disregarding history. The large majority of Australian Jews came to Australia 60 years ago with nothing. Their communities had been utterly destroyed in the holocaust. The Nazis robbed most of them of all their property and any wealth accumulated there. They rebuilt. They went to school and studied hard. You think MHS is overflowing with asians and sub-continentals these days? Go back 40 years and I believe 50% of the enrolments at MHS were Jews. And their parents were dirt poor. My dad tells stories about how he and his mates from MHS would sneak into the MCG because they couldn't afford the "2 bob" to get into the ground.

And what about asians? Many migrant parents from Asia come with nothing. They're dirt poor, working 3 jobs to support their kids. But boy do they support their kids. They make sure they're learning, they make sure they're going to develop a work ethic and study.

That's the important thing, here. Socio-economic status correlates with a supportive academic environment, but it does not cause it.

I see so many similarities between the migrant cultures of Asians and Jews. It's very much the same story. Both covet education and social status, so that's what they instill in their children. Nothing to do with genetics. As kingpomba pointed out, despite stark phenotypical differences, genetic variation between ethnic groups is tiny. It's all about the culture. Migrant cultures see academic success as a way out of economic hardship. Rich people generally see academic success as the way to maintain their excellent quality of living.

Culture of learning = culture of academic success. That's where kids succeed or fail. Support in home environment is the main factor, and then support from your learning environment at school is also huge. If you have neither of these, you are almost guaranteed to fail. If you're lacking just one, you're at a major disadvantage.

Carefully curated notes help. Extra practice exams will give you a slight edge. Nothing will prepare you better than having classmates who want to learn and parents who will be upset if you're not trying.

Where will a kid learn to value academic success if his parents are bogans who never got educated, never wanted to be educated and don't ever instill any sort of academic curiosity in their children? And then when they get to school, they get to hang out with all their mates who are just dying to drop out of school in year 10 because "fukin skool blows ull never lern nethin useful"

It. Won't. Happen. You could give them state-of-the-art everything and they wouldn't learn. They need to be nurtured towards that success.

These new selective schools popping up all over the place are fantastic, and I'd like to see quotas imposed such that socio-economically disadvantaged areas have more kids going to these schools. Doing this will save many, many young students from the academic wastelands that their circumstances force them into.

No amount of funding of schools is going to change a community that devalues education. That requires a consciousness raising exercise that will happen generationally. But you can save the individual students for sure.

It has nothing to do with their genetics. Nothing at all. It has everything to do with the social forces influencing them. Leave them in the mire, and watch them struggle. Get the ones who want to learn into classrooms with like-minded kids and watch them soar. It is truly as simple as that.

Well said. I wish that I could up vote too.

^ would LOVE to upvote.

Also, I don't see the problem with investing in education, if you can afford it. Sure there's a disparity, but that doesn't mean that the people who can afford to invest so much more in education should be put off doing it - they should be encouraged, imo.

I would too. Heck if I ever have kids, I'll be bringing them up to have a good work ethic regardless of my socioeconomic status (I'd like to think I'll become a middle income earner). I'm the first i my family to finish VCE and to get a degree. Education is something I value the most.

[thushan]

Re - the new selective schools. My SLIGHT beef with selective schools being the SOLE way of taking academically minded people into a good environment is that there would be a fair few kids who are hard-working and academically-oriented, but fail to make the cut to the selective schools. A way to get around that is to introduce more selective schools, which would lower this cut - because selective schools select based on academic achievement and skill, rather than being academically minded, which does not fully correlate. Anecdote - know plenty of kids in my old school who were quite academically minded and wanted to study, but couldn't make the Melb High/Macrob cut (this was before Nossal/SC/JMSS opened).

[ninwa]

Good idea in principle, but how would you test if someone were academically-minded?

[thushan]

Good idea in principle, but how would you test if someone were academically-minded?

Very difficult - hence my suggestion of more selective schools.

Another suggestion is to have government schools that are not bound by geographical area, and enforce reasonably strict discipline; hopefully parents who send their children to such schools are from backgrounds that value education and the culture within the school is rather better, and the number of people who cause trouble are not especially numerous or powerful and so it would be more difficult to drive the culture of the school to the ground.

[katykins]

My opinion on the matter

I agree to some extent! when finacial aid comes into play regarding education it splits the gap between students who do well because of assitance and students who do ok. I believe that it can be unfair when extra assitance is achieved by money!

However in terms of the public/private debate i solely believe that the result you achieve is accomplished by your own intiative and not by the reputation of the school. I went to Werribee Secondary college which is a public school but has a very high Yr 12 success rate due to the academic culture and the motivation expressed by the students. I was in a select entry program where academic excellence was encouraged. I agree that poor government schools that lack motivation are a trap. It is harder to do well when your peers don't care about their grades. Ultimately it comes down to how much you want a great score. and what your willing to do to get it! The internet is free for many great rescources to help such as atar notes and youtube! that can help. One of my best friends achieved a atar of 99.15 at the same school i went to! although she is natually gifted, she achieved that score via her own intiative and without the help of 'extra' services that privte schools provide.

I strongly believe that in VCE you get out what you put in. that is all.

[Special At Specialist]

In my experiences, I've found that the school you go to can make a huge difference in terms of how academically-minded people turn out to be. For example, I went to Mt Erin Frankston in year 7 and Mt Eliza in year 8. Both schools were pretty bad, scoring in the bottom quartile in the state. Although Flinders College (the school I spent most of my high school life at) is only about average in the state, it was so much better than the other schools I went to. The teachers weren't really that much different, but the students and their attitudes were completely different. There were hardly any fights at Flinders, whilst fights were frequent at Mt Erin Frankston and at Mt Eliza.

So anyway, I spoke to my old year 8 friend at Mt Eliza about how well he did in VCE. I remember he used to be so much smarter than me, he was always getting higher marks than me at tests, and he always did his homework (unlike me, who received 2 detentions for really late homework). When I found out that he only got an ATAR in the 70's, I was surprised. He was such a smart guy who seemed to care about school a lot more than I did, yet I beat him in VCE. I think that it was because of the school he went to and the people who he hung around who negatively influenced him. I mean, scoring in the 70's isn't bad. He was still one of the top students at his school, but I thought he had the potential to do so much better.

I highly doubt I would have scored in the 80's if I was still going to my old schools. It's not the teachers or the prosperity of the school, it's the other students and their attitudes. Even people that act really self-motivated are actually more susceptible to peer pressure influence than you think. At least Atarnotes is good in the sense that it works as another school full of really motivated and hard-working students like Thushan, who can create a very powerful atmosphere for everyone who has internet access.

But like Kingpomba said, family plays just as much of a role as friends. If you live in an average (possibly below average) white family like mine, you're not going to value education as much as a Jew who escaped the Holocaust, or an Asian who traveled overseas in search of a new life. I think that parents play a huge role in the development of their child, far more than they might realise. If they get all lazy and stop caring about working hard and becoming successful, then their children will likely follow in their footsteps. The day someone in my family starts making 6 figure salaries will be the day we can finally move up in society and end this terrible socioeconomic cycle.

Also, the problem with working class people is that they have too much on their mind to be given the opportunity to learn information in a relaxing atmosphere. A lot of them have terrible family circumstances and I don't think that SEAS does enough to counter this. For example, their parents might be abusive alcoholics with criminal records for domestic violence, or they might be living with a single parent who relies on them to help out around the house all the time, and in many cases, their parents pressure them to get a job as soon as possible, since they would rather get their children in the workplace as soon as possible than invest time and money into allowing them to study further education (university or even VCE). After all, working at McDonald's is guaranteed cash, which is exactly what their family needs to get them by for the next month. Their idea of a "big city dream" isn't investing money to go to university, it is wasting money gambling and buying lottery tickets in the hope that a solution will come to them. I know this because I used to have friends who lived like this, some of whom now spend their whole days smoking and hanging around train stations because they have basically given up on life.

When you look at people like this, the last thing on your mind is "they have academic potential", but given the right circumstances, any one of them could rise above the world and become something great. Some argue that these poor people are lazy and deserve to be poor for not putting in the effort, but that is only true because they have been brought up in circumstances which have caused them to be so apathetic and lacking in motivation. If you offered them a scholarship, accommodation, transport and free food, then I can guarantee you that any one of them would take up the offer and turn their life around. The problem is, although there are ways to get around this, help from Centrelink and financial assistance to help with studying, many of these people will not go actively looking for it unless it is offered right to their doorstep. Although there are some poor people who genuinely care about their future, many of them have grown to become apathetic through the attitudes of those around them. It's sad to see this, but unfortunately, they are likely to live this way for at least a few generations, and unless something significant changes, there will always be these poor "bogans" living in rural areas who can never seem to move up in the world.

[slothpomba]

From a pragmatic point of view, since resources are scarce, we want the best possible outcome out of investment in education.

Everything is scarce. Obviously, the whole idea is to do the most with the little you have.

What will give us best bang for buck? It might be a contentious question and i'll admit, i don't have a lot of evidence to back this up (Assignments due soon, so, i can't bust out the journals for hours, we'll stick with conjecture for now).

Personally, as i stated earlier, it's my belief there's absolutely no reason why the graphs found on the previous page should not be equal. In a country like Australia, there is no way we should have nor allow such a huge disparity between rich and poor. Land of the fair go? Bullshit.

We've been talking about culture but i still believe poverty and SES have a lot to do with it. The graphs quite clearly show a trend. I know people will rattle off the whole stats class cliche that correlation doesn't imply causation but it's obvious something is going on here. What i'd really love is to see a graph of how well public schools do in low SES areas Vs High SES areas, that'd clear up a lot of things.

TL;DR I think our target should be low SES areas to maximise our bang for buck and improve social mobility. Our entrenched poverty and social mobility certainly aren't as bad as the USA, i'm not screaming the sky is falling but surely we can do much better than that hugely skewed graph.

aren't parents from higher socioeconomical backgrounds more able to provide further support beyond education, and thus maximising the chance of success after education?

This is true. Like i said, some schools offer 20 different sports, a classical music program, a drama program that doesn't suck and much much more. Richer people can afford more tutors and more enrichment activities outside of school.

What you say above shouldn't be true though. Assuming poor people aren't massively less capable, there should be no natural reason why they don't do as well or at least within say10% of the rich kids. The problem we have right now is a structural problem with the system.

It might be true currently that coming from higher SES predetermines you to be more successful but it's shameful this is true.

Wouldn't this mean private education is an attempt to maximise return from an investment in education?

As i argued previously, people usually make rational choices. The reason above is the reason they do choose private.

Everyone whats wants best for their kids but not everyone can afford or provide it.

80% of the appeal of private schools is that they *are better*. They will always have to be perpetually better. Most of their appeal comes from this (aside from things like drama programs or being religious. The first one is probably rather important too if you got money to burn because...hey...why shouldn't your kid learn violin?). Don't get me wrong, i realise private schools will always be better. Its just how the education market works. On the other hand, there's no reason why our public schools, especially in poor areas, should be just *that* shitty.

------

I agree with what Enwiabe said in principal but i don't know if it's wholly true.

My school had a rather large Asian population. Many of my friends who were of Asian descent and for all intents and purposes seemed to be pressured by their parents, did not do as well as me. My parents don't know what an ATAR is, they dont know what a study score is, i had to ask them to go to a tutor, they didn't send me to tutors by default like a lot of my friends. They still don't even really know what i do at university and yet, i still did better than a fair few of them.

If you look at an area like Footscray, with a large Asian population, their public schools seem to still do comparatively shit.

	Median SS	% of Study Scores over 40
Brighton Secondary College	31	6.7
Kew Highschool	31	8
Thomastown Secondary College	26	2.4
Dandenong Highschool	25	1.2
Lalor Secondary College	27	4.3

Don't get me wrong, i think you're spot on about culture. I don't see how anyone can reasonably deny the kind of culture and even pressure (lets not lie about its existence) you generally find (not everyone is like this of course) in Asian and Jewish communities is different to that which you'd find in other communities.

It's obviously not a sure thing either though. I dont know any Jewish people (not many live around here and i went to a catholic school) but i know there are plenty of Asian dropouts or doing menial blue collar jobs despite whatever their culture was.

What happens once the children of these Asian or Jewish immigrants grow up in Australia though, with an Australian upbringing? Or the children or the children? Will it all disappear as they grow up here and become essentially Australian? I know in my case, already just 2 generations in, we pretty much do 0 from the culture of my grandparents that would be different from mainstream Australian culture.

These new selective schools popping up all over the place are fantastic, and I'd like to see quotas imposed such that socio-economically disadvantaged areas have more kids going to these schools. Doing this will save many, many young students from the academic wastelands that their circumstances force them into.

This is one approach. It has its problems though. You're essentially creating a two tiered system if you take this to its logical extension.

Taking away all the good students from a school and reducing it to an exercise in babysitting or hopelessness. I think it might be beneficial to have some good, competitive students, in a so-so school for the rest of the student body. It might make other students realise it's OK to act like this or we can be like him too.

Your quota idea is a very good one but what determine who gets in? I've seen tutoring for selective tests (ala MHS). I know many of my Asian friends took up this tutoring, their parents wanted them to get in, it speaks to the culture you were talking about above. These tests wont help the "bogan" kid you give as an example though. He still has a cultural problem. I didn't even know MHS existed in year 8 (not that im a bogan or anything). His parents wont tell him all about it or even know. He likely won't get all that expensive tuition (a SES link) to be competitive. You'll still catch the most gifted but as you said  "Out of a year group of 300 kids, why aren't 60 (20%) actually in the top 20%?".

[Mr Keshy]

Re - the new selective schools. My SLIGHT beef with selective schools being the SOLE way of taking academically minded people into a good environment is that there would be a fair few kids who are hard-working and academically-oriented, but fail to make the cut to the selective schools. A way to get around that is to introduce more selective schools, which would lower this cut - because selective schools select based on academic achievement and skill, rather than being academically minded, which does not fully correlate. Anecdote - know plenty of kids in my old school who were quite academically minded and wanted to study, but couldn't make the Melb High/Macrob cut (this was before Nossal/SC/JMSS opened).

Fantastic idea in my opinion.

I didn't make the cut into MHS or Nossal, among many others. But the fact that we did attempt the exam shows that we put academics up high in value. I really wanted to go to a school with a really good studying environment. But I don't feel disadvantaged as such. I have to work harder to obtain similar resources but as someone else has already said.

Success never comes easy. Even if you go to a select entry school. It's really up to you. With AN and the internet at your disposal, I think the gap is getting closer for those who care and want to do well.

[Dejan]

Lalor secondary repping

[slothpomba]

First of all, great post S@S.

However in terms of the public/private debate i solely believe that the result you achieve is accomplished by your own intiative and not by the reputation of the school....
.....
Ultimately it comes down to how much you want a great score. and what your willing to do to get it!

Do poorer people have massively less innate initiative or something? Do most of the kids in the poorer SES areas simply not want to improve themselves or their lives? Why are the graphs so far out of proportion? There's a reason poorer areas do worse and it's not because poor people are lazy.

Golly, those rich kids at Scotch must be reading tonnes of motivational books. Certainly can't be the crippling inequality or the alcoholic father.

I think that Australians definitely in general don't value education as much as it should be.

This is true but it would also be a huge folly to run our school system like many Asian countries do.

Based on what you say, you seem to think you were fairly far above the rest of the school in academic ability. I have no reason to doubt you. You are the 1% of kids that, as Enwiabe said, would do well in any school.

That's not the issue. The issue is the rest of the school. Are we to simply pluck out the already gifted students and ignore the vast majority of the student body who has untapped potential? Do you want to simply ignore the majority of students who could improve if only we gave them better resources and chances? That's not justice, thats elitism.

It's a Bandaid for our problems, it's no real fix. Again, in Wobbles words "Out of a year group of 300 kids, why aren't 60 (20%) actually in the top 20%?".

Most of the kids (excluding scholarships) are probably not massively more or less intelligent (in capability) than the kids at any ghetto public school and yet their average is so high.

[Planck's constant]

I think that Australians definitely in general don't value education as much as it should be.

Are you not happy with the education system Australia has built for you?