THe Disparity between Private and Public High schools.

[Planck's constant]

Hmm. Now the next question is - what are they doing right that we are doing wrong? How does their socio-economic system work? What kind of policy do they implement? Is it viable here? Or are circumstances very different there?

Yup, yup - but I'm just using myself as a personal example to rebut your point.

I dont know.
As I said, I became aware of the issues when I got involved with that English Oral last year. The Gonski review had thousands of submissions and the majority brought up these issues.

What I do know is that if you and I went to our local government schools, we would have been worse off. But I also know that our local government schools would have been better off if they had us as students (I dont want to sound conceited here, but you know what I mean),

[simba]

I was at a public school at Years 7 and 8, and I didn't like it very much. I didn't HATE it, but I did not particularly like the culture there (especially in hindsight). I was a nerd at school, but I tried to fit in with the cool kids. Now that's something that's really really hard to do. Ended up a weirdo, a mess. An opportunity presented itself to me to move to one of the best schools in the state - I took it with both hands. Are you saying I should have stayed where I would have almost certainly succumbed to the culture in the school and ended up...god knows where?

This almost happened to me.. but then I got my act together in year 9
Although a lot of other people didn't. I remember them getting really good grades at the beginning of high school, and then they just plummeted as the year went on so they could be perceived as 'cool'. Most of them now are barely scraping a pass for VCE

[Planck's constant]

Note to any 2013 English students reading this.
Pick 'The disparity between private and public high schools' as your Oral topic.
Its got it all.

(you can even read enwiabe's post for a guaranteed 100%)

[Mao]

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.

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. 

You still have not convinced me your premises are the right ones here. WHY does fair go imply any two samples of the population should receive the same ATAR distribution? WHY is it most beneficial to society to lift the bottom end (compared to, say, lifting the middle or even lifting the top)? WHY is that skewed graph a problem?

You seem to be assuming that in an ideal world, people with different abilities will happily mix, and any sample of the population will resemble the entire population average (thus removing any SES differences and so forth). Why must this be the desired goal? And what if people want to naturally segregate, for example, what if richer people like to hang out more with other rich people to maximise future opportunities for themselves?

The graph is skewed, but I haven't seen a compelling reason why that's a problem we need to fix. Perhaps it can be less skewed, but I am not naive enough to believe the ideal graph is flat.

This translates to the argument of people doing things to benefit themselves (and I think they have every right to). High achievers should have the opportunity to leave worse schools, by choice, to join other high achievers and thus greatly improving their own education. Call it elitism if you want, but it's just people doing what's right for themselves, I don't understand why it's such a dirty word.

[Professor Polonsky]

Something which seems to be ignored here (or even this viewpoint ridiculed and dismissed) is that some people are naturally disposed towards a better ATAR than other people. That does not mean that they are necessarily 'smarter people' - the ATAR (and your VCE subjects) measure one type of intelligence, just like IQ testing. Success in the latter, by the way, is undoubtedly influenced by heritable factors.

Studies have consistently shown a link between parents' IQ and their child, even when the child is raised separately from them. There is a very strong correlation between the measured IQ of identical twins, even when raised apart. Stronger than two siblings raised together, in fact. No one doubts that you are likely to have the same physical capabilities as your parents, it seems strange to doubt that you also inherit your mental capabilities from your parents.

Now, there's a very important point which needs to be stressed. Intelligence is a lot broader than that stupid measure called IQ. Intelligence refers to any and all of our mental capabilities, which are much broader than what can be tested on paper - especially not with a rather specific paper like an IQ test (or something like the UMAT, for example). They test specific elements of intelligence, which most certainly do not encompass the entire concept of intelligence. I don't think intelligence could ever be fully and accurately measured. What we can say though, is that we certainly have evidence certain elements of intelligence are genetic.

Perhaps we should stop looking at ATAR's as the only measure of success, especially considering that for anyone who does not seek tertiary education it is essentially meaningless. Instead, they should be better supported by our education system.

[Mao]

Perhaps we should stop looking at ATAR's as the only measure of success, especially considering that for anyone who does not seek tertiary education it is essentially meaningless. Instead, they should be better supported by our education system.

That would definitely be a step forward. This is already somewhat supported by VCAL, VET and the new technical schools, and I agree they have a lot of room for improvement. However, I don't think this will solve the problem, for reasons enwiabe has already argued.


Slightly off topic point here, but I find this point very interesting:

Now, there's a very important point which needs to be stressed. Intelligence is a lot broader than that stupid measure called IQ. Intelligence refers to any and all of our mental capabilities, which are much broader than what can be tested on paper - especially not with a rather specific paper like an IQ test (or something like the UMAT, for example). They test specific elements of intelligence, which most certainly do not encompass the entire concept of intelligence. I don't think intelligence could ever be fully and accurately measured. What we can say though, is that we certainly have evidence certain elements of intelligence are genetic.

I don't believe anyone would disagree that ATAR/IQ or any of these specific tests only look at specific aspects in 'intelligence'. However, no matter what metric we choose to measure 'intelligence' (or aspects of intelligence, or a weighted sum of different aspects to represent a total, or anything you can imagine), we would still obtain a ranking of people. This can only lead to two conclusions: 1) there is a 'natural pecking order', or 2) intelligence should not be quantified and people should not be ranked.

While it is nice, I don't think it's right to assume that everyone is good at something.

And if we follow this train of thought, and that assume that like attracts like, then we will naturally arrive at a society where there is a separation by SES, where certain 'intelligence' metrics (ATAR/IQ) would be exaggerated in certain communities.

PS. I use the term 'intelligence' loosely to mean a measure of someone's abilities, and I use the term 'natural pecking order' to loosely mean a rank of people's successes, these successes which are correlated with some measure of 'intelligence'.

[JellyDonut]

I believe Gardener's multiple intelligence have been shown to correlate with one another. It sorta explains why there are some academic geniuses that are also musical freaks and so on

[Professor Polonsky]

Slightly off topic point here, but I find this point very interesting:

I don't believe anyone would disagree that ATAR/IQ or any of these specific tests only look at specific aspects in 'intelligence'. However, no matter what metric we choose to measure 'intelligence' (or aspects of intelligence, or a weighted sum of different aspects to represent a total, or anything you can imagine), we would still obtain a ranking of people. This can only lead to two conclusions: 1) there is a 'natural pecking order', or 2) intelligence should not be quantified and people should not be ranked.

While it is nice, I don't think it's right to assume that everyone is good at something.

And if we follow this train of thought, and that assume that like attracts like, then we will naturally arrive at a society where there is a separation by SES, where certain 'intelligence' metrics (ATAR/IQ) would be exaggerated in certain communities.

PS. I use the term 'intelligence' loosely to mean a measure of someone's abilities, and I use the term 'natural pecking order' to loosely mean a rank of people's successes, these successes which are correlated with some measure of 'intelligence'.

I disagree with the conclusions which you have reached. There factors other than intelligence involved in predicting success, with just plain luck being one of them. I find it hard to believe that you would in any way be able to quantify that 'natural pecking order'. And seeing the wonderful job which we have done so far at quantifying intelligence, I don't see us even managing that any time soon, especially not in a way which would be correlated with success.

It's a false dichotomy - some people are more intelligent than others, especially if you limit it to types of intelligence which are generally good predictors of success. But from there to saying you would be able to measure that or that there even is a 'natural pecking order' is a bit of a stretch.

[QuantumJG]

One simple way would be that CSP University places should only be available to non-selective Government secondary school VCE students.

Discuss

There's a HUGE problem with this. Firstly, people go to selective government schools on academic ability, not wealth (well that's what I know from friends who went to MHS). Also, full fee students pay on average $90,000 for a BSc (My HECS debt is only $15,000 for my BSc). Students from really wealthy families could probably afford this, but the majority of students couldn't.

[thushan]

Exactly. However, Argo's point is that people should be deterred from going to private schools and selective schools and 'betraying their local community' and that this model acts as a deterrent. Then again, I don't think they should be deterred. If people wish to pursue a better education and (in some cases) escape the bullying and ostracising, they are well within their right to do so.

[Professor Polonsky]

A lot of people in Catholic/Independent schools could not afford that, either.

You'll probably run them into public schools, which would not be able to accommodate the influx of new students.

[Mao]

I disagree with the conclusions which you have reached. There factors other than intelligence involved in predicting success, with just plain luck being one of them. I find it hard to believe that you would in any way be able to quantify that 'natural pecking order'. And seeing the wonderful job which we have done so far at quantifying intelligence, I don't see us even managing that any time soon, especially not in a way which would be correlated with success.

It's a false dichotomy - some people are more intelligent than others, especially if you limit it to types of intelligence which are generally good predictors of success. But from there to saying you would be able to measure that or that there even is a 'natural pecking order' is a bit of a stretch.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that if there exists a correct metric, that is if there exists a correct way to measure 'intelligence', then there must be a 'natural pecking order'.  No matter what metric we choose to use (existing ones or the ones we invent in the future), a 'natural pecking order' must be the result, as people are different. The only way around it is if we declare 'intelligence' to be unquantifiable, which I find to be a silly notion.

I'm not saying I can come up with the correct metric, or indeed anyone can, but that's not important. I'm not saying 'intelligence' is the only factor, but it is an important factor. By my definition, 'intelligence' is the innate 'potential' that we want to bring out in each person. I'm arguing for the existence of a metric for this 'potential', and its implications.

[Russ]

Limiting CSP places to public school students would be a long jump in the wrong direction

[walkec]

I'm at a low fee all girls catholic school. Sure I can understand where people are coming from with their opinions on this topic, however I sometimes think the way the school is run can be a determining factor in Vce success along with th student cohort and quality of teachers. Before my current principal was at the school, my school did pretty badly (I'm talking like a 24 median study score). We may only have 500 girls, but for 2012, this has increased to a 34 median study score with only 60 year 12 students in 2012. I think this increase is mainly due to the way the school is run, the expectations of our teachers and the students (because I'm noticing most who are not incredibly academically inclined leave from year 9 onwards).

Think what you like, but ultimately you shouldn't feel like you need to complain about the disparity between public and private, because some people haven't had an experience of both systems. I've been in private all my schooling years, but I'm definitely not rich (I'm actually on a academic merit scholarship, there is no way I would have gone to my school had it not been for that). Just remember that no matter if you're in either th public or private system, you should make the most of the opportunity you've got, because they're are many around the world that won't even get a secondary education.

[Fantasia94]

I believe that what good government and good private schools have that bad government schools like the one I went to dont have is the strong concern and encouragement that the school must give to enable its students to highly succeed. For example, every time I told my careers teacher that I was aiming for a 90+ atar, he used to put me down all the time by telling me that it's going to be nearly impossible for me to achieve such a score. I was also put down and sometimes ridiculed by other teachers...it seemed as though they didn't want me to achieve my goal. For example, when I achieved my B+ in chemistry mid year exam, for some odd reason my biology teacher came up to me after class and started talking to me as if my score was bad or something..when everyone else in my class achieved lower than me. So yeah, if the government schools were able to to apply a lot more encouragement towards enabling their students to academically succeed, then maybe this disparity between public and private schools will lessen or possibly disappear.