Go public to improve equity in all schools, parents urged

[slothpomba]

Australia's middle class and wealthy parents need to send their children to public schools to improve the country's increasingly polarised and inequitable education system, a report released on Tuesday argues.

The proportion of Australian private school students - about 35 per cent and climbing - is the highest since Federation and far greater than most developed nations.

"They're my kids and I want them to have the best": Liz Hurley with her son, Hamish Waddell.

A survey of more than 1000 Australians commissioned by the Per Capita research group found the perceived quality of education was the main reason parents chose private schools, followed by discipline, facilities, class size and status.

Discussions with parents also revealed a belief in the importance of attending the ''right'' school for making professional connections, the ''old school tie'' theory.

Public education's main benefit was financial, or doubts that private education was worth the investment, while concerns often focused on the perceived poor quality of teachers.

''There is this kind of anxiety about the public system, this sense you're at the whim of fate in a way that you aren't in the private system,'' researcher and co-author Rebecca Huntley said.

''Sometimes the fear can be about the quality of education and sometimes it can be cultural issues and this idea there is less bullying and more discipline in the private system.''

Despite system loyalties, most respondents did not think the type of school had an impact on a student's career success. Only three out of 10 believed public school children were less successful.

Former NSW education minister Verity Firth, who is chief executive of the Public Education Foundation and co-wrote the report, said parents needed to be given greater confidence in the public system to stem the move to private schools.

''The best performing education systems are always the ones that are also the most equitable,'' Ms Firth said. ''Now we are not an equitable education system and we are getting less equitable.

''We're not going to succeed in global economic terms if we're just leaving a whole lot of our people behind based on their socioeconomic class.''

If anxious parents left the local school, its performance would fall, forcing more to flee.

''Having proper, robust parental engagement that is taught in teacher training at university is something the public sector has to seize and own,'' Ms Firth said.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/go-public-to-improve-equity-in-all-schools-parents-urged-20140310-34hyc.html

[availn]

The problem: increasing numbers of students are going to private schools, because they are perceived to be better. This may be bad according to the report.
The solution: urge parents to send their children to public schools and to have more confidence in these schools? Through "robust parental engagement" no less...

Don't think this will work.

[chasej]

The solution: urge parents to send their children to public schools and to have more confidence in these schools? Through "robust parental engagement" no less...

At my school (private) there seems to be a lot of misinformation about public schools and their performance. I think some people could do with more education on the matter actually.

[brenden]

I think this article is very relevant for the 'private' schools like Casey Grammar, who had a median of 27 last year with <2% of scores above 40. I don't think anyone here would argue that the difference between Melbourne Grammar and your local high-school is small. Elite private schools are inevitably going to provide a better 'education' with reference to our current schooling system. Obviously, 35% of people aren't going to MG and the like, so I think there's definitely some reason to stop an obsession with 'private' schools lol.

[slothpomba]

I don't think a polarised education system is a particularly negative thing. Further, it would be ridiculously difficult to convice a parent from a relatively higher socio-economic status (who can afford private education) who wants their child to have the most opportunities possible available to them, otherwise. At least without some compelling evidence...

I think it's honestly part of the whole mythos around it that another user commented on. Is the education really much better? Do we have much evidence to support this? Or is it just a false notion that the education is better?

Their study scores are higher but let us not forget that these children come from wealthy homes. They get better nutrition, better care, can afford all their textbooks and uniforms (+private tuition), better gadgets, home is likely to be more stable, the whole shebang. If you look at the ATAR data, high socioeconomic status is highly correlated with high ATAR. It seems irregardless of what school they go to (or the difference smooths out in the mean). I believe socioeconomic disadvantage, not somehow teachers which are massively more inept, are the roots of the discrepancy.

My old school (catholic regional college) recieved something like $5,000,000 in government handouts during the education revolution under Rudd. It's not a posh school, a lot of people there were from the lowest SES bracket. They just wanted the catholic and independant school vote (its soley a year 11/12 only campus and services ~1000 VCE students). We got new labs, a bakery, a theatre, a restaurant, picture framing workshop. Many of the teachers have more than one degree (plenty of masters) and yet, we don't do any better than the public school not too far away. I'm convinced due to this that more money doesn't equal better outcomes, especially when students are building off a life of disadvantage, home problems and other things.

I haven't checked but hell, i'm confident to say your average public school in a rich area does much better than a public school say in St.Albans or Frankston.

Put kid A in a $10000 p/a private school and they'll have more opportunities than kid B who went to the local high school. Put kid A in a local high school and use $9500 each year to further invest in their future through other means and they'll have more opportunities than kid B. But if had the opportunity to provide your child both, why not?

I don't think parents should felt like they're held hostage, you need to spend a lot on education or your child would end up a failure. It's no secret ATARNotes is mainly inhabited by those from a privileged background or from private/selective schools. Despite this fact, we have many people who have came from shitty schools and reached the heights of success, there are one or two in this thread even. You don't need to spend a lot of money to do well. It's part of the reason ATARNotes was created. It's the same exploitative action preying on parents best instincts behind certain expensive UMAT preparatory programmes or certain tuition schools, they're vultures.

Don't get me wrong, i have zero care about what the rich and privileged burn their money on, they could put it in a wheelbarrow and set it on fire for all i care. I just dislike the false misconceptions surrounding these schools and with it the idea that a high  ATAR score or becoming a doctor or lawer is the only successful measure of the totality of a child's education and school experience.

Bonus graphs!

[miaow]

Just thought I'd add my two cents worth.

I go to a Catholic school in a small regional town. The interesting thing is that we have a partnership with the local public school, which means that because we are both rather small (we've got about 70~ a year level, they've got about 20~) we join up in VCE to be able to have more subjects on offer. So because we're on the same street we just walk down between schools. It's really pretty good Anyway, I can say that usually my school does a lot better in the end of year results, and there isn't a big difference really in socio-economic standings between the schools. We're not exactly expensive, and there are scholarships and fee waivers in place for those who can't afford it. Especially in the height of the drought, I've heard a lot was done to ensure people didn't have to drop out. Anyway, I digress. Because I go to both schools, I can say that mine generally has the better resources. And in a lot of cases, better teachers. When you're in a smaller, nicer, tidier class where the teacher is actually able to keep everyone quiet, and puts in the effort, I find the class does better. Also, at times my school will have stricter standards on some things, mainly homework and behaviour and the like. I couldn't say what the difference is, but that's just how it is where I am anyway. Obviously that's just anecdotal evidence but for me, I've found that the not-too-dear Catholic school, with similar socio-economic status, provides a better learning experience and environment, and therefore better results, than the public neighbour, in the few classes I've done. Side note, though, I am very glad that we have that opportunity full stop.

[walkec]

Having only been to a low-fee Catholic high school, I'm not about to say private's better or anything like that. What I am going to understand is that whilst I do understand the logic of some parents' in thinking that private has more opportunities, I think it depends on what the child is wanting to get out of school and whether or not the school itself suits the child.

And also, there are some fantastic public schools too. In the private sector, you are going to have schools that perform better than others, but this will also be the case with the public sector too. So, I don't think its fair to attach a label or judgement to public schools' being worse than private.

[IndefatigableLover]

I've only attended public schools during my time but the main big difference is that one was my local high school and the other being a selective school. They're still both public schools yet there are a lot of differences between the two (whether it be in learning atmosphere etc.). Although the article tells families in the middle class to attend public schools, it fails to mention the other side of the story with the amount of families sending their children to go apply for selective schools. It still fits the criteria of sending kids to a public school albeit the general equity between schools becomes unbalanced with the difference in the types of public schools (as well as adding in the private sector as well).