Private/public school debate [offtopic from UoM General Chat]

[Hannibal]

Sure, increasing funds for public school's may improve their performance. But ultimately, it's impossible to bridge the gap in the quality of education provided at a public school compared to a private school. The amount of extracurricular activities that private school's provide due to a surplus in funding can never be matched by a public school. All that matters IMO is that the core education provided at ALL public schools is of a good enough standard, so that anyone that wants to succeed can succeed in VCE.

In reality though, if you are bright enough you can easily squeeze your way into a scholarship/selective school (Not that this means that everyone else doesn't have the right to a high quality education).

[vox nihili]

Sure, increasing funds for public school's may improve their performance. But ultimately, it's impossible to bridge the gap in the quality of education provided at a public school compared to a private school. The amount of extracurricular activities that private school's provide due to a surplus in funding can never be matched by a public school. All that matters IMO is that the core education provided at ALL public schools is of a good enough standard, so that anyone that wants to succeed can succeed in VCE.

In reality though, if you are bright enough you can easily squeeze your way into a scholarship/selective school (Not that this means that everyone else doesn't have the right to a high quality education).

Finland is a fully public system and its schools completely outstrip our private schools. It's wrong to merely assume that because private schools have always had it better than public schools could never catch up.

[Hannibal]

Finland is a fully public system and its schools completely outstrip our private schools. It's wrong to merely assume that because private schools have always had it better than public schools could never catch up.

In terms of core education, then with proper funding and performance based teacher payment, the gap can be bridged. But in terms of extra-curricular activities, sporting facilities and the like, it would take a looot of funding to catch up. Personally, I believe there are better things to spend taxpayer's money on such as working on our public healthcare system. If there was no difference between public and private school's, there would be no reason for private school's to exist. All private school's provide is a secure option for well-off families, so that they can know that their children will have a decent education, and that they will be taken care of. Obviously there is a price to pay for peace of mind  .

Trying to avoid prejudice in my views. I attend a private school, however if I was not on scholarship I would be at a shitty local school.

[brenden]

Personally, I believe there are better things to spend taxpayer's money on such as working on our public healthcare system.

Why? Everyone has access to basic medical care, but not everyone has access to basic education.

If there was no difference between public and private school's, there would be no reason for private school's to exist.

Yes, exactly. Why is that a problem?

All private school's provide is a secure option for well-off families, so that they can know that their children will have a decent education, and that they will be taken care of.  Obviously there is a price to pay for peace of mind 

Well, the first clause of this sentence is simply wrong. Not all private schools provide a secure option. Moreover, if there were a better public school system, parents of well-off families would know that their children will be taken care of and have a decent education. There also wouldn't be a price to pay for peace of mind. What is it about having money that makes someone more deserving of a better education or peace of mind?

[Hannibal]

Why? Everyone has access to basic medical care, but not everyone has access to basic education.
Yes, exactly. Why is that a problem?
Well, the first clause of this sentence is simply wrong. Not all private schools provide a secure option. Moreover, if there were a better public school system, parents of well-off families would know that their children will be taken care of and have a decent education. There also wouldn't be a price to pay for peace of mind. What is it about having money that makes someone more deserving of a better education or peace of mind?

Even if private school's ceased to exist, and all that was left was public school's, there would still be discrepancies between the quality of education between schools. If a truly equal education was the desirable outcome, then there would have to be limits on how much a school can offer. Besides, you would pretty much be forced to attend the school within your zone. Living in Mildura (Even when parents can afford to send to a private school), compared to living in Box Hill would be extremely different.

If you have the money/talent, should you not have an advantage? And be forced to attend your local public school when a better one is a few zones away? Just some food for thought

[vox nihili]

If you have the money/talent, should you not have an advantage?

No, you shouldn't.

[Hannibal]

No, you shouldn't.

Lets agree to disagree then .
Ultimately, attending an elite private school doesn't result in an instant 99.95, that responsibility lies on each students work ethic.

[vox nihili]

Lets agree to disagree then .
Ultimately, attending an elite private school doesn't result in an instant 99.95, that responsibility lies on each students work ethic.

I just find it difficult to understand why a child should be condemned to a crap education when their only fault was to be born into a poor family.

Though that statement may be true, it's a hell of a lot easier to get that 99.95 if you've had a private education. The single biggest factor in determining how a child will perform at school is socio-economic class. Private schools are a large reason that this is the case.

[Russ]

No, you shouldn't.

If there's a reasonable standard of education across all public schools, why should 'better' education not exist for those willing/able to pay? I have no ideological problem with private schools existing, as long as there is a generally acceptable alternative.

[souka]

It's kind of like cumulative advantage. http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/CumulativeAdvantagePrinciple.htm
Those who go to private schools are exposed to better teachers and more resources and facilities at their disposal. Which then fueled my general want to be better than another, especially when you are around elite of the elite, students ultimately to better.
But in a public school,  from my own personal experience, good teachers always stay for a year then move to better schools and students are less motivated, shaped by their own view of society, so those who want to do better have to do it themselves.

[vox nihili]

If there's a reasonable standard of education across all public schools, why should 'better' education not exist for those willing/able to pay? I have no ideological problem with private schools existing, as long as there is a generally acceptable alternative.

Because it's not the students who pay. It's their parents. I just don't find it an acceptable situation that whether or not a child is successful is determined not by their individual talents, but by how much money their parents have.

[slothpomba]

Does that make funding infinite?

No but it does illustrate we have plenty of money to spend as a nation if we really wanted to. Hell, even closing "loopholes" (they're flawed by design, see: mining tax, etc) would bring in a shitload of funding.

Polo dealt with the difference between fact and opinion enough for me not to add my own comment on it (i'd basically be restating it).

When a larger portion of your wage goes to the government than is dedicated to your housing and services, that (in my opinion) is a high enough tax rate.

It's funny you say services there too since so much tax money goes towards providing said services for free or at low cost. Police, fire, post, safe food/medicines/water, health care, education, infrastructure. The rich have more so they pay more, its as simple as that.

How am I advocating eugenics? I'm just talking about the reality of the cycle. You say yourself "the socioeconomic advantage inherent in these schools which provide most of the boost". I don't necessarily agree with the "most" part, but that's I'm talking about: it's not just the quality of the school that creates the divide, but the parents and the home environment also. I'm not trying to be elitist in this argument, it's just realistic.

It's quite simple, we need to fix the socioeconomic divides. I acknowledge they exist, i acknowledge wealthier homes are likely to produce better educational outcomes, which is why i advocate a more equal and fair distribution of wealth. I bought out the eugenics thing because it came of to me as elitist and suggesting that rich people are somehow genetically superior or have some innate superiority when really, the thing that set them aside from the pack, by-in large, was being born into a rich family.

Sure, increasing funds for public school's may improve their performance. But ultimately, it's impossible to bridge the gap in the quality of education provided at a public school compared to a private school. The amount of extracurricular activities that private school's provide due to a surplus in funding can never be matched by a public school.

But in terms of extra-curricular activities, sporting facilities and the like, it would take a looot of funding to catch up.

One does not need swimming pools or an orchestra to be well educated. Pretty grounds or nice architecture isn't needed either. Depending on the nature of the extracirricular activities, they boil down to just not being all that important.

In reality though, if you are bright enough you can easily squeeze your way into a scholarship/selective school (Not that this means that everyone else doesn't have the right to a high quality education).

So a few escape while the rest have to fight for scraps? This isn't a satisfactory or fair condition. Also, keep in mind, before these kids pick up a pencil or open a book, their future has been somewhat predetermined by their economic background. Before they even attempt a scholarship test, their economic background has affected their prospects. It's no accident that even selective schools have a disproportionate amount of middle class/upper class children. It's not so easy as having academic talent and sitting a test when the very odds are stacked against you to do well in that test in the first place.

Ultimately, the root cause is (partially) socioeconomic factors. We will never fix this issue unless we fix the socioeconomic inequality in our society. You can tack on all the band-aids you want but those don't go to the root of the problem. Failing that, quota's should be introduced into these selective schools to ensure a more representative mix, not only that middle class/upper class parents are tutoring their kids into these places so they don't have to pay for a private school.

If there was no difference between public and private school's, there would be no reason for private school's to exist.

Why should there be a reason for them to exist? You say it like its a crucial element of our society that private schools have a reason to exist.

All private school's provide is a secure option for well-off families, so that they can know that their children will have a decent education, and that they will be taken care of. Obviously there is a price to pay for peace of mind  .

They provide a place where well off kids can hang out with each-other and be isolated from the rest. They're inherently exclusionary and elitist. Scholarships are but the scraps they hand out (not entirely out of altruism either, they may do it to boost their academic standing by poaching kids from other schools).

[slothpomba]

This is from the last time we had this debate.

: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....



Notice that this isn't segregated based on school type. It's just a general relation that rich kids do better than poor kids. I'm willing to bet that a rich kid at a public school will do better than a poor kid at a public school. In every kind of category, a rich kid, on average, is likely to better than a poor kid. There is absolutely no reason those graphs shouldn't be equal. There is no good reason why there should not be equal numbers of rich and poor kids in the upper end of the ATAR distribution. It's not as if rich kids are more intelligent or work harder, they just have better resources. The inequality and how it disadvantages children before they even begin to pick up a pen or open a book is a crying shame.

[Hannibal]

No but it does illustrate we have plenty of money to spend as a nation if we really wanted to. Hell, even closing "loopholes" (they're flawed by design, see: mining tax, etc) would bring in a shitload of funding.

Polo dealt with the difference between fact and opinion enough for me not to add my own comment on it (i'd basically be restating it).

It's funny you say services there too since so much tax money goes towards providing said services for free or at low cost. Police, fire, post, safe food/medicines/water, health care, education, infrastructure. The rich have more so they pay more, its as simple as that.

It's quite simple, we need to fix the socioeconomic divides. I acknowledge they exist, i acknowledge wealthier homes are likely to produce better educational outcomes, which is why i advocate a more equal and fair distribution of wealth. I bought out the eugenics thing because it came of to me as elitist and suggesting that rich people are somehow genetically superior or have some innate superiority when really, the thing that set them aside from the pack, by-in large, was being born into a rich family.

One does not need swimming pools or an orchestra to be well educated. Pretty grounds or nice architecture isn't needed either. Depending on the nature of the extracirricular activities, they boil down to just not being all that important.

So a few escape while the rest have to fight for scraps? This isn't a satisfactory or fair condition. Also, keep in mind, before these kids pick up a pencil or open a book, their future has been somewhat predetermined by their economic background. Before they even attempt a scholarship test, their economic background has affected their prospects. It's no accident that even selective schools have a disproportionate amount of middle class/upper class children. It's not so easy as having academic talent and sitting a test when the very odds are stacked against you to do well in that test in the first place.

Ultimately, the root cause is (partially) socioeconomic factors. We will never fix this issue unless we fix the socioeconomic inequality in our society. You can tack on all the band-aids you want but those don't go to the root of the problem. Failing that, quota's should be introduced into these selective schools to ensure a more representative mix, not only that middle class/upper class parents are tutoring their kids into these places so they don't have to pay for a private school.

Why should there be a reason for them to exist? You say it like its a crucial element of our society that private schools have a reason to exist.

They provide a place where well of kids can hang out with each-other and be isolated from the rest. They're inherently exclusionary and elitist. Scholarships are but the scraps they hand out (not entirely out of altruism either, they may do it to boost their academic standing by poaching kids from other schools).

So would you prefer a country with only public schools, where high achieving students should be forced into their local schools because by creating schools for the intelligent/moderately wealthy it would be deemed 'unfair'? Either way in this debate, someone will lose. No private school's will be unfair for intelligent/moderately wealthy, while the current system is unfair to everyone else.

I would prefer standard public school's to increase their quality of education through more funding, and still maintain private schools so that no one is disadvantaged, it's only that some are advantaged.

[slothpomba]

So would you prefer a country with only public schools, where high achieving students should be forced into their local schools

Forced? You make it sound like a death sentence that they do not get swimming pools and hedges. If our public schools were truly up to scratch, what is the problem with everyone going to a public school? If our public schools had the proper funding to be good, why would you use the term 'forced'? It is possible to have good public schools and it can be achieved.

because by creating schools for the intelligent/moderately wealthy it would be deemed 'unfair'?

Yes, i do believe it is unfair that poorer children get a worse education. It is through no fault of their own but by sheer circumstance. Why should wealthier children recieve a better basic education? I have no problem with private schools having swimming pools or large halls, spend all the dough on that you want. What i do have a problem with is kids getting shafted simply because their parents don't have as much money.

The Oxford Dictionary defines fair as the following : "1. Treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination." I would say receiving a better education due to being rich is unequal and unfair, yes.

and still maintain private schools so that no one is disadvantaged, it's only that some are advantaged.

Do you not realise the extreme contradiction inherent in this sentence?