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

[Hannibal]

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

Oh wow - LOL. I think I'm starting to understand why I wasn't placed in the main squad for debating .

[vox nihili]

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'?

You make it sound as though high-achieving students can't be found in public schools at the moment. That's a complete fallacy.

I went to a school with a median study score of 23, a score so low that only ten schools in the state did worse. Yet, despite that and despite the clear disadvantage that presented, our dux and I both managed to become "high-achievers". That's just one example, and a particularly convenient one to make. I completely resent the idea that public schools are bereft of talent, that's simply not true. That all high-achieving students end up in private schools is total rubbish.

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.

To be honest, private schools aren't fair for the moderately wealthy as it stands (though I would argue that "moderately wealthy" isn't always true). It's unfair for families to have to fork out 1000s of dollars every year to ensure that their children get a decent education. It's money they shouldn't have to spend.

Yeah, back to Finland. The schools are better than ours here and they're all public.

[Ronw2233]

This attitude may help explain research from Monash University which found public school students who left Year 12 with lower marks than students from independent schools overtook them once they were at university. Ian Dobson, one of the researchers on the 2005 Monash study of 12,500 first-year students, explains: "Private school students have an advantage at exam time in Year 12 because they have access to more resources ... This advantage evaporates when they reach university."

source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/public-and-private-schools-of-thought/story-e6frg8h6-1226808744361

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'? 

It's like you're saying that someone is 'deserving' of having better education just because they're rich. I just think it's harsh that money can determine how much educational resources a person can get when I personally think it's something that everyone should get equal access to.

[Hannibal]

source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/public-and-private-schools-of-thought/story-e6frg8h6-1226808744361
It's like you're saying that someone is 'deserving' of having better education just because they're rich. I just think it's harsh that money can determine how much educational resources a person can get when I personally think it's something that everyone should get equal access to.

It's a touchy subject, although unfortunately much can't be done about it. It would be awesome if everyone had an equal opportunity to access resources, although that's kind of unrealistic...

Steps to making education in Aus equal:
1. Eliminate all private schools (Easier said than done)
2. Eliminate all selective schools (^^^)
3. Increase funding for public schools
4. Increase difficulty in becoming qualified to be a teacher
5. Put a cap on the amount of resources a school can have (Detrimental IMO - even if it squares up the playing field)

It's not that I don't agree with your statements, because of course, everyone has the right to a quality education. But it's just simply unrealistic.

[vox nihili]

It's a touchy subject, although unfortunately much can't be done about it. It would be awesome if everyone had an equal opportunity to access resources, although that's kind of unrealistic...

Steps to making education in Aus equal:
1. Eliminate all private schools (Easier said than done)
2. Eliminate all selective schools (^^^)
3. Increase funding for public schools
4. Increase difficulty in becoming qualified to be a teacher
5. Put a cap on the amount of resources a school can have (Detrimental IMO - even if it squares up the playing field)

It's not that I don't agree with your statements, because of course, everyone has the right to a quality education. But it's just simply unrealistic.

• Nationalise the school system
• Move to a completely needs-based funding system
• Increase funding for education as a proportion of GDP
• Pay rises for teachers outstrip cost of living growth

It takes some time, but it's completely realistic.

[b^3]

It's a touchy subject, although unfortunately much can't be done about it. It would be awesome if everyone had an equal opportunity to access resources, although that's kind of unrealistic...

Steps to making education in Aus equal:
1. Eliminate all private schools (Easier said than done)
2. Eliminate all selective schools (^^^)
3. Increase funding for public schools
4. Increase difficulty in becoming qualified to be a teacher
5. Put a cap on the amount of resources a school can have (Detrimental IMO - even if it squares up the playing field)

It's not that I don't agree with your statements, because of course, everyone has the right to a quality education. But it's just simply unrealistic.

Something can be done about it though, as Mr.T-Rav has said above. Your whole argument relies on that we'd drop private schools down or get rid of them completely, rather than working to bring public schools back up. You're approaching this from the completely wrong direction. If anything by lifting public schools up with an overhaul of the system and teaching itself (changing how teaching is viewed as a whole and entice higher achievers to teaching, changing how education is viewed by certain classes when they are given a better opportunity, and again also what Mr.T-rav has said above), we would be working to tighten up the gap and bring public schools closer to private schools.

[JellyDonut]

1. the success and failures of schools extend past, and is far more complicated, than pure funding issues. we can see this when comparing the discrepancies among public schools and the outperforming of some state and catholic schools over private.
2. selective entry schools are an indispensable path for kids from low ses backgrounds to perform well academically.
3. private schools can and do provide an essential service to kids pursuing interests that, for financial reasons or whatever, cannot be pursued at a public school with limited resources and a nationalised school program

[pi]

pi's logic and solution (lacking a cost-benefit analysis, for now):
1. There are private and religious schools? Fine.
2. There are shitty public schools? Not fine.
3. But hang on, there are schools in the public sector like Balwyn, UHS and GWSC that are doing ok, why is that? Asians Fostered a good learning environment and wait, 2 have accelerated programs!
4. Oh boy, look at schools like Werribee Secondary, they introduced an accelerated program and now what? They're improving against the Western trend!
5. Wait on, aren't good schools like MHS and Mac.Rob essentially big accelerated programs? Yes they are!
6. Back to the issue of education, is every kid interested in doing well and getting a high-flying academic job? Nope, many prefer the labouring life that that's really good for them too!
7. So that means that not every kid in the shitty public schools are keen on high marks? You bet ya!
8. So then, if we had a class in every school that catered for the kids who wanted to do well, a class that was dynamic so that others could join based on their academic pursuits, a class where being there or not was based on academic record, would that make sense? Yeah, sounds like an accelerated program to me!
9. Rightio, but how would we get teachers? Well you see, we've all had our "good/motivated" teachers in our schools, they'd be the ones keen to teach in these programs, we may not even need to incentivise them with a pay rise!
10. Sure, but what about resources? An "accelerated program" central database that can store exams, notes etc etc could be an option that could use select teacher logins for access, makes sense and isn't expensive, teachers can pick what they like for their students from that quality database
11. So, you're saying that without touching the private school sector and by introducing an accelerated program into every school with motivated teachers that have access to a central quality database, we can fix the issue? No of course not, the real issue is a cultural thing, but I believe that this is a /good/ start, baby steps mate, baby steps.
12. Cheers, you free for coffee at Monash sometime? You bet I am, #monashmasterrace



inb4 this gets torn to shreds by you lot, I'm going back to reading about cardiology :3

[JellyDonut]

Which leads to another issue, a fair proportion of those who get into MHS/Macrob have been tutored specifically to get into those schools. Which again, puts parents with money at an advantage.

Google "Selective school entry tutoring" and look at all the services that comes up.

i don't deny that but to rid of them completely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. anecdotally, i know lots of people from poorer backgrounds make it because of the school.

[Professor Polonsky]

I'd like to note I am in general agreement with b3 and T-Rav above. Just one point I'd like to make though.

Nationalise the school system

Most of the school system - or even all of it, on certain levels - is publicly-managed. The secondary education sector is heavily regulated, including non-Government schools.

If by 'nationalise' you mean disallow non-Government schools, that's a terrible idea. Setting aside the issues of practicality, you'll essentially be dragging down an educational sector that's actually successful for no good reason, inhibit free practice of religion, and be shutting down schools that are deeply ingrained in the community.

-------

pi, without extra funds, the allocation of resources is a zero-sum game. You'll be accelerating students who want to succeed, that's great; and not expending as many resources on children who don't want to succeed, which in some (many? most?) cases is a good thing as well. My concern though is that you'll have kids who might not be strong enough academically to get into those programs, or do need that push and motivation to make it academically. Stuffing them in the under-resourced classes isn't likely to bring out the best in them.

[Hannibal]

I don't see a problem with private schools in Victoria, the level of public schooling is acceptable and those who are able to pay more should be able to.
It's like buying things for our own use; if people can afford to spend $300 on a pair of footy boots that are "better" than $50 ones (e.g. Better grip, better fitting, leather, etc.) then why not buy the good ones?

Agree with this. But obviously, Gary Ablett with $50 boots is going to perform better than me with $19283747565 boots. So if you are born into a poor family or live somewhere in the country, it all comes down to you. Sure, it's more difficult, but you can still achieve the same outcome - success.

[vox nihili]

As far as I see it, it's just as unfair that a family should be expected to pay for something like education that ought to be provided by the government. Where possible, education can and should be used as a tool to increase social mobility.

Private schools are an issue not only because of their inherent unfairness, but because they slow down the school system overall. By creating an elitist culture, whereby the quality of one's education is dependent on your parents' wealth and not talent, otherwise aspirational students are encouraged to give up because the challenge of competing against a much better resourced, much higher performing system is too great.

I'd like to note I am in general agreement with b3 and T-Rav above. Just one point I'd like to make though.

Most of the school system - or even all of it, on certain levels - is publicly-managed. The secondary education sector is heavily regulated, including non-Government schools.

If by 'nationalise' you mean disallow non-Government schools, that's a terrible idea. Setting aside the issues of practicality, you'll essentially be dragging down an educational sector that's actually successful for no good reason, inhibit free practice of religion, and be shutting down schools that are deeply ingrained in the community.

I don't mean to disallow government schools, but I don't see why a private system should receive any government funding. So nationalising is probably not the right term, sorry about that, but I mean that if you have a private system, it ought to be private and as such should not receive any funding at all from the government.

As far as how to deal with religiously affiliated schools, I'm not entirely sure to be honest. Personally, I think it's a ridiculous human right to suggest that people necessarily have access to religious education in a secular state. But let's not get into that one! haha. Realistically, it probably should be the government's responsibility to provide those options, though I don't see why that can't be achieved within the public system.

Agree with this. But obviously, Gary Ablett with $50 boots is going to perform better than me with $19283747565 boots. So if you are born into a poor family or live somewhere in the country, it all comes down to you. Sure, it's more difficult, but you can still achieve the same outcome - success.

Anecdotally it stacks up, but it doesn't stack up overall. You really have to be a Gary Ablett in a public school to reach anywhere at all.

[Professor Polonsky]

Agree with this. But obviously, Gary Ablett with $50 boots is going to perform better than me with $19283747565 boots. So if you are born into a poor family or live somewhere in the country, it all comes down to you. Sure, it's more difficult, but you can still achieve the same outcome - success.

That doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. We were talking about the correct public policy in regards to funding levels of schools. Your point is simply that some very strong students in 'bad' schools will outperform weaker students in 'great' schools.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you're an average - even below-average - student in a 'great' school, you're basically guaranteed an 85+ ATAR. That student at a public school might not even make it to VCE.

A lot of public school kids aren't reaching their academic potential. That's the issue that we have.

[vox nihili]

The simple fact of the matter is that if you're an average - even below-average - student in a 'great' school, you're basically guaranteed an 85+ ATAR. That student at a public school might not even make it to VCE.

A lot of public school kids aren't reaching their academic potential. That's the issue that we have.

Completely anecdotal, though the research backs it up. But at my school, there were two people in the whole time I was there to beat 98 (both of whom did in 2012 actually). There were a huge number of people bright enough to do so, who simply missed out.

[brenden]

Agree with this. But obviously, Gary Ablett with $50 boots is going to perform better than me with $19283747565 boots. So if you are born into a poor family or live somewhere in the country, it all comes down to you. Sure, it's more difficult, but you can still achieve the same outcome - success.

Yeah? Then get out of your private school and into your shitty local school and give it a go

It's a touchy subject, although unfortunately much can't be done about it. It would be awesome if everyone had an equal opportunity to access resources, although that's kind of unrealistic...

Steps to making education in Aus equal:
1. Eliminate all private schools (Easier said than done)
2. Eliminate all selective schools (^^^)
3. Increase funding for public schools
4. Increase difficulty in becoming qualified to be a teacher
5. Put a cap on the amount of resources a school can have (Detrimental IMO - even if it squares up the playing field)

It's not that I don't agree with your statements, because of course, everyone has the right to a quality education. But it's just simply unrealistic.

Why is it unrealistic? Please explain this statement.