Why do grammar schools always do well?

[tigerclouds]

Hey guys,
This is a question that’s been lingering in my head for quite some time now. Every year it’s always the same schools that get the amazing ATARs and I’m curious to know why. What differentiates grammar schools from public schools? Is it better teaching? More resources? (This is excluding selective schools btw because obviously they’re gonna do well)
So yeah, if you know or even better if you’ve had experience at a grammar school, please enlighten me

[darkz]

Hey guys,
This is a question that’s been lingering in my head for quite some time now. Every year it’s always the same schools that get the amazing ATARs and I’m curious to know why. What differentiates grammar schools from public schools? Is it better teaching? More resources? (This is excluding selective schools btw because obviously they’re gonna do well)
So yeah, if you know or even better if you’ve had experience at a grammar school, please enlighten me

Well, firstly, there are obvious inequalities between private vs. public schools e.g. the resources, the quality of teaching, the ability to afford tutoring, or even the ability to afford basic necessities. For example, if you've got a student whose working every weeknight and the weekend to support themselves, then obviously their academics are going to be impacted greatly. Or perhaps if they have a turbulent family life which makes it difficult to study, or impossible to study. At private schools, the chances of there being students with huge difficulties is almost zero, since they're all pretty well off - that is not to say that everyone is like that.

In terms of the students, the top end (high 99s) is generally quite academically-oriented - this doesn't mean that people study 24/7, but it means that people will definitely put in a lot of work, which is comparatively much greater than public school students (I'm not saying that public school students are lazy, but rather there can be other obstacles to studying). Also, some people credit the success to scholarships, but in my year, while scholarship students did well, the majority of those who scored 99.95 were not scholarship students. With respect to teachers, even if you're at a private school, you can end up with bad teachers - not all teachers are good. Like, at my school, getting certain teachers was literally a death sentence as you wouldn't learn anything in their class.

Also, even among the private schools, there's a huge cultural difference at the top end. e.g. some of the private schools which are well resourced, have good teachers, and offer high-scaling subjects like Latin (often accredited to their success) don't do as well in comparison to other private schools.

[Stormbreaker-X]

They have more money and less issues to worry about. Think about it this way, they have parents who are quite well off (or maybe their parents have to work really hard for that amount of money) and since their parents can afford grammar/private schools this would mean that they would most likely tutoring as well. The culture and the people around you would by far make quite an impact on how you perform academically. Obvious there are really great public schools out there and not all public schools do bad (at my school there are quite a bunch of smart students and bad students) another point I would like to highlight is that they are better resourced. Most of the time it is the entry process that seperates students, a lot of private schools have academics as an entry criteria so therefore most students who enter are probably smart to begin with. Although I don't think facilities will much a great difference, those schools have quite a lot of new buildings and top notch equipment.


Now if you were determined enough, you can still make a chance to do well for yourself. Ask your parents to send you to tutoring (my parents make me go tutoring lol), I also buy plenty of practice exams for some subjects and I work hard. The worst thing about really bad publics schools that are really low ranked is that it gives you a false sense of security. You think you are smart because you were top of your class and you smashed many students, but the reality is that the state might be better than you think. Going to those schools you get to be around smart people and can compare yourself to them, I know people from top schools who do like 30+ practice exams in Vce and all. In the end if you want to do well you can if you put in the effort, but your parents got to agree to come on board. If tutoring is expensive, you can just buy practice exams and work on them yourself.
TR;DR
-Wealthier parents
-Better facilities
-Better teachers (most likely)
-More resources (you can still buy your own practice exams)
-Better classmates/stronger cohort
-The list goes on....

[milanander]

Something that hasn't been brought up yet - academically oriented students are also much more attracted to these schools. I know quite a number of people who go to private schools who do not come from financially well-off families, and are either on full/partial scholarship or their parents literally have to scrape together every cent, even go into debt so their kids can go to a good school. And these kids are under much more pressure to do well as to not waste their parents' efforts, and also many would be under the pressure to do well to go to a good university and get a good job to help their parents later in life (esp. immigrant families).

Of course, not saying what everyone has already brought up doesn't apply. But 'they have more money and less issues' is a very shallow way of looking at it. Regardless of what school you go to, it's still going to take an insane amount of effort to get a 99+ atar.

[whys]

Something that hasn't been brought up yet - academically oriented students are also much more attracted to these schools. I know quite a number of people who go to private schools who do not come from financially well-off families, and are either on full/partial scholarship or their parents literally have to scrape together every cent, even go into debt so their kids can go to a good school. And these kids are under much more pressure to do well as to not waste their parents' efforts, and also many would be under the pressure to do well to go to a good university and get a good job to help their parents later in life (esp. immigrant families).

Of course, not saying what everyone has already brought up doesn't apply. But 'they have more money and less issues' is a very shallow way of looking at it. Regardless of what school you go to, it's still going to take an insane amount of effort to get a 99+ atar.

100% agree. The pressure from immigrant parents is real, and there's also the aspect of not wanting to disappoint them or those around you who have such high expectations. I don't go to a grammar school and never have, but I know people who do, and contrary to popular belief, not all of these students come from very affluent backgrounds with no 'issues'. Obviously, there is a subset of the student population who do fit this criterion, but there are a significant number of students like me and you, or who aren't rich but can afford such schooling, or those who perhaps are on a scholarship, or like milander has said, struggle to pay for the fees but do so anyway for the education. This isn't to say that grammar schools are the only schools with academically oriented students - all types of students probably exist in most schools, albeit in differing proportions. I would say it is this academic mindset leads to them doing well, in some cases aided by 'amazing' teachers and resources.

In the end, no matter where you go, if you have the drive to succeed in your studies, then there is nothing stopping you from doing so - only hurdles you will find you can pass if you persist.

[tigerclouds]

Thank you for all your input guys. I think our education system needs a lot of work, a person's financial status really shouldn't dictate the quality of education they receive. It's interesting how it has a lot to do with one's mindset and social environment though. With the tutoring argument, I've heard that a lot of high-achievers did not take tutoring. Does tutoring really make a difference?

[Sine]

Thank you for all your input guys. I think our education system needs a lot of work, a person's financial status really shouldn't dictate the quality of education they receive. It's interesting how it has a lot to do with one's mindset and social environment though. With the tutoring argument, I've heard that a lot of high-achievers did not take tutoring. Does tutoring really make a difference?

Where have you heard that "a lot of high-achievers did not take tutoring"?

[Calebark]

I can't really add much more to the conversation, but just going to quickly comment a bit in regards to this bit.

(This is excluding selective schools btw because obviously they’re gonna do well)

Students from selective schools tend to be from a bit of a wealthier background. This means that some of the factors that make grammar schools tick (SES background being a big one) also apply to selective schools. I've put the below in a spoiler tag so I don't get too off-topic, but thought it was good to note that they aren't dissimilar 🐢

selective school stuff

The Index of Community Socio-educational Advantage (ICSEA) is a scale of socio-educational advantage that is computed for each school [...] ICSEA values are calculated on a scale which has a median of 1000 and a standard deviation of 100. ICSEA values typically range from approximately 500 (representing extremely educationally disadvantaged backgrounds) to about 1300 (representing schools with students with very educationally advantaged backgrounds). ACARA calculates an ICSEA value for all schools for which sufficient aggregate-level data is available.

source for data

ICSEA Values of VCE Selective Schools + distribution of parental wealth (sorted into quartiles)

Melbourne High School:



MacRobertson Girls High School:



Nossal High School:



Suzanne Cory High School:

[whys]

With the tutoring argument, I've heard that a lot of high-achievers did not take tutoring. Does tutoring really make a difference?

I disagree, I think the opposite is true. Almost everyone at my school does tutoring for at least 1 subject (most for multiple, and there are also people who have multiple tutors for one subject). Although there are quite a number of high-achievers that don't do tutoring, there is a very large proportion that does. This also correlates to the SES argument that those that go to grammar/private/selective schools are more likely to be in a financial position to afford tutoring. Whether tutoring actually makes a difference is a whole other story that might not be relevant to the topic at hand.

[Stormbreaker-X]

I agree that a person's financial status should decide if a person does well at school or not. Although I don't do to a grammar/private school, my parents give me as much opportunity as someone who goes there. My parents are quite strict and make me go tutoring for  most of my subjects. If your parents are committed enough and willing to splash some money on tutoring then you should still be able to do well, even if you go to a well below average school. Even if you can't afford tutoring then maybe buy some practice exams for like $60 and study from there. Tbh I don't think parents can be so bad to a point where they can't afford really basic stuff, it is really a matter of saving up a bit. Who agrees with me?

[undefined]

I can't really add much more to the conversation, but just going to quickly comment a bit in regards to this bit.

Students from selective schools tend to be from a bit of a wealthier background. This means that some of the factors that make grammar schools tick (SES background being a big one) also apply to selective schools. I've put the below in a spoiler tag so I don't get too off-topic, but thought it was good to note that they aren't dissimilar 🐢

selective school stuff

source for data

ICSEA Values of VCE Selective Schools + distribution of parental wealth (sorted into quartiles)

Melbourne High School:



MacRobertson Girls High School:



Nossal High School:



Suzanne Cory High School:

I don't believe this is due to the schools being selective, but rather the locations and socioeconomic nature of the suburbs they're located in. There's a trend where the closer towards the city you get, the higher the ICSEA value of the school. MHS and MGHS having the highest out of all selective schools and being the closest to the city, while the further out you get the lower the ICSEA value gets. You notice this trend too in NHS, SCHS, JMSS (1139) and EBSS (1144).

[ashmi]

I don't really have much to say on this but....

With the tutoring argument, I've heard that a lot of high-achievers did not take tutoring. Does tutoring really make a difference?

I disagree, I think the opposite is true. Almost everyone at my school does tutoring for at least 1 subject (most for multiple, and there are also people who have multiple tutors for one subject). Although there are quite a number of high-achievers that don't do tutoring, there is a very large proportion that does.

I must agree with whys on this bit. Nearly everyone at my school too does some form of tutoring, in fact, at my school, you would be part of a minority if you didn't get tutored in at least one subject. (By the way, I go to a government school and have never been to a private/grammar before. If someone does go to a private/grammar school and wants to share their experiences that would be great to hear!)

A good amount of high-achievers from my school or friends in general who tended to have higher ATARs did do some tutoring to help them get there. I mean, tutoring impacts those in different ways, could be both beneficial or an overall negative impact depending on the individual themselves (I've never been tutored before so I don't really know what the experience is like and if it would be helpful or not. Mainly basing this off observations of my friends here)
Quite a bit of it also comes from the social/physical environment/location of the school and SES (shoutout to Calebark for linking the ICSEA data! Found that quite useful to read ).

I agree that a person's financial status should decide if a person does well at school or not. Although I don't do to a grammar/private school, my parents give me as much opportunity as someone who goes there. My parents are quite strict and make me go tutoring for  most of my subjects. If your parents are committed enough and willing to splash some money on tutoring then you should still be able to do well, even if you go to a well below average school. Even if you can't afford tutoring then maybe buy some practice exams for like $60 and study from there. Tbh I don't think parents can be so bad to a point where they can't afford really basic stuff, it is really a matter of saving up a bit. Who agrees with me?

Spoiler

I don't know where to start with this comment. (I'm so sorry if I come off a bit mean I really don't mean it . This comment sort of hits home at the last bit)

I'm just going to say, sometimes things CAN get bad to the point where affording basic stuff becomes hard, even with careful savings. Life happens and sometimes things can become very hard for some people, whether it be financial issues to time investments. You never think that this is going to happen to you TILL it actually happens to you.
Next bit, the "if your parents are committed enough". Just because your parents are committed it won't do much if the individual themselves are not committed and even if they are, they need to be able to grow as a learner and if they aren't with tutoring, it's sort of defeats the purpose? (If the tutoring is targeted to the person themselves and done right, I'm pretty sure it will be super beneficial). Maybe even tutoring could be a substitute for parents that can't afford their children to go to a private school and as such resorts to this to make sure their child is getting a "quality" education? (or it could be used as a reassuring mechanism in a way)

I really wished no one was disadvantaged by their family's financial status because we have some beautiful, hard-working people out there, but sadly we do live in a system where little advantages here and there do build-up into this.

[whys]

I agree that a person's financial status should decide if a person does well at school or not. Although I don't do to a grammar/private school, my parents give me as much opportunity as someone who goes there. My parents are quite strict and make me go tutoring for  most of my subjects. If your parents are committed enough and willing to splash some money on tutoring then you should still be able to do well, even if you go to a well below average school. Even if you can't afford tutoring then maybe buy some practice exams for like $60 and study from there. Tbh I don't think parents can be so bad to a point where they can't afford really basic stuff, it is really a matter of saving up a bit. Who agrees with me?

I don't think many students are aware of the dire financial circumstances others around them may be facing. There is a significant population who are unable to afford extended tuition services for their children and private/grammar schooling. An unfortunate reality of the Australian schooling system and systems in many other countries is that affluence opens more doors in terms of education. Those in a higher income bracket have the opportunity to choose from a wider variety of schools compared to those who earn less (there is also the fact that these parents are more likely to emphasise the importance of academics, but this is a different story). This is not because these parents are 'bad', but because they have less choice regarding this matter. It is a widely held belief that financial status should not play a role in the quality of education, however, there has been no move to erase this sort of inequality from the education system, and I unfortunately doubt it will be changed in the near future. It is not a debate on how committed these parents are, it is the prioritisation of things like securing a house and ensuring that weekly expenses are paid to ensure these needs are met before they are able to even consider education. Although you may not be exposed to students in such situations, they definitely do exist, and in differing levels of financial potential. Saying it is a matter of just 'saving up a bit' may be a bit too much of an oversimplification of the pervasive difficulties faced by these families around Australia.

I hope this made sense

[angrybiscuit]

I agree that a person's financial status should decide if a person does well at school or not. Although I don't do to a grammar/private school, my parents give me as much opportunity as someone who goes there. My parents are quite strict and make me go tutoring for  most of my subjects. If your parents are committed enough and willing to splash some money on tutoring then you should still be able to do well, even if you go to a well below average school. Even if you can't afford tutoring then maybe buy some practice exams for like $60 and study from there. Tbh I don't think parents can be so bad to a point where they can't afford really basic stuff, it is really a matter of saving up a bit. Who agrees with me?

I very much agree with ashmi and whys. Life happens and even if other people can't envision a situation where even $60 practice exams is beyond financial reach, it happens and there are people who struggle with and are living with that. Most of us can't imagine that difficulty and we are very privileged. But there are people who have to choose between tutoring/books or basic needs and of course they will choose the latter.

Person's financial status should definitely not reflect an individual's academic performance but it unfortunately does. I know people who can afford tutoring for every single subject, of course, they will have a significant advantage over others who cannot afford it. Others can attend grammar schools with multitudes of resources but others have to settle with inadequately resourced schools. Is it fair that their education reflects on their parents' financial capabilities?... of course not, but that's what occurs. While tutoring/going to grammar or private school is not wrong, it is wrong to think that financial status should define an individual's academic abilities. I think that's what VCAA (heck the whole world and Australia) should work towards, results that reflect a student's true abilities regardless of their socio-economic background. But as whys said, that seems like a long stretch and is unlikely to occur anytime soon.

Sorry if it comes off so aggressive...

[Stormbreaker-X]

Sorry if my comments came out as a bit mean, I do understand that some people just have to prioritise the basics first and everything after. I am understand that sometimes exams costing a bit of money can be well out of reach for many parents, I am so sorry to those students in those situations and it is certainly not there fault. I always promised myself one day if I finish VCE and get a good study score, I will create resources for those who can't afford it. I understand not everyone is as fortunate as me/you/us and that is why atar notes exist we all help each other. My public school is an average one, but the neighbouring public schools are really bad. My school is around 200-ish and some schools around me are around 400-500+ YET some people there still score a study score of 50. It is possible to do well at any school, tbh you don't need money to do well if you are really committed and look around for free resources. One day when you guys finish school and do well will you promise to help out those who aren't fortunate? I want to write practice exams for the disadvantage kids.