Asians and selective schools

[brendan]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/selectives-are-just-public-school-lite-created-to-meet-needs-ofanxious-parents/2008/12/19/1229189883701.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cause-and-effects-of-coaching-syndrome/2008/12/19/1229189886267.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/asian-values-are-no-bad-thing-in-the-classroom/2008/12/12/1228585112676.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Let me first address this argument made by Lisa Pyror:
Far from supporting the broader public education system, the selective system is a drain upon it. Selective schools bleed talent from comprehensive schools just as badly as private schools bleed talent from public schools. Even worse, when wealthier parents choose the eugenic ghetto of selective education, the government still has to shell out just as much to them. At least when wealthier parents choose the class ghetto of private education they save the system a little money.

This is another variant of the an argument made by Stephen Lamb back in 2006:
There is a hothouse effect through pooling talented students. In such settings students may well benefit in terms of academic success. However, there is a huge cost to students in other schools. French scholars sometimes describe talented students in mixed settings as "pilots". They contribute to the academic climate in classrooms, contributing to discussions and being role models. Other children learn from them. If you remove these students, it can have a marked effect on learning for the remaining students. If selective schools drain other schools of their pilots then the children who remain may suffer from the absence of more highly able peers, and under-achieve relative to their potential. More selective schools may well depress mean achievement.

This is what the principals of MHS and MacRob High had to say about the above argument:
...[Stephen Lamb] seems to suggest that able students should carry responsibility for improving the academic performance of their peers. This is an invidious expectation, especially when many of our students report that their ability has often served to marginalise them in their previous schools.

And this is what Larissa Dubecki had to say about the argument:

Smart kids deserve our help, too

Larissa Dubecki
April 8, 2008

It's unfair to sacrifice bright students for a misguided ideology.

WE WEREN'T always so proud of our school, my MacRob buddies and I. Going to socials held by neighbouring boys' schools it was easier to say we went to St Catherine's or Merton Hall than to live Dorothy Parker's adage that boys don't make passes at girls who wear glasses (or who enjoy advanced classes).

But some necessary social obfuscation aside, it was pretty evident from the first week at MacRobertson Girls' High, a government school that accepts students from years 9 to 12 based on academic performance, that we'd landed on our sensibly shod feet in a place that was vastly different to the mostly government, mostly suburban, schools we had come from.

For me, the light-bulb moment was realising I no longer had to deliberately mess up my grammar and spelling to slip under the bullies' radar. It was also the not-so-thrilling realisation that if I wanted to be at the top of the class, I'd have to damn well work hard for it.

The Victorian Government last week announced the detail of a pre-election promise to build two more selective secondary schools in Melbourne in addition to MacRob and its boys' equivalent, Melbourne High. The two co-ed campuses will be built at a cost of $40 million in growth areas Berwick (for 1200 students) and Wyndham Vale (800 students), with plans to open for year 9 students in 2010.

Now, no one likes a smart-arse, and MacRob and Melbourne High aren't exactly popular among much of their state school fraternity. The usual ideology-driven objections have been raised over the plan for their co-ed clones. The accusation that they are elitist has been thrown down like an unanswerable slur.

It seems an incongruous accusation, given that we accept elitism in most other facets of life, including our education system. Private schools — and there's nothing more elitist than a good education being predicated on wealth — are an entrenched part of the system, but when it comes to giving a few hundred children a year an escape hatch from a system often ill-suited to their needs, suddenly it's a problem. Elitism is commendable when it comes to sport; no one accuses the Australian Institute of Sport of being somehow unfair to the rest of the population.

At the lower end of the academic spectrum, children with learning disabilities are catered for with special programs. But the students who happen to be bright and possibly, God forbid, enjoy learning, are being asked to submit themselves to classrooms in which the all-too-familiar scenario features harried teachers struggling to keep control over a disruptive minority. In all the debate there's precious little talk about the high-achieving students themselves.

There's plenty of concern for the students at the lower end of the spectrum; namely the fear that standards will drop without some mythical stabilising influence from the ones at the top.

We've seen plenty of newspaper articles on the subject with headlines such as "Don't let schools lose their best", like individual students are trophies. One Sydney academic has even argued against selective schools on the basis that they remove the pupils who provide a challenge to the teachers, an idea that would be worthy of the Comedy Festival if it wasn't simultaneously so bleak.

But while educationalists talk about the "pilot effect", in which higher-achieving students supposedly lead their classmates by being role models, it ignores the sad reality that plenty of high schools are dog-eat-dog worlds in which smarter children turn their talents to hiding their ability rather than celebrating it. At the local high school I survived for two miserable years, it was — how do I put this delicately? — perhaps not medically advisable to volunteer to lead class discussions.

Education Minister Bronwyn Pike also announced last week the raising of the cap from 3% to 5% on the number of students allowed to leave any individual school to attend a selective school. Critics say the increase will inflict further pain on garden-variety high schools, but the argument is based on the assumption that everyone who can go selective will take the option. In my experience, some sit the exam only to knock back a resulting offer. Others, mostly those with well-established peer networks, prefer to stay where they are, or are turned off at the prospect of a daily commute. Anyway, even if a small handful of students were to depart some schools, it would have far less impact than the increasingly common practice of internal streaming, in which schools cream off the top 25 or so students in each year level and put them in a specialist class.

Some students will thrive no matter where they go. Many won't. The advocates of a trickle-down education system are utterly naive. And utterly heartless when it comes to the sacrifice they're willing to make to "fix" the ailing government system. It's not the smart kids' job to try to turn it around. More often than not they'll just end up dumbing themselves down rather than raising the standards for everyone.

Using the bright children as the canaries in the mineshaft is all very good for the miners but it sucks for the canaries. I don't know what my life would have been like if I hadn't gone to a selective school. I'm pretty sure it would have been a lot different. And I'm glad that another few hundred children a year will have a chance to change their lives, too.

Larissa Dubecki is a staff writer.



Having read the 3 articles by the SMH, I can only say that it is dreadful reporting, mostly opinion dressed as fact.

[humph]

I'm surprised in that those three pieces were actually quite well written. I thought the first in particular was an excellent opinion piece.

The writer made an interesting point (in passing, admittedly) about how selective schools rob other public schools of decent students who might help raise other students' performances. And it's interesting how it's usually unquestioned to have the divide in public education between normal and selective public schools. But imagine if schools were divided further, so that there were schools that only catered to the brightest, schools who only catered to those just below the brightest, and so on until schools that only catered for the very mediocre. It's a horrible system reminiscent of something out of Brave New World, and it puts into perspective the effect of such segregration.

[brendan]

how selective schools rob other public schools of decent students who might help raise other students' performances.

I'm sorry but no one is robbing anything. You can't "rob" something you can't own. To suggest that students can be "robbed" is to say that they are mere chattels, to be bought and sold by other people.

Like Mr. Ludowyke, I find it highly insidious that able students should be forced to carry burden of improving the academic performance of their less able peers, especially when many able students report that their ability has often served to marginalise them in non-select schools.

I was notably furious when I first found out the argument you made was used to justify the 3% rule for entry into MHS and MacRob which effectively denied me year 9 entry.

[brendan]

Adele Horin makes a good point when she says that:

"Many Australians have no qualms about the sports stars' lost childhoods but are deeply suspicious and disapproving of the effort so many Asian children put into their studies."

I think its mostly jealousy. A lot of people are so authoritarian and jealous that they don’t like the fact that another child may outperform their own, particularly when that other child comes from a background different to their own.

[brendan]

there were schools that only catered to the brightest, schools who only catered to those just below the brightest, and so on until schools that only catered for the very mediocre.

i'm pretty sure that classrooms are often set up like that, by the very fact that it a teacher can't give attention to the educational needs of students, when you have a class with a huge variation in ability.

[excal]

Adele Horin makes a good point when she says that:

Whoops.

[brendan]

Looks like Andrew Bolt picked up on one of the articles: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/keep_it_on_culture/

A response to Lisa Pryor's op-ed:
http://michaelwest.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/in-defence-of-selective-schools/

[ShadowSong]

In my view, I think selective schools have their own pros and cons in the education system. For example, a pro would be that the bright students would be put together and therefore benefit. How you might ask? Well, the general pressure that the students would get from knowing that they are among the smartest in the state will create a tense atmosphere. Each and every student who places academic studies would thrive and push themselves to their best potential under such circumstances. This is because they would be competing against peers who have proved themselves to be as intelligent (academic wise) as they are or even more so. In doing this, the brightest would be nurtured and realised, as opposed to the original school community they come from. Saying that, I am not denouncing any school system but rather implying that selective schools have a system that works towards creating a better cohort of students.

A con to the education system is ofcourse segregation of the so-called students. Because these selective schools exist, there would be a gap between the standards of the students.

As for asian standards, I agree with the above posts. Jealousy, envy and hypocrisy plays an important role in Australian points of views. Most Australians would not place academia as first but sport. As a nation that glorifies sports like cricket, AFL, etc; it is no surprise. Asian parents however, see things differently. They see education as the golden road to success. The key to a good job and earning good money. Thats the reason why asian parents would spend incredible amounts of money into preparing their students for places at selective schools, entrance exams and university entry.

The Australian parents who think the asian majority in selective schools, high scorers in results are stealing their children's chance are not without their point. It is true, asian parents push their children to their limits. But for what? It is for their future. Asian parents are playing a gamble when they utilise all that money for their children. Their children respond by honoring them and try their best so they do not fail them. That is what strives many asian students. Their parents sacrificed (metaphorically) themselves for their child's future.

So in the case of Quinghua Pei, the father who attempted to bribe a teacher, what he did was wrong but not without cause. He did it so his child could have a chance at a better education. Though unethical and illegal, (im betting he knew the risks) he still tried to give his child the best.

What other people have to say about selective schools and asian standards would probably make sense as well. Different people have different opinions. Also, people of differing background and ethicnity have their own priorities and way of thinking. What is best for their child in one's mind would be different in another's. All I can say is that the crucial and most important part of a student's education is the student itself. It is up to the student to perform to his or hers best. Not the parent's obligation, not the teachers and tutors. But the student.

[brendan]

This issue stretches all the way back to 2002:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/19/1019020708130.html

[brendan]

Expose your children to the bogan element like I wasn't
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24831342-20261,00.html

[Eriny]

I don't really have a problem with segregating students with different abilities. It means that the teachers don't have to teach to a broad level of 'talent' so to speak, which makes it easier to figure out what the class as a whole needs to learn and the pace of the lessons, etc. Although it is really true that even having one brilliant student in a class of mediocre students can lift the total standard quite profoundly, but usually the brilliant student is dragged somewhat. This is not really the best case scenario when this student's future (with uni entry and so on) is at stake.

I do have a problem, though, with giant gaps in funding. Schools with lower performing students need resources just as much as the high performing schools, or else they're never going to 'catch-up' academically.

Perheps another solution is to have a small class with a range of abilities so that lower students have the full benefit of peer influence and the brilliant student/s can have enough individual attention of the teacher to avoid being dragged. I would even dare to guess that small classes make all students better off than segregated classes, especially when there is a few outstanding students, as opposed to only one (and you don't really get the Brave New World effect).

[Ken]

^ What exactly is the Brave New World effect?

[brendan]

I doubt that high ability students would want to be in a class with lower ability students even if the class was small.Particularly if these same low ability students were disruptive or violent.

I think there are many theoretical analyses that show that in the existence of peer effects, people would always want to be in a class with people of higher ability then they are, and so they begin to sort themselves across schools such that people of like ability end up together. There need not be any central planner dictating where each student goes either. It's just by individuals voting with their feet.

The Australian parents who think the asian majority in selective schools, high scorers in results are stealing their children's chance are not without their point.

 No one is stealing anything. You can't steal something you don't own in the first place. It's an argument that just shows their jealousy and anxiety that their poor little Timmy might not be competitive enough.

[brendan]

Nerd heaven - why some of the gifted want to be shifted
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/nerd-heaven--why-the-gifted-want-to-move/2008/03/31/1206850810821.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

[Eriny]

^ What exactly is the Brave New World effect?

In Brave New World, people were divided into five 'catagories' or castes or whatever defined by intellectual and physical ability from birth onwards, from highest (alpha) to the lowest (elipsons). What catagory you belong in defines how you are educated, what you will do in life and what your expectations for your life will be. It's hyperbolous in this situation, but it is a relevant idea.