Should Selective Public Schools Be Grouped Separately to Regular Public Schools?

Trying2SaveABuck on 24/07/2023 - 09:21
Last edited 24/07/2023 - 12:57 by 1 other user

Sources:

Private v Public: do private primary schools make a difference to our kids?

Are private schools better than public schools?

Public v private: an education system that’s created ‘societal apartheid’

More parents choose private schools for their kids, particularly on city’s fringe

The Private Schools Worth Paying Big Bucks For

Private vs Public schooling debate gets a fair bit of attention.

I have read in a few places public schools can out-perform private however when you dig slightly deeper you realise 'these public schools' are actually 'selective' schools Melbourne High, Suzanne Cory etc (i live in Melbourne)

Thus you essentially 'ruin' any comparison because you are taking generally the best public students against the entire private student cohort.

My Question to OzBargain is should selective public schools be classed as a separate category when comparing them to private schools ie Public, Private, Public 'selective'? - I ask this question because the Data can be misleading?

I personally think selective public schools should not exist but I might be in the minority….

Note: I have no dog in this fight I went to a public school (non selective) and have no 'school aged' children.

Poll Options

64
Yes selective public schools should be separate to regular public in the data
19
No selective schools should be grouped together in the data with all public schools

Education & Work

Comments

87percent on 24/07/2023 - 09:27

+2

why would you care if you have no "dog in the fight"?
- Trying2SaveABuck on 24/07/2023 - 09:31
  
  +4
  
  i have children that will one day be school aged
  
  i pay taxes i dont think the elite public schools should be funded better then other public schools becuz they get better performance due to screening out kids who might be less gifted
  
  it further creates elitism in our society which we already seem to have too much of
  
  my single opinion doesnt 'actually' matter only the collective thus i asked the question
  
  data and research needs to be an accurate reflection of society and facts otherwise nothing will ever improve
  
  happy to be told it is fine to have them pooled in the data but i am interested to know
  - [Deactivated] on 02/08/2023 - 08:53
    
    I have no dog in this fight I went to a public school (non selective) and have no 'school aged' children.
    
    i have children that will one day be school aged
    
    Although technically correct, initial declaration could have been perceived differently.
- Protractor on 24/07/2023 - 09:50
  
  -2
  
  Funny that
  
  Isn't that like a non voter gobbing off about politics?
  - Trying2SaveABuck on 24/07/2023 - 10:02
    
    Isn't that like a non voter gobbing off about politics?
    
    interesting, depends on why the person didnt vote
    
    if they didnt vote becuz they didnt care then i'd agree
    
    if they didnt vote becuz they simple felt all parties were equally undeserving of ones vote then no
    - Protractor on 24/07/2023 - 10:45
      
      +3
      
      That's called apathy either way. You don't change a broken system by opting out.
  - pharkurnell on 24/07/2023 - 10:13
    
    +1
    
    Maybe the non voter realized that voting gets you nowhere and gave up…
    
    Just like the public/private school arguments
    - Protractor on 24/07/2023 - 10:37
      
      Doesn't represent any validity in their principles though does it?
  - Nillionaire on 24/07/2023 - 14:34
    
    I can't vote in US elections but I still talk about US politics
    - Protractor on 24/07/2023 - 15:14
      
      +1
      
      I'm talking about Australian politics.
      
      Nothing on earth can America from itself. It's become a popcorn society run by gangsters right to the top. It's relevant to democracy as Hanson is to MENSA high achievers
- payless69 on 24/07/2023 - 09:56
  
  -1
  
  Anybody ever spent money at Gerry will remember his dog…
Vulgar on 24/07/2023 - 09:43

+3

If you compare public schools (and exclude selective schools) with private schools, private schools will always come out on top because you just cut out the highest acadaemically performing section of the public school system. It is an unfair comparison.

That being you said, you just stated that public schools 'can' outperform private school in a few places rather than asking whether average performance in public schools is better or worse than the average performance of private schools. I'd say the latter is a more important question.

Not sure why you're opposed to selective schools, I'd say it's better to give parents and students more choice. However, I might be biased as I went to a selective school.
- Protractor on 24/07/2023 - 10:02
  
  "Not sure why you're opposed to selective schools" Maybe OP would prefer other commenters leak out his motivations?
  
  Moral ventriloquism.
mrkorrupt on 24/07/2023 - 09:59

+5

a lot of private schools are selective as well, many kick out under performing students by year 9
- Trying2SaveABuck on 24/07/2023 - 10:01
  
  +1
  
  a lot of private schools are selective as well, many kick out under performing students by year 9
  
  i didnt know that…. perhaps the data needs to collect that as well, as those students i assume end up somewhere
  - teacherer on 24/07/2023 - 10:06
    
    you didn't know private schools kick out under-performing students?
    - Trying2SaveABuck on 24/07/2023 - 10:13
      
      +1
      
      you didn't know private schools kick out under-performing students?
      
      no i didnt know that - i never went to a private school is this common?
      - teacherer on 24/07/2023 - 10:23
        
        +2
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: It's extremely common, generally they don't even need a reason to ask a student to leave. It happens in public schools also though public students are more protected so requires certain reframing of the rules and/or situation.
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 24/07/2023 - 10:25
        
        @teacherer:
        
        It's extremely common, generally they don't even need a reason to ask a student to leave. It happens in public schools also though public students are more protected so requires certain reframing of the rules and/or situation.
        
        this is why i post these polls i always learn something
        
        thanks for letting me know
      - pharkurnell on 24/07/2023 - 10:23
        
        +1
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: Same here … I wasn't on that side of the rail line.
        
        so thats how they keep such high ratios of success…
        
        Protractor on 24/07/2023 - 10:38
        
        @pharkurnell: Then we should eat the rich
        
        coffeeinmyveins on 24/07/2023 - 11:19
        
        +4
        
        @pharkurnell:
        
        so thats how they keep such high ratios of success…
        
        That and if you charge $50k for tuition the only people who can afford it are those that are obviously well off and have access to more resources than the average person. Tutors, after school courses, the fact that they live happy lives (more holidays, better toys, better food etc) makes for a better education.
  - cuteseal on 24/07/2023 - 14:13
    
    Or if not kick out, then they encourage them to pursue VCAL instead of VCE.
    In my kid's (private) school they offer both streams.
    
    I've also heard of students doing opting to do unscored VCE as well - not sure how those affect the school rankings.
- morse on 25/07/2023 - 04:32
  
  +1
  
  They have to be pretty significantly underperforming and/or have some behavioural challenges, and even still it will depend how connected their parents are. A lot also have a pathway for none academic kids where they don’t receive an ATAR and go through a vocational pathway so don’t appear in results, so don’t necessarily kick them out.
Lord Fart Bucket on 24/07/2023 - 11:06

+3

Yes, they should be treated differently. For one, they should not receive ANY government funding.
- coffeeinmyveins on 24/07/2023 - 11:18
  
  +3
  
  100000000000% this. It's an absolute farce the amount of money these BUSINESSES get from the government.
  - ozhunter on 24/07/2023 - 16:43
    
    -4
    
    100000000001% not this, lol.
    
    They should be giving more to private schools.
    
    According to data from the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, the government provides about $14,000 in funding per public school student.
    
    Private schools receive less government funding per student – about $12,000 for Catholic school students and $10,000 for Independent (or other non-government) schools.
    - coffeeinmyveins on 24/07/2023 - 16:48
      
      +6
      
      I love how you conveniently leave off the caveat in the next sentence on the ABC post you quoted (which you didn't provide) that totally negates what you're saying and proves you have no idea what you're talking about.
      
      here it is for you . "However, private schools charge additional fees on top of that."
      
      I can quote things too!
      
      "The funding increase for Catholic and Independent schools since 2009 was three times that for public schools. Since 2009, Commonwealth and state government funding per student, adjusted for inflation, increased by $830 per student in public schools compared to $2,839 per student in Independent and $2,490 per student in Catholic schools"
      Source: ACARA, National Report on Schooling data portal
      
      So not only do private schools charge outrageous tuition fees (the VP and P have to drive the latest BMW 6 series, you know) but they have received a massive marked increase of funding from the government compared to public schools.
      
      I wonder what the increase in private tuition has been in the last few decades. I'm sure it's not surprising how much money these businesses are not only charging their customers but then taking massive handouts from taxpayers to build another tennis court, have another private school bus or pay their upper echelon staff massive salaries.
      - ozhunter on 24/07/2023 - 17:07
        
        -2
        
        @coffeeinmyveins:
        
        I love how you conveniently leave off the caveat in the next sentence on the ABC post you quoted (which you didn't provide) that totally negates what you're saying and proves you have no idea what you're talking about.
        
        What caveat? Link was in the OP.
        
        here it is for you(abc.net.au) . "However, private schools charge additional fees on top of that."
        
        So what? Even if they charge double tomorrow, so what?
        
        "The funding increase for Catholic and Independent schools since 2009 was three times that for public schools. Since 2009, Commonwealth and state government funding per student, adjusted for inflation, increased by $830 per student in public schools compared to $2,839 per student in Independent and $2,490 per student in Catholic schools"
        Source: ACARA, National Report on Schooling data portal
        
        So you're saying even with the increase, students at public schools still get more funding.
        
        So not only do private schools charge outrageous tuition fees (the VP and P have to drive the latest BMW 6 series, you know) but they have received a massive marked increase of funding from the government compared to public schools
        
        And? Don't send your kids there if you don't think it is worth it.
        
        but they have received a massive marked increase of funding from the government compared to public schools
        
        Still less than public school students.
        
        coffeeinmyveins on 25/07/2023 - 08:00
        
        @ozhunter: You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
        
        Why should these private businesses (sorry, schools) get ANY government funding when they are charging outrageous amounts of private tuition? Why am I, as a taxpayer, subsidising a new tennis court of the pricinpals BMW 6 series?
        
        Don't bother trying to answer, you clearly have your head in the clouds.
        
        azero on 25/07/2023 - 13:06
        
        @coffeeinmyveins: WTF ??? Why does the government pay for private schools ?
        
        Even the cheaper ones charge at least 2k per month per student. So if the government pay more per head for private, why the F do they still charge a tuition ?
        
        Only reason I could think of private school funding is - kids of all the people that makes those decisions goes to private schools.
        
        coffeeinmyveins on 26/07/2023 - 09:19
        
        -1
        
        @azero:
        
        WTF ??? Why does the government pay for private schools ?
        
        Same reason governments pay businesses by reducing their tax or allowing dodgy practices. They have mates.
        
        Why charge a parent $2k a month when you can charge the same parent $2k but get $1500 from the government? :)
        
        ozhunter on 25/07/2023 - 15:15
        
        -1
        
        @coffeeinmyveins:
        
        Why should these private businesses (sorry, schools) get ANY government funding
        
        Same reason any other students get funding towards their education. If a group of parents want to pay more out of their own money for additional facilities or for the school to be religious-based, then so what; as long as they are meeting the academic standard.
        
        Why am I, as a taxpayer, subsidising a new tennis court of the pricinpals BMW 6 series?
        
        Just sounds like pure jealousy at this point. Who cares what car they drive.
        
        coffeeinmyveins on 26/07/2023 - 09:22
        
        -1
        
        @ozhunter:
        
        Just sounds like pure jealousy at this point. Who cares what car they drive.
        
        you really don't get the point, do you.
        
        Wouldn't that money be better spent on the public school sector where 1/4 students are living in poverty and don't have the same access to education because of poor nutrition etc that others have? At the same time you have private school kids being ferried around in privately owned buses and getting the latest and greatest education opportunities, massive swimming pools, tennis courts etc.
        
        don't let facts get in the way of your love for private schools and disdain for public.
        
        ozhunter on 26/07/2023 - 10:41
        
        @coffeeinmyveins:
        
        you really don't get the point, do you.
        
        Seems like it's you who can't understand.
        
        r where 1/4 students are living in poverty
        
        What's this got to do with it?
        
        Public school students already get more funding, and you are still complaining. If public schools need more funding, do something else like increasing taxes(where all rich people contribute if you want to target the rich and not just those who have school-aged children), or from public student parents(excluding the lower income parents).
        
        Don't penalise parents who are willing to prioritize their child's education or care more about it than having that holiday or new car. Don't penalise them even more for wanting a school with a religious upbringing(possible the real issue)
        
        Maybe the gov could privatise schooling. Could save millions/billions.
- Almost Banned on 24/07/2023 - 11:52
  
  +4
  
  You really don't want selective public schools to get government funding?
  Bit harsh.
  As for private schools getting public funding, it is no different to private hospitals getting government funding (without the heavily publicly subsidised insurance sector). Our society judges education to be a public good, the users of those services (and their parents) pay taxes, they are entitled to education and to have some support for doing so.
  What should really happen is that every school aged child gets an education voucher to use wherever they wish - with suitable loadings to address issues of disadvantage.
  If families want to use that credit at the local public school, great. If not, they can take their voucher wherever suits them
  That way parents get the say in where their kids get educated, and not the bureaucrats that draw school boundaries.
  - mskeggs on 24/07/2023 - 12:00
    
    +7
    
    Exactly, both private schools and private hospitals should receive no government funding and consumers should have full discretion on whether they choose the service. Not being influenced by government subsidies.
    
    The additional funding freed up can be directed to public schools and hospitals allowing their services to be improved for everyone.
    Also, no need for a cumbersome voucher system with such a simple set up.
    - Almost Banned on 24/07/2023 - 14:18
      
      Firstly, that would collapse both the education and health sectors, while screwing over kids and parents..
      Secondly, rewarding failing systems with more money never produces success, it only gets you more expensive failure.
      - star-ggg on 24/07/2023 - 14:53
        
        @Almost Banned: The main justification for funding private schools is so they will reduce access costs to allow in more families who couldn't afford otherwise. So why are we throwing money at these families/kids that fail to get in without the funding? By your statement, without the extra $$ they would fail and even if we give them more $$ they're going to fail anyway.
        
        Almost Banned on 24/07/2023 - 16:01
        
        +1
        
        @star-ggg: No it isn't.
        There are historical reasons for funding private schools but primarily it is because it was considered by parents that education is a public good, the families of kids in private schools pay taxes too, and they deserved some support for their kids' education because it saved the public school system the cost of educating them and for many families was a key way they got something back from their taxes.
        Total government funding for public schools averages out at about $16k per student. Total government funding for private schools averages out at about $11k per student. The government saves $5k per kid in private school which it can use for other things. Public schools are in fact being subsidised by private schools and their families already..
        Frankly all the evidence shows that government funding anything simply makes it more expensive and less effective. At least with private schooling there is competition between schools which reduces the latter issue.
        
        star-ggg on 24/07/2023 - 16:27
        
        +1
        
        @Almost Banned: I disagree with the accounting method you use for education. Education in a society is not simply a cost burden but an investment for the future economy. In that case we should be looking at the ROI on per $ spent. How much better are the education outcomes for a student already funded by $20k/year with $11k on top vs a student with $0/year + $16k? If had 16k to invest every year for 12 years, I'd rather invest it all in something with higher returns than keep $5k in cash and $11k with lower returns.
        
        Almost Banned on 24/07/2023 - 20:05
        
        @star-ggg: You are conflating two different funding sources plus assuming that private schools all charge $20k pa on top of what they get from the govt. Some are much more - and many are much less.
        You also assume that there aren't additional parent-paid costs of public schools.
        Many private schools are low-fee and draw from average income earners who simply want a school with an academic focus, or a spiritual ethos, or just aren't the failing local school.
        You also mistakenly think that $5k saved by govt is simply just sitting somewhere in cash.
        In fact, while it is very difficult to find educational outcomes private v public there is evidence that suggests that private schools retain more students to Yr 12, and have higher scores.
        Achieving both of those things while taking less government money seems to be the best public ROI.
        
        star-ggg on 24/07/2023 - 21:40
        
        @Almost Banned: Conflating? You yourself said the money going to private schools was for to save the kids' cost from them going public. I did the comparison like for like same as your example.
        
        Yes there are parent-paid costs for public schools but the school fees are nowhere near the amounts private schools charge. For extra-curricular activities, private schools charge extra for those as well.
        
        If a school is charging such a low fee that a large proportion of its essential funding comes from the government then surely it makes economic sense to integrate it into the existing public school system. That small proportion parents are paying is just going towards keeping separate pieces of infrastructure running with all the administrative overheads.
        
        No, I am not assuming the $5k sits in cash, but since we are comparing returns we must use the same base unit which in this case is educational outcomes. If you want to expand out to a broad economic sense and argue the 5k can be better ROI elsewhere then economic theory says you should be investing all $16k/yr/student into the higher return investment. At the end of the day, if we are budgeting 16k/year/student for education then the better ROI is investing 16k into the student with $0 capital to begin with.
- Protractor on 24/07/2023 - 15:30
  
  +2
  
  You can add all religious groups to that list of parasites on the govt teat. Specifically ,how dare the LNP go after welfare recipients via Robodebt, while the Christain right controls our national destiny and sucks our coffers like vampires.
  The Catholic Church should have been first to go when they were exposed as a child abuser (and covering it up) culture
mskeggs on 24/07/2023 - 11:57

+2

The local Grammar school gives free or heavily discounted fees to very high scoring academically gifted students so that their overall results stay high when they accept full fee paying ‘troublesome’ students.

Should private schools trying to inflate their results in this way also be separated?

Is there more to selecting a school than inter-school academic league tables (I’ll leave that as a rhetorical question).
mtr on 24/07/2023 - 12:00

+1

when you dig slightly deeper you realise 'these public schools' are actually 'selective' schools Melbourne High, Suzanne Cory etc (i live in Melbourne)

You need to dig deeper still, you're not looking at the right data.

Generally, to keep it simple, you could consider just two inputs and get a pretty good idea of the quality of school. Luckily you can see them both on the mygov website.
1. what is the breakdown of the parents' income? This is available on the myGov website, just go to https://www.myschool.edu.au/ and search for any school. The breakdown gives you how many of the students' parents are in each of the quartiles.
2. How do the students' NAPLAN scores change from Year 7 to Year 9 compared to the national average (this is available in the NAPLAN tab).

To compare two schools:
- Find two schools with a similar parental income breakdowns.
- Compare their NAPL:AN growth from Year 7 to Year 9

This is obviously an over-simplification, but it tells you something meaningful. Just looking at outcomes more or less just tells you what postcode the school is in
- bargaino on 24/07/2023 - 18:17
  
  parents' income? This is available on the myGov website
  
  This is completely false, but unfortunately a common error. Please stop propagating it!
  
  Parental income and wealth are NOT a factor in the "Socio-Educational Advantage" score shown in the quartiles.
  
  "Key factors in students’ family backgrounds (parents' occupation, school education and non-school education) have an influence on students' educational outcomes at school. Data on these factors, as well as the Aboriginal status of students and geographic location of the school, is utilised in the calculation of the index. "
  
  https://www.myschool.edu.au/media/1900/guide-to-understandin…
  - mtr on 24/07/2023 - 21:53
    
    Maybe save the bold font and exclamation mark for something where you know what you're talking about. If you read the technical paper on how ICSEA is calculated, the very first two variables considered are:
    
    Percentage of people with annual
    household income between $13,000 and
    $20,799
    Percentage of people with annual
    household income greater than $52,000
    
    Other variables considered such as unemployment and lack of internet connection are also obviously highly correlated with income.
    
    Is it income alone? No. Which is why I gave the caveat that it was an oversimplification. But income is a better single point proxy than anything else that is readily available or understood by people not in education, so it is a pretty good one to use in general discourse.
    - bargaino on 25/07/2023 - 00:11
      
      You stated "the breakdown of the parents' income? This is available on the myGov website, … parents are in each of the quartiles."
      That is completely false. The authority does not even collect parent income data.
      People have been using this false claim for political purposes, to support the claim that selective schools are full of rich kids. I cannot speak for your state, but one only needs to look in the carpark during parent-teacher meetings, and compare to the private school down the road. Toyotas here, BMW and Porsche there, despite the lower ICSEA.
      It works on parental education level and occupation class (blue/white collar), as well as community data.
      
      the very first two variables considered are:
      
      First, those are not parental incomes, but community ones. Again, they do not have parental income data.
      And those community SEIFA variables are not very relevant for a school that draws students from all over the city. I've seen a map of student addresses, and it was surprisingly evenly spread.
      
      Those in the top quartile include families where the parents are tertiary-educated, and in a job such as teaching or nursing. Well-paid FIFO tradies or professional sportsmen are in the lower quartiles. It is not about money.
      - mtr on 25/07/2023 - 00:38
        
        @bargaino: OK, so first of all I have to say I really appreciate the patient response given I was somewhat snarky above. That's appreciated, and I will try to respond in kind.
        
        People have been using this false claim for political purposes, to support the claim that selective schools are full of rich kids. I cannot speak for your state, but one only needs to look in the carpark during parent-teacher meetings, and compare to the private school down the road. Toyotas here, BMW and Porsche there, despite the lower ICSEA.
        
        OK, this isn't really a narrative in Victoria. If it is in Perth, I agree, it's a bollocks narrative. Here selective school places are overwhelmingly won by students from LBOTE backgrounds and therefore I don't think anyone would consider them posh (at least I don't think they would?)
        
        It works on parental education level and occupation class (blue/white collar)
        
        Yes, but only as a partial factor alongside income, unemployment, internet access and so on.
        
        First, those are not parental incomes, but community ones. Again, they do not have parental income data.
        And those community SEIFA variables are not very relevant for a school that draws students from all over the city. I've seen a map of student addresses, and it was surprisingly evenly spread.
        
        You're misinterpreting what is meant here by community. I would refer you to point 2 of "Calculating school ICSEA values" in my linked document (bottom of page 6). We're talking about a "community" of 200-odd houses identified per student. So while, yes, not technically the parents, from a statistical perspective effectively equivalent. Those students coming from further out would be counted as students from further out.
        
        To be quite clear here, two schools on the same street can have very different scores for the income-related factors of ICSEA. It is not measuring the income of the community around the school.
        
        Those in the top quartile include families where the parents are tertiary-educated, and in a job such as teaching or nursing. Well-paid FIFO tradies or professional sportsmen are in the lower quartiles. It is not about money.
        
        Again, please read the document I linked. You are choosing to greatly over-emphasise a couple of factors that are not as strongly correlated to income (though I would point out they are still correlated). You are ignoring the multiple that are income-based or strongly correlated to it. Neither you nor I have no way of knowing whether a teacher's family would be in the top quartile or a tradie's in the bottom. It depends on many other factors.
Shadowsfury on 24/07/2023 - 12:45

I'm obviously biased as I went to Melbourne High but I think it was a good thing.

I could definitely have seen myself end up worse off given the high school(s) I was in immediately prior - education was definitely not the priority at those out eastern suburb schools. At that age I can see I would have easily ended up having that rub off on me.

As for funding, I don't believe select entry schools get any more or less than the inequity already existing in the more general public vs private debate.

School fees were still optional just like other public schools, even though they were higher than what you might find at a regular suburban school. There was probably a bigger focus on alumni giving/funding drives than a regular public school might have though.
ForkSnorter on 24/07/2023 - 13:25

+1

Unrelated, but I'd never put kids in a private school. The idea is just repulsive to me. The idea that the government would seek to divert more funds to private schools than public schools is also repulsive to me. I treasure my memories of public school education, including the boy who vomited on the teacher, the boy and girl who had a full-on fist fight during class, the 2 lovers who practically had sex 6 hours a day on the concrete without anyone intervening, the boy who always had sticks and bird nests in his hair, and many more treasured memories. These experiences are what builds an interesting life. I also think mingling with the most financially challenged members of society is at least as important as mingling with the most successful members of society. If you're gifted or intelligent, you will get ahead regardless of which school you go to. In the end we all take the same tests, and anyone who excels is essentially self-taught. I've never encountered a teacher who could explain something better than a well-written textbook.
- CrowReally on 24/07/2023 - 15:15
  
  +1
  
  and anyone who excels is essentially self-taught. I've never encountered a teacher who could explain something better than a well-written textbook
  
  Is there any proof of this idea or did you just like the sounds the words made as you said them?
  
  Oh wait, you're the "anecdotal evidence of whether exercise is good for you" person. Nevermind, I don't need an answer.
  - ForkSnorter on 24/07/2023 - 16:41
    
    Perhaps it is true for me, but not true for some people who learn better with oral instruction. Not everyone is the same.
    
    But people who are quick learners or have a knack for learning will learn regardless of the quality of their teachers. This has been true throughout history. Otherwise, there would not have been such rapid scientific, industrial and social progress over the past 400 years, where each generation has leapfrogged over the previous generation.
    
    By the way, there is nothing wrong with holding an opinion/belief. There isn't scientific evidence supporting everyone's beliefs. I also believe massage can relieve all kinds of joint pain, but believe it or not this is not supported by reliable evidence. I imagine you also hold a number of beliefs that cannot be backed up by scientific data/scientific consensus.
    
    And that thing I wrote about "excercise potentially being bad for you" was misunderstood. I should have been clearer. I was referring to intensive exercise that can result in injuries and joint deterioration, potentially reducing your quality of life in the long-term. I know that regular (constant) activity such as walking and physical work and gardening, etc. is definitely good for you, and even intensive exercise is good for your heart/cardiovascular system.
    - CrowReally on 24/07/2023 - 16:59
      
      I don't even know where to start with a "okay people learn in different ways" take immediately after "text-book trumps all", but let's assume you've learned your lesson (pardon the pun) on that one and that explains the rapid 180.
      
      Comment about the last 400 years is equally mystifying, but maybe you thought schools and universities were commonplace in the 1600's and they were filled with children (no, they weren't. we aren't even 100 years into the end of child labour laws in England right now), and that's why we're analysing that period? Unless… your point was "teachers DON'T aid education, because look at the progress they made for centuries without them", which is a pretty bad point (they also made the same progress without electronic computers, so I guess we don't need to bother with those either, etc).
      
      I agree there's nothing wrong with holding a belief. But let me connect the dots for you - a post by someone telling us all the best ways to learn and retain knowledge is necessarily hampered by the same person uncritically ignoring entire bodies of education (on fitness, health outcomes etc) and telling us "their grandad lived to 90 so take that science". You'd get the same reaction if it was a flat-earth post.
      
      If knowledge tools are not for you, that's fine, but you shouldn't be advising the rest of us on best practice with them.
      - ForkSnorter on 24/07/2023 - 17:33
        
        @CrowReally: You seem to be intentionally taking the worst-possible interpretation of my comments in order to demonstrate how intelligent you are, rather than looking at what I'm actually trying to say. I'll summarise it for you so you don't have to try so hard to make yourself look good again.
        
        I hate the idea of private education and the idea of buying your kids' future (the idea that people with more money can send their kids to better schools than poor people can, in order to give them a better future than poor kids).
        
        The top students, the most intelligent among us, the quick learners, these people can do well at any school. I based this on my own experiences and my knowledge of the history of science and gifted people. Correct me if I'm wrong.
        
        Exercise is clearly good for your health, but I do not know of any data demonstrating a negative correlation between intensive exercise and long-term joint injuries. Please correct my if I'm wrong. In my post, I was questioning whether it's possible there is a positive correlation. There seems to be a high risk of joint injury with intensive exercise. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I was also wondering whether there are other, more important factors than intensive exercise that are correlated with longevity.
        
        OK, time to make yourself look intelligent again. I look forward to it.
        
        CrowReally on 24/07/2023 - 17:52
        
        @ForkSnorter: I don't think I'm being as mean-spirited as all that, but I respect your opinion. Here's some takes where I (respectfully) differ from yours:
        
        I think private education is fine for what it is, but if it's truly pay-to-play then it's getting far too much govt money. Also, rich people being able to buy better education for their kids is the same as them being able to buy bigger houses, better meals and cooler toys for their kids - something you can't change short of going full socialism on everything (everyone has the same apartment building etc). So, an idle unworkable idea. Maybe a bad one too.
        
        A kid is only going to do as well as the resources available to them, and if a school doesn't have a chemistry lab and only decade old textbooks on chemistry, that kid likely isn't going to grow up to be a brilliant chemist. So, again, I'll disagree on that. If a school's music room only has recorders and tambourines, you're not going to be discovering the next top violinist, and so on. This seems fairly obvious, but if you have a counter-point, I'll hear it out.
        
        Just come out and say "I think too much exercise might be bad for you" so I can go "yeah, I agree, because that's what "too much" means, braniac". That's about as nuanced as you're going to get on here. Unless you want to speak in actual terms (X hours of activity per week) and we can track down a study, it's just thought-bubbles.
        
        ForkSnorter on 24/07/2023 - 18:20
        
        @CrowReally:
        
        Also, rich people being able to buy better education for their kids is the same as them being able to buy bigger houses, better meals and cooler toys for their kids - something you can't change short of going full socialism on everything
        
        But giving billions of dollars of public money to private schools is kind of socialist isn't it? I'm not saying private schools shouldn't exist, I just would not pick a private school even if I could afford it. Apart from the unfairness, I think there is a risk of snobbishness which could be hard to shake later in life, plus is it possible you will meet a wider diversity of backgrounds in a public school?
        
        A kid is only going to do as well as the resources available to them, and if a school doesn't have a chemistry lab and only decade old textbooks on chemistry, that kid likely isn't going to grow up to be a brilliant chemist.
        
        I'm not familiar with the current education system, but surely there are standards that Australian schools maintain? Surely there is not that much discrepancy between schools?
        
        My understanding is that the most important thing in secondary school is ability to score well on tests. If you can do fairly well in this regard, it is really university where you need the labs and other resources in order to be successful. And isn't it likely that all students in Australia are given access to the information (such as current textbooks) they need to score well on tests? Surely our society is not that unfair?
        
        CrowReally on 24/07/2023 - 22:16
        
        @ForkSnorter: The concept would be socialist if each school received identical funding or was structured to equaliser school resources, which it doesn't.
        
        Diversity of background I don't see a compelling argument either side. Public schools draw from a cachement based on a geographic location (so if your school is in the Little Italy part of town you have a lot of Italian students), whereas private schools allow people with a chequebook to attend, so while you might have a lot of rich kids, there's no telling what their backgrounds are?
        
        A personal choice to avoid a private school and thus the risk of mixing with snobs is mirrored by a personal choice to avoid a public school and thus the risk of mixing with bogans, so I'm not seeing much difference on that front (unless one is objectively better, which it isn't).
        
        Schools absolutely have different resources and levels of what they can supply to their students. And also I'm willing to bet some public schools would be more likely to teach Italian as their second language than others (based on the structure of the community).
        
        ForkSnorter on 25/07/2023 - 05:46
        
        @CrowReally:
        
        A personal choice to avoid a private school and thus the risk of mixing with snobs is mirrored by a personal choice to avoid a public school and thus the risk of mixing with bogans, so I'm not seeing much difference on that front (unless one is objectively better, which it isn't).
        
        I think both of these risks also depend on geographic location to an extent.
CurlCurl on 24/07/2023 - 16:26

+1

In Australia in 2022: A total of 4,042,512 students were enrolled in Australian schools, an increase of 0.3% from 2021. 64.5% of school students were enrolled in government schools, 19.7% were in Catholic schools and 15.9% in independent schools.

That's 1,439,134 students in private schools. Where do governments find the money to build more than 57,000 new class rooms?
- bargaino on 24/07/2023 - 18:32
  
  They would not build new ones, when they can buy the existing schools. Or seize them in lieu of back-taxes from the institutions who have long profited from tax-free status and false promises. But that ain't going to happen.
  - CurlCurl on 24/07/2023 - 19:02
    
    They would not build new ones, when they can buy the existing schools.Or seize them in lieu of back-taxes from the institutions who have long profited from tax-free status and false promises But that ain't going to happen.
    
    That,s a very Communistic reply.
    - bargaino on 24/07/2023 - 19:44
      
      Nah, kings have been plundering the gold and treasures from the monasteries since ancient times.
      Henry XIII more recently.
      - CurlCurl on 24/07/2023 - 21:19
        
        @bargaino:
        
        Nah, kings have been plundering the gold and treasures from the monasteries since ancient times.
        Henry XIII more recently.
        
        Ok Vladimir.
        
        bargaino on 25/07/2023 - 00:15
        
        @CurlCurl: I answered your hypothetical question. You seem to think I was advocating. No. I seem to have misread your emotions, and you the facts.
- morse on 25/07/2023 - 04:36
  
  They could gradually phase them out to be less popular by reducing government incentives to the private system and investing this in public infrastructure and workforce. Not necessarily eliminating private schools, but reducing them. It’s not like change would have to happen overnight, but it could be the long term game plan if it was assessed as better for society and use of taxpayer funds.
  - ozhunter on 25/07/2023 - 15:17
    
    Not necessarily eliminating private schools, but reducing them. It’s not like change would have to happen overnight, but it could be the long term game plan if it was assessed as better for society and use of taxpayer funds.
    
    Looks likes it's been assessed that it saves the government money as they give them less per student. If public schools need more funding, maybe get it from the parents of public school students instead of private ones.
bobbified on 24/07/2023 - 18:00

+2

Thus you essentially 'ruin' any comparison because you are taking generally the best public students against the entire private student cohort.

Selective schools are still public schools. Even though it's competitive to get a place, it's a level playing field (almost) that's open to anyone (rather than those that just have money, like a private school).

I'm grateful for having the privilege to attend a selective school. Saved my parents tens of thousands of dollars.
- morse on 25/07/2023 - 04:42
  
  I'm grateful for having the privilege to attend a selective school. Saved my parents tens of thousands of dollars.
  
  Or they could have sent you to regular public school
  
  I have no major issues with public selective, though think it would be better for society if everyone went to their local public school, noting that’s probably not realistic in the current Australian context. OPs point is that it’s hard to judge the performance of schools when a lot of the most gifted students are in a small number of schools.
  - bobbified on 25/07/2023 - 09:55
    
    +1
    
    Or they could have sent you to regular public school
    
    If you saw my local high school, you'd understand. Half of them are probably dead or in jail! 😅
    - morse on 25/07/2023 - 13:37
      
      lol - yep, this is why it will never happen in Australia, unless there was significant gov disinvestment in the private system.
bargaino on 24/07/2023 - 18:11

should selective public schools be classed as a separate category when comparing them to private schools ie Public, Private, Public 'selective'?

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Are you referring to the "league tables" published by some newspapers? Then what?
Academic results mostly reflect how the kids were before they even started high school. Intelligence, personality traits, and parental involvement. The effect of the school is smaller, and therefore it is very difficult to determine what effect a particular school or teacher has.
Schools can try to compare the "productivity" of teachers by randomly assigning students to their classes, but nobody is doing this for schools.
It should be obvious that selective schools, high-fee schools, and schools in desirable suburbs have smarter kids. If not obvious, see the data.
Sending your kid to a school with higher average scores may not make much difference to you kid's grades. I choose to send my children to selective school because I think they will have a better experience there, with their peers. Nobody is bullied, no disruptive students in class. Mainstream public schools have become far too tolerant of a minority, who are allowed to make others' lives suffer.
Others may have different options, and choose Catholic or private schools for the same (perceived) reason. Or they move to a different intake area.
shangoz on 24/07/2023 - 18:13

On income turn of view, not much difference between private or public school, and know quite a lot of public school graduates end up earn much higher then private due to they're more willing to choose building industry and mining industry, but private school graduates do dominate politician and financial sector. So up to the children what they want when they grow up, parents just prepare more funding if they can afford.
Ryanek on 24/07/2023 - 18:51

+1

I bet you would change your view if your child ended up being gifted.

Why would you not want to place them in an environment where the can excel further and be challenged by their peers.
- Trying2SaveABuck on 24/07/2023 - 19:03
  
  -1
  
  I bet you would change your view if your child ended up being gifted.
  
  you might be right - depends on the 'gift' for example music, sport or art id understand sending a child to a school that nurtures that talent but rope learning text books meh
  
  if you're academically gifted you should excel anywhere within reason
  - SBOB on 24/07/2023 - 22:30
    
    +3
    
    rope learning text books
    
    They used in pirate school?
  - morse on 25/07/2023 - 04:46
    
    To an extent I agree. But I think sometimes very bright kids don’t get an opportunity be exposed to things like higher level maths, literature, etc where the teachers have to meet the needs of the average, so it would fall on parents to do this, not all have the capability.
    - Trying2SaveABuck on 25/07/2023 - 05:53
      
      i'd argue those kids who 'dont get to show it' are the most in need to go to a selective school and are often 'selected out'
      - morse on 25/07/2023 - 07:15
        
        @Trying2SaveABuck: Hard to say. I think teachers are quite good a picking up very bright students irrespective of their background. Selective schools aren’t really about ‘need’ either, it’s more of an extra. I think it would work better if all schools were good and people stayed in catchment, but the reality is, it’s not how people behave.
        
        Trying2SaveABuck on 25/07/2023 - 07:36
        
        @morse:
        
        . I think it would work better if all schools were good and people stayed in catchment, but the reality is, it’s not how people behave.
        
        i agree, but the current set up essentially, makes that impossible
    - star-ggg on 26/07/2023 - 09:54
      
      Higher level academics are only taught in universities. Anyone that's qualified to teach them would be working for an university not in a high school. Any child that is truly intellectually gifted will excel academically no matter what or how much content they are exposed to in high school. I think what's more important is having an environment that fosters and encourages these students to learn and achieve their full academic potential. That would be my focus for a private vs public debate.
Emcaljoe on 25/07/2023 - 09:55

A student’s educational performance remains based on what it has always been based on: an educationally encouraging, economically secure, stable home environment.
- bargaino on 25/07/2023 - 20:51
  
  That may well be more important than the school, but cannot make up for being dumb. Genetics is the primary determinant, at least in developed countries where children are well nourished and healthy.
  See studies of identical twins vs siblings vs adopted unrelated kids in the same household.
sal78 on 24/08/2023 - 10:01

We need more kids doing vocational pathways! There's a huge shortage. They hourly wage is often higher than those with a 4yr degree too.

Should Selective Public Schools Be Grouped Separately to Regular Public Schools?

Poll Options

Comments

New Forum Topics