Private schools are unfair? Discussion of a TABOO topic [SPLIT]

[paulsterio]

I went to GWSC last year, very good school culture, the majority of the students were into their learning and wanted to do well, I think the reason for this is because they wanted to be there, wanted to learn and wanted to get into competitive courses at university. I find that the best schools are the schools where students want to be there and the worst schools are the schools where students don't want to be there, for whatever reason. It's an opinion, not fact, but it's based on some observation.

So I think in order to address the school culture issue, we should be looking at how to make school appeal to those who don't want to be there. If you have a class full of kids who don't give a flying shit about Chemistry, for example (Sorry Thush, just had to be Chem), no amount of money, innovative learning styles, good teachers, smartboards or laptops are going to get all of them to become good at Chemistry, they just simply do not want to be learning about it. What's more important is looking at what these kids want (they might want to go to TAFE, they might want to learn practical employment skills or basic literacy and numeracy skills..etc.) and assist them in pursuing learning what they WANT to learn.

I had a conversation with an old friend of mine who's now at TAFE and I asked him why he didn't like school (back in the day, he used to be one of the smartest kids at my primary school) and he basically said, he didn't want to learn the things he was being taught at school, he wanted to go into fitness and personal training and nothing (apart from PE) at school allowed him to learn more about that. For the note, he's an intelligent guy who is very knowledgeable about body systems, physiology, basic biochemistry and is onto many of the things that we learnt in first semester MBBS. Thus, I think the issue is to move away from that mentality of "forcing kids to learn". Furthermore, this frees up resources and is more efficient, thus, allowing those who want to learn access to better resources.

[thushan]

Good post Paul - I do partly agree with this sentiment.

However, I do have a slight beef here. Here's a question to consider; do the kids genuinely not want to learn, or are they moulded (by their peers) to believe that wanting to learn is a bad thing and is considered "nerdy?" If it is the latter, then what SHOULD be addressed (I don't really know how at this point) is the cause of the school culture itself.

[Jenny_2108]

However, I do have a slight beef here. Here's a question to consider; do the kids genuinely not want to learn, or are they moulded (by their peers) to believe that wanting to learn is a bad thing and is considered "nerdy?" If it is the latter, then what SHOULD be addressed (I don't really know how at this point) is the cause of the school culture itself.

I think the school culture itself is very essential. I studied one private school before and now a public school.
They are totally different. At private school I went, most of them are rich kids so they don't care about studying a lot. We go to school late, skipped classes, no one cares. The teachers are not strict either. If we hand the assignments/homework late, it doesn't really matter because we are not afraid of the teachers or the dean. And because our classmates don't care about studying, we are not competitive to each other. Have fun, copy homework + notebook from others LOL. If someone got full marks or high A+, we don't think its important. Their parents are prosperous and can afford tuition for them in uni so ATAR isn't a big thing. Thus, studying there we don't feel so motivated lol.

But in good schools, there are lots of excellent, intelligent, hard-working students. OMG, they study so hard and really care about SAC scores. I change to a public school and I'm totally shocked. The students are so smart, most of them are genius. Before school starts, after school, during lunchtime, they study every time, everywhere. It makes me to study too. Hence, I assume school culture contributes to the student's achievement as well

[Russ]

They showed exactly that. You response was to ask 'where in the Gonski report they are', which I felt was unecessary to answer because the answer is so easily found.

You basically cited some maths of [funding]/[students]. In what way did this demonstrate that it would be a practical method? Did it show that the money was appropriate for redeveloping public school facilities? Was it sufficient for hiring new teachers? Did it incorporate the effect it would have on private school fee rises? etc. etc.
To the best of my knowledge, redirecting all private school funding isn't practical, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

You also said that the Gonski report recommended we redirect all private funding to public schools, but you still haven't cited this (citing "Gonski Report" doesn't count, I'm not reading 320 pages). Incidentally if you read the chapters on funding, he recommends that at least 5% of non government schools receive more funding and the rest get means tested.

[paulsterio]

To the best of my knowledge, redirecting all private school funding isn't practical, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

I very much agree with this, and I also want to point out that it's not merely an issue of money. It's an issue of culture, which is a much larger issue which money (funding) alone can't fix. Like I was saying, you can have the best facilities in the world, good labs, good computers, good buildings, smartboards, pretty tables and chairs, large whiteboards, lots of textbooks and good equipment but the truth is, if you grab a bunch of kids who don't want to learn, throw them into school and force them to be there, they still won't do well. Thus, it's probably better if those who actually want to learn get this equipment. I think that's the major issue at stake here.

However, I do have a slight beef here. Here's a question to consider; do the kids genuinely not want to learn, or are they moulded (by their peers) to believe that wanting to learn is a bad thing and is considered "nerdy?" If it is the latter, then what SHOULD be addressed (I don't really know how at this point) is the cause of the school culture itself.

Now in response to what you're saying, I think it's a combination of a lot of things. Let's talk about foundations first, many kids lack motivation in the latter years of high school because for whatever reason, they didn't focus in younger years and hence are now slacking off because they don't understand the foundations of the subjects they are doing and they lack the ability to do well. This is where a practical alternative comes into play, like instead of offering just VCE English, we should offer other subjects which, instead, focuses on basic writing and basic English skills, so we can be teaching students how to write letters, how to structure good sentences and how to sound sophisticated, we can teach interviewing techniques...etc. so more practical English skills. Try and think of it from a student's perspective - "Why do I need to learn how to analyse the works of Shakespeare?" - and that's a perfectly valid question - if it's not for them, then we need an alternative.

The second issue is the culture, you're right - many of these kids if placed in a different schooling environment will perform differently, that's why I'm a fan of weaker schools having accelerated programs, well not so much accelerated, but special programs for their best students, I'm a fan of the whole concept of streaming but again, many smart kids will feel out of place amongst the others and will want to be a part of the normal classes instead, which is where things become complicated.

Lastly, we also have to look at the end product of improving education, what do we actually want? Do we merely want more kids to finish VCE, or do we want to send more kids to university, do we want to decrease unemployment or are we just looking to make sure everyone has a higher standard of education overall, all these aims are different and really require different sorts of intervention.

For example, if we simply want more kids to finish VCE, we can simply just offer a wider variety of subjects or lax the requirements...etc. If we wanted more kids to go to university, we can just open up more university places and have a wider variety of courses, more of which might be centered around practical learning. If it is to reduce unemployment, we should be teaching kids employable skills, especially those who do not wish to go to university. So it's a broad issue, but WHY we actually want better education, and what exactly is a better education will be determining factors in how we approach this issue.

[JellyDonut]

The "money isn't everything" maxim has already been grounded but to drive the nail further, here's something from the Cato institute (take it with a grain of salt).

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, "You can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them." The education establishment and its supporters have replied, "No one's ever tried." In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it.

Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil--more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country.

The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.

The Kansas City experiment suggests that, indeed, educational problems can't be solved by throwing money at them, that the structural problems of our current educational system are far more important than a lack of material resources, and that the focus on desegregation diverted attention from the real problem, low achievement.

Read the entire thing if you have time, or just the conclusion. Either way, it makes obvious the problem is multi-faceted that any single solution proposed feels somewhat limiting

[paulsterio]

Higher salaries for teachers are always good though

[sahil26]

I suppose i am disappointed with how some of my friends feel a great amount of regret at this time of the year.
I remember yr 7 ... everyone was bright. I feel like it wasn't their fault they have ended up this way.
What people have to realize is that in low-income communities, there are a heap load of other problems. I am not suggesting that private school students don't have problems, but money is just one less thing they have to deal.

I totally agree with the fact that brighter students have this "nerd" tag in public schools. My school is brilliant. I love the people, they are nicest kids you'll ever meet. But unfortunately some of them have no idea how their ATAR is fairly low if they are just average. Trust me, people want to get scores, they give it their best shot. But the fact that they didn't realize this earlier hurts them.

The main reason many can't do well is because there is no one drive them. They aren't enough rewards in VCE. If some more incentive is shown at junior levels (7-9), something can be done. Otherwise, by the time they realize that education is important, its all too late. That's just what i have seen/experienced through my friends though. So my comments are highly opinionated.

Make education a privilege, not a commodity.
Make it exciting for them.
I never got to dissect frogs LOL

[pi]

I never got to dissect frogs LOL

Me neither! Missed out on that stuff through my public schooling

(although I have dissected humans...)

[pi]

although I have dissected humans...

Must be an integral part of Underwater Basket Weaving.

LOL Nah, this was in my spare time



jks haha, I only changed my sig to stop the huge influx of UMAT PM's from people who haven't read the resources thread and/or searched the forum! similarly changed my atar, subjects and school due to such question

[sahil26]

Those mental scars from not being able to cut frogs

[IndefatigableLover]

I suppose i am disappointed with how some of my friends feel a great amount of regret at this time of the year.
I remember yr 7 ... everyone was bright. I feel like it wasn't their fault they have ended up this way.
What people have to realize is that in low-income communities, there are a heap load of other problems. I am not suggesting that private school students don't have problems, but money is just one less thing they have to deal.

I totally agree with the fact that brighter students have this "nerd" tag in public schools. My school is brilliant. I love the people, they are nicest kids you'll ever meet. But unfortunately some of them have no idea how their ATAR is fairly low if they are just average. Trust me, people want to get scores, they give it their best shot. But the fact that they didn't realize this earlier hurts them.

The main reason many can't do well is because there is no one drive them. They aren't enough rewards in VCE. If some more incentive is shown at junior levels (7-9), something can be done. Otherwise, by the time they realize that education is important, its all too late. That's just what i have seen/experienced through my friends though. So my comments are highly opinionated.

Make education a privilege, not a commodity.
Make it exciting for them.
I never got to dissect frogs LOL

I have to agree with you. Currently at my school, my year level and my lower aged peers don't show enough incentive towards education. They take it for granted and it's just... really annoying. Last semester my 'physics' class (If you could call it that) celebrated after getting a class average of 45%! It was horrible... I mean these were kids that were bright in Year 7 but they just slack off too much from Year 7 to Year 9 that by the time they want to study and get good grades.. it's often too hard for them since they realised it too late. Plus there's other issues that come along that make it harder for my school to achieve. Such things include racial violence and stabbings. I think police was called to monitor our school for a 3 month period

Not dissing on my school or anything because it's a good school when you associate yourself with good people but if we made the junior levels more aware of their future then they would actually do something about it rather than slacking and annoying others who have goals set in sight. >.<

Sorry for the ramble but I had to let it out.

[paulsterio]

Must be an integral part of Underwater Basket Weaving.

Yeah, he needs to understand human anatomy so that he can use the best biomechanical process in order to make his basketweaving as efficient as possible.

[JellyDonut]

There's racial violence and stabbings at JMSS?

[MonsieurHulot]

They showed exactly that. You response was to ask 'where in the Gonski report they are', which I felt was unecessary to answer because the answer is so easily found.

You basically cited some maths of [funding]/[students]. In what way did this demonstrate that it would be a practical method? Did it show that the money was appropriate for redeveloping public school facilities? Was it sufficient for hiring new teachers? Did it incorporate the effect it would have on private school fee rises? etc. etc.
To the best of my knowledge, redirecting all private school funding isn't practical, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

You also said that the Gonski report recommended we redirect all private funding to public schools, but you still haven't cited this (citing "Gonski Report" doesn't count, I'm not reading 320 pages). Incidentally if you read the chapters on funding, he recommends that at least 5% of non government schools receive more funding and the rest get means tested.

It's on page 165.
$10,500 per student is a guide to the funding of schools. If all the money currently given to private schools was diverted to public schools, and if all the private school students changed to public schools, there would be more than $10,500 annually available to each of them. Obviously this is unrealistic, as not every private school student would migrate to a public school if private schools' allowance were cut.
That was in response to your question about the loss of private school students.
About practicality, perhaps it is not practical straight away, but in my opinion it is a much better long term strategy than disregarding it because of its initial impracticality and continuing the current strategy.
In answer to your other question, it would help if you clarify a little. What about the increase in private school fees?