Putting all children into public schools won't achieve that, unless you seriously think that Willoughby Girls' High is on a par with Wilcannia Central School
Private Schools
- Thread starter Deliverance
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Simplistic. Putting more money into Wilcannia Central School is great but it won't fix the demographics of its catchment area, which (as the numerous studies posted in this thread show) is the single biggest driver of the quality of a school.
Australia is such a large and sparsely-populated country that you will never fix geographic inequality - which means that the public school system (which discriminates on the basis of geography) will never provide a level playing field. If you can't eliminate inequality, the best solution is to provide a good mix of avenues to help individuals escape it.
Affordable private schooling options (particularly boarding schools) are an important measure for combating geographic inequality in education.
Last edited:
- Apr 20, 2006
- 9,158
- 12,222
- AFL Club
- Carlton
The thing is wealthy people in Wilcannia send their kids off to boarding school, the poor can’t afford this. Same as most isolated rural communities. The more people who school in these communities the better for the disadvantaged. The people who really need the help won’t be able to afford boarding school regardless of how much it is subsided.
There’s no perfect system but the son of a third generation dole bludger being given a lesser education then the son of the local doctor or the local $50m station owner just seems wrong on so many levels. The very least that should be done is to remove any payments to private schools from governments imo.
Easy to say when you're sitting pretty in Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane
So it's better that everyone in rural Australia receives a lesser education than those in leafy inner metro suburbs?
Won't have too many local doctors left living in poor socioeconomic areas if they all suddenly have to send their kids to local schools.
Last edited:
- Apr 20, 2006
- 9,158
- 12,222
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I’m from a rural area and have actually seen Manangatang out perform Swan Hill schools in enter score on a regular basis. I was also given the choice of private school but didn’t want to leave my mates which probably didn’t help me.
Yes I’d say improving the education of 80% is better then improving it for 20%. Extra funding to those schools would also improve the education they get compared to what they are currently getting.
they already can’t get/don’t have doctors and 99% are filled with international doctors anyway so really shouldn’t change anything.
As I said nothing is perfect but your argument seems to be purely based around the haves and completely ignoring the majority. Absolutely no underprivileged kid would be worse off and I find it impossible to see how they wouldn’t actually be benefited. The only negative in it is the wealthy are treated the same as the rest.
My objection is that you are vastly reducing educational choice and freedom, without offering anything approaching the equality such a strategy is ostensibly meant to promote in exchange
The current public education system is very unequal and discriminates massively based on geographical location, but parents at least have the opportunity to escape it by sending their children to a private school that does not care which catchment area they are in
Forcing everyone into the same unjust set of circumstances and calling it equality is an incredibly soviet attitude
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #333
Not just geographically. Private school kids, bus and train long distances to attend school. This drains local government schools of talent, based on wealth alone. If those kids attended school locally, that school would improve in it's overall performance.
And if putting all kids into their local public schools would bring up the standard of the worst public schools to be equivalent with the best, I'd be more receptive.
But we all know that won't happen. There will still be good public schools and s**t public schools - the only difference is that the parents and kids living near a s**t one will have no other options.
It doesn't make education any more equal - it just gets unequal in a different way, at the price of freedom and choice.
- Thread starter
- #335
Of course keeping the wealthiest kids in their local schools would raise the overall standard of those schools. Youre in lala land if you don't think it would. School results come down to the cohort of students. Woukd it make every school completely equal? no. But more equal, absolutely.
- Apr 20, 2006
- 9,158
- 12,222
- AFL Club
- Carlton
It’s only freedom of choice if you are wealthy enough. That’s the entire point, it’s a leg up to everyone who already has one and it’s hurts the rest because they are leaving the public schools.
I didn't say it wouldn't
I said it would just exacerbate inequalities elsewhere - e.g. geographical inequality
You are just substituting one kind of inequality for another, at the cost of freedom and choice
- Thread starter
- #338
No system will ever be completely equal, but it's a shift towards equality for the majority.
The freedom and choice you speak of is just massive government funding for those that need it the least, so their kids can have 50m swimming pools, rowing sheds and expansive playing fields.
Nonsense, 30% of students in Australia go to non-governments schools and by no means do all (or even most) come from particularly wealthy families
If you cannot provide people with an equal education through the public system, then I think you have a moral obligation to provide them with avenues to access affordable alternatives - it is one thing to offer people a poor local school, but entirely another to force them to use it
Naturally I agree that the vast majority of public money should be spent on public schools, they are the nation's primary educational safety net - just like Medicare is the primary healthcare safety net. But all taxpayers are entitled to support in educating their children, and accessing that support should not come at the expense of their freedom to choose how and where their children are educated.
We don't penalise people who buy private health insurance by taking away their access to Medicare, and we shouldn't penalise parents who use private schools by taking away their access to education assistance.
If I live in a bad catchment area, and I want to spend some of my own money to give my kids a better educational experience, I shouldn't be punished for it - much less denied the opportunity altogether
Last edited:
Geographically small countries, with much more consistent population and socioeconomic distributions
By its very nature a public school system will always be based on geography and catchment areas, and any system of that nature will always be fundamentally unequal in a country with as much geographical inequality as Australia
- Apr 20, 2006
- 9,158
- 12,222
- AFL Club
- Carlton
You have the top 10% then the comfortable middle. The bottom 60% have a quarter of the wealth of the comfortable middle (top 60-90%) that’s why you see these 30% figures in private schools. You’re comparing people on average having $1.3mil of wealth per household to $270k. Obviously there is a median in there but it’s clear there is a massive drop off and that’s where you see the haves and have nots.
wages also show it’s something like 40% make $180k then there is about a $60k drop off to the next group.
So we're only making education decisions to benefit 60% of the population now? The other 40% (who, incidentally, pay ~90% of the taxes that fund education) can go jump?
I'm all for bringing up the standards of public education, but a third of Australian kids go to non-government schools and they're entitled to be treated as more than sacrificial lambs who are only good for dragging up the performance of their local public school a couple of points
Public education is a welfare safety net, not a tool for soviet-style social engineering
Finland grappled with this issue (socioeconomic disparities in rural/urban divide) in the 60s and 70s and took the alternative route - amalgamate private (grammar) schools into the existing state (civic) system and bring in a wide range of reforms to improve the quality of learning overall.
They now have one of the lowest disparities in educational outcomes between socioeconomic groups as well as regularly appearing near the top of the PISA results (as opposed to Australia continuing its rapid decline).
Finland found itself facing great changes after the Second World War, with a growing population and a changing economy. In the postwar period, Finland witnessed a rapid increase in population with the number of annual births reaching over 100,000 each year between 1946 and 1949. By comparison, in the prewar period from 1935 to 1939, the number of annual births ranged from 69,000 to 78,000. [1] What had previously been a “class-bound, farm-oriented society” underwent not only a growth in industry but also a significant shift in its very nature from traditional wood-processing to metal. “Traditionally, the wood-processing industry had dominated the economy. Soon after the war, however, the metal industry soon became the dominant driver.”[2]
A growing population, coupled with a stronger economy, led to increasing numbers of parents seeking high-quality education for their children. Grammar schools had to accommodate unprecedented numbers of students, as enrolment increased almost tenfold in 15 years, from 34,000 in 1955 to 324,000 in 1970.[2] However, there were clear inequalities in who could access this kind of education. Children from agricultural and working-class backgrounds attended grammar schools in low numbers, making up only 4.8 percent and 8.9 percent of the grammar school population in 1940 respectively. Similarly, there was a stark urban-rural divide. In 1960, almost 62 percent of Finns lived in rural areas; however, only 20 percent of students living in the countryside attended grammar schools. Conversely, 38 percent of Finns lived in urban areas but 47 percent of children there attended grammar schools.[3] More than ever, parents wanted an “improved and more comprehensive basic education” for their children.[2] Both the increase in student numbers and inequality of educational access and attainment led to the need for serious reforms. It was necessary to provide quality education for all children regardless of their socioeconomic background or where they lived.
The success of the comprehensive education reforms is evident from the subsequent excellent student performance and national educational outcomes. These outcomes can be attributed to a number of factors, including the focus on providing equal access for all to quality education and the role of local municipalities and teachers in designing and implementing the curriculum to meet students' needs.
Student performance at school has improved considerably since the implementation of comprehensive school reforms. While there are other factors at play - such as a more extensive build-up of the welfare state - the reforms are seen as at least partly responsible for the improvement. By the 1980s and 1990s, students educated in the comprehensive system performed better academically than those educated in the two-tier system of the 1960s and early 1970s.[2] In the early 2000s, Finnish students began to score exceptionally well in international assessments such as the Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA), which evaluates “the extent to which 15-year-old students, near the end of their compulsory education, have acquired key knowledge and skills that are essential for full participation in modern societies”.[7] In 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009, Finland took nearly all the top spots for mathematical and scientific literacy and reading. Although there has been a slight drop in its position in mathematical literacy since 2012, Finland still places highly overall.[8] In addition to an improvement in educational outcomes, the number of students staying longer in education has increased as a result of the comprehensive reforms and subsequent upper secondary school reforms in the 1980s.[4] In 1970, only 30 percent of Finnish adults had a minimum of an upper secondary diploma, but by 2010 this figure had risen to over 80 percent, while it was 90 percent for 24-35 year olds.[4]
The motives for the reforms were twofold: on the one hand, improving educational quality and access would provide an educated workforce for the increasingly industrialised, post-agrarian economy; on the other hand, there was a demand for greater social equality as Finnish society underwent considerable changes. The objective of reducing inequality within the education system was achieved by the late 1980s.[2] All Finnish children received the same basic education, and there were real opportunities for all students to progress to upper secondary school.[2] Equality of educational outcome is demonstrated by the small variation in results between different schools and high numbers of student enrolment.[4] Moreover, the gap between the highest and lowest performing schools was the smallest in all countries assessed by PISA.[2]
Not only has Finland scored highly in assessments such as PISA but also in the OECD's 2016 Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC). The survey measures the performance of 16-65 year olds in key skills such as literacy, numeracy and problem-solving, which are necessary in social and work contexts and “for fully integrating and participating in the labour market, education and training, and social and civic life”.[9] Finland ranked in the top three for each skill.[9] Furthermore, Finns whose parents have low educational attainment are far less likely than their international counterparts to have lower levels of literacy or numeracy themselves.[9]
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #345
Private schooling is not needed, it is a drag on the economy through unrealised potential and waste of over-specced schools on dullards who will get jobs through connections anyway.
Public schooling with selective schools and smaller class sizes is a much more effective and fair use of education resources, allowing children a better chance to reach their potential no matter how well off their parents are.
Finland has a population of 5.5 million, of whom 14.5% live in rural or remote areas. Finland's population density is 18 people per square kilometre.
Australia has a population of 25.5 million, of whom 30% live in rural or remote areas. Our population density is 3.3 people per square kilometre.
The numbers are not remotely comparable.
As long as they live in the right area
But hey, it's not like someone's postcode has any link to their SES
Explain why, due to geography alone, a high-quality state-run education system works in Finland but would not work in Australia.
(And please - you know that 3.3 people per square kilometre statistic is deliberately misleading)
- Apr 20, 2006
- 9,158
- 12,222
- AFL Club
- Carlton
No it’s about giving every kid in the country as equal as an opportunity to succeed as possible and giving as many as we can the best chance to succeed not favour 30%. Public education should never be seen as a safety net it should be seen as the absolute rule of good education. social engineering as you call it is a better outcome then excluding children just because of their families wealth. This is about children not adults.
Also it’s not going to stop tutoring so people who are extremely determined to give their kids the best education possible can still shell out tens of thousands of dollars on that to give them a leg up.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #349
This doesn't make sense.
Whether you live in area A, B, or C you should have access to education that suits your child's needs and abilities.
Small class sizes, good facilities, selective entry options, and special needs resources.
EDIT to add: No it won't always be possible given remote communities, but it should be the aim.
- Apr 20, 2006
- 9,158
- 12,222
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Exactly Australia is one of the most urbanised countries on earth and probably as much so as Finland.Explain why, due to geography alone, a high-quality state-run education system works in Finland but would not work in Australia.
(And please - you know that 3.3 people per square kilometre statistic is deliberately misleading)
