I've often shared my thoughts about private vs Government school choices for parents and this article in The Age reminded me of the debates I've had with friends and colleagues in the past.
While I'm not a parent, I can see the parent's dilemma. I suspect most parents would do whatever they could to give their children the best opportunities in life. And for many, at least those who can afford it, that choice seems to be private education.
This worries me on two levels:
Does it actually make a difference?
Firstly, does school choice really influence how well you do at school? Do you actually get better scores or better results by going to what may be perceived as a better school? This point is fleshed out in Freakonomics (buy at Amazon) by Steven D Levitt and Stephen J Dubner (Freakonomics Blog).
Here's a summary of the relevant part of the chapter that I found at Wikisummaries.
A student's performance didn't improve if they were accepted in to the "better school" when compared to a similar (based on a range of socioeconomic indicators) student who wasn't accepted... both students typically performed better than similar students who didn't apply.
So the significant factor was not getting in to the "better school" but that they (or at least their families) wanted to. Families who valued a perceived better education also provided a more supportive educational environment for their children.
Perhaps I'm simplifying this. And perhaps, on the margins, a private school will better suit some children compared to Government schools. I've certainly seen a number of cases where Government school teachers send their own children to private schools, which isn't a great endorsement of the Government school system. But I've also seen plenty of examples of dedicated Government school teachers and fantastic Government school students performing at the highest levels.
But my general point here is that you can create the environment at home for your children to excel at whatever it is they choose... school choice cannot change who your child is, and definitely can't change who you are.
What about those left behind?
But my main concern is about those left behind. If we accept the "better schools" argument (and I'm not sure we do) - what about those families and children who cannot afford it (see note below)? What happens to those who are left behind in the "worse schools"?
Picking up the cues from my first point about families that value education... if all these families drift away from the Government school system, what does that leave behind? Innocent children trapped in a system that, according to the "better school" theory must be getting worse.
So isn't there some kind of communal moral responsibility to ensure that all children have the opportunity for a decent education? To ensure that all schools are good schools? Don't we all have a responsibility to become active in school communities, helping to build better schools through better involvement in and support of our schools (and indeed other groups and organisations that support our future generations)?
If we continue to see families (who can afford to) leaving the Government school system, aren't we in effect seeing the creation of a two tier system? The creation of Government school ghettos, home to the underprivileged or under-performing students?
If the "better schools" are better because of greater resources, better discipline, more extra curricular activities, better teacher ratios, higher levels of student support, etc... don't we have a community responsibility to provide those same resources, supports, activities, teachers, etc to all schools?
Don't get me wrong. I think school choice is important. I think parents, families and students should have the ability to choose a school that suits their needs. But that needs to be in the context where everyone has choice, not just those that can afford it.
Schools should work hard to provide an educational environment that is attractive to students - of all kinds and backgrounds and interests. Schools that specialise in different academic, sporting or extra curricular areas. Schools that use different teaching and learning philosophies, or schools that are based on particular values and beliefs.
But they should be schools that are available to all families, not the privileged few.
We've seen the problems that come from marginalisation and exclusion in many countries around the world. My worry is that this flight to "better schools" will bring about this same level of marginalisation and exclusion here - and it will have been by our making.
Note:
When talking about families who cannot afford the "better schools", I am not entering into any argument or making any comment (except for this one) about families that can afford 100" Plasma TVs...
In Summary
Also from Wikisummaries, the final part of Freakonomics is the Epilogue: Two Paths to Harvard:
While I'm not a parent, I can see the parent's dilemma. I suspect most parents would do whatever they could to give their children the best opportunities in life. And for many, at least those who can afford it, that choice seems to be private education.
This worries me on two levels:
- Does it actually make a difference?
- What about those left behind?
Read on to find out my thinking.
Does it actually make a difference?
Firstly, does school choice really influence how well you do at school? Do you actually get better scores or better results by going to what may be perceived as a better school? This point is fleshed out in Freakonomics (buy at Amazon) by Steven D Levitt and Stephen J Dubner (Freakonomics Blog).
Here's a summary of the relevant part of the chapter that I found at Wikisummaries.
In a series of subsequent articles, Levitt explored other facets of parenthood and their outcomes. He determined that in spite of the cottage industry of parenting and the millions of how-to books on the subject sold every year, who you are matters much more than what you do. In other words, positive parenting outcomes are linked more strongly to factors such as socioeconomic status and parental education than any specific parenting practices.
Key to determining which parenting factors really make a difference to a child's upbringing, Levitt analyses data from the Chicago School Choice Program, a longitudinal study of Chicago school students in 60 schools since 1980, a huge data-set.
Factors that are important in determining high standardized test scores in children include: highly educated parents, high socioeconomic status, maternal age of greater than thirty when the child was born, low birth weight, English as the primary language spoken in the home, parental involvement in the PTA, and many books in the home environment. Also, adopted children tended to have lower standardized test scores than their non-adopted peers.
Factors that are not important in determining high standardized test scores in children include: the family is intact, the parents recently moved to a better neighborhood, the mother didn't work between birth and kindergarten, the child attended Head Start (US government program providing education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and their families), the parents regularly take the child to museums, the child is regularly spanked, the child frequently watches television, the parents read to the child nearly every day.
Noting the overgeneralization, Levitt explains that what is important in parenting is who you are, not what you do.The thing I remember from this chapter was that many families applied to send their children to the "better schools" in Chicago but only a certain number were successful. The ongoing academic performance of both groups were then compared over time - but no distinct difference was found.
A student's performance didn't improve if they were accepted in to the "better school" when compared to a similar (based on a range of socioeconomic indicators) student who wasn't accepted... both students typically performed better than similar students who didn't apply.
So the significant factor was not getting in to the "better school" but that they (or at least their families) wanted to. Families who valued a perceived better education also provided a more supportive educational environment for their children.
Perhaps I'm simplifying this. And perhaps, on the margins, a private school will better suit some children compared to Government schools. I've certainly seen a number of cases where Government school teachers send their own children to private schools, which isn't a great endorsement of the Government school system. But I've also seen plenty of examples of dedicated Government school teachers and fantastic Government school students performing at the highest levels.
But my general point here is that you can create the environment at home for your children to excel at whatever it is they choose... school choice cannot change who your child is, and definitely can't change who you are.
What about those left behind?
But my main concern is about those left behind. If we accept the "better schools" argument (and I'm not sure we do) - what about those families and children who cannot afford it (see note below)? What happens to those who are left behind in the "worse schools"?
Picking up the cues from my first point about families that value education... if all these families drift away from the Government school system, what does that leave behind? Innocent children trapped in a system that, according to the "better school" theory must be getting worse.
So isn't there some kind of communal moral responsibility to ensure that all children have the opportunity for a decent education? To ensure that all schools are good schools? Don't we all have a responsibility to become active in school communities, helping to build better schools through better involvement in and support of our schools (and indeed other groups and organisations that support our future generations)?
If we continue to see families (who can afford to) leaving the Government school system, aren't we in effect seeing the creation of a two tier system? The creation of Government school ghettos, home to the underprivileged or under-performing students?
If the "better schools" are better because of greater resources, better discipline, more extra curricular activities, better teacher ratios, higher levels of student support, etc... don't we have a community responsibility to provide those same resources, supports, activities, teachers, etc to all schools?
Don't get me wrong. I think school choice is important. I think parents, families and students should have the ability to choose a school that suits their needs. But that needs to be in the context where everyone has choice, not just those that can afford it.
Schools should work hard to provide an educational environment that is attractive to students - of all kinds and backgrounds and interests. Schools that specialise in different academic, sporting or extra curricular areas. Schools that use different teaching and learning philosophies, or schools that are based on particular values and beliefs.
But they should be schools that are available to all families, not the privileged few.
We've seen the problems that come from marginalisation and exclusion in many countries around the world. My worry is that this flight to "better schools" will bring about this same level of marginalisation and exclusion here - and it will have been by our making.
Note:
When talking about families who cannot afford the "better schools", I am not entering into any argument or making any comment (except for this one) about families that can afford 100" Plasma TVs...
In Summary
Also from Wikisummaries, the final part of Freakonomics is the Epilogue: Two Paths to Harvard:
The life paths of two Harvard graduates who may have seemed to be locked into divergent patterns of achievement based on their backgrounds are outlined. Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, came from a privileged background and had access to all of the resources that are typically correlated with success, whereas Roland G. Fryer, an African-American man who was raised in an impoverished, unstable family environment, is now a promising Harvard economist. The book ends with this brief reminder that there are limits to the ability of economic analysis to predict every possible outcome.Links
- The Effect of School Choice on Student Outcomes: Evidence from Randomized Lotteries Julie Berry Cullen, Brian A Jacob & Steven Levitt (PDF)
- More Evidence on the (Lack of) Impact of School Choice
Steven D Levitt (Freakonomics Blog) - Is Gaining Access to Selective Elementary Schools Gaining Ground? Evidence From Randomized Lotteries
Julie Berry Cullen & Brian A Jacob
'better schools'... how a school is perceived to be 'better' than another completely depends on the individual's experience around schooling - obviously, and how influenced and entrenched they are in popular cultural views and beliefs at the time they investigate a schooling choice for their child.
ReplyDeleteSome schools aren't run as effectively and others and some schools have different curriculum offerings. Some schools have religious affiliations that create part of the school's core identity; some schools have policies and practices that can be perceived as 'less strict'.
If a parent knows their child well enough and is able to let go of all the culturally created and media reinforced ideas behind what makes a good school, then when it comes time for them to choose the 'best' place to school their child then the possibilities will be wide open for them. We need to lose the labels and look at what is at the core of what our child needs - and truthfully... from my experience a child’s educational needs can be fulfilled at either a state run school or a privately run school – a parent just keep an open mind approaching the decision.
Sounds like a strong argument for introducing school vouchers
ReplyDelete