I went to an elite private school for my whole life. It worked for me, so I sent my child to a similar school.
When we moved interstate with only a term’s notice, we couldn’t secure a place in the one school we wanted. I saw that as an opportunity to broaden our experience – and so chose to do a year in a public school.
Because by then, I had started to suspect everything I so strongly believed about private education wasn’t necessarily true.
This is what I’ve discovered:
The standard of education is the same.
This was the biggest surprise to me – that all of that money hadn’t purchased a ‘superior’ academic education – or even a different one. Which of course, is a fantastic comment on the Australian public school system.
In private schools, there’s an expectation that parents are paying for more access to teachers, and more input into their child’s learning. I immediately found the staff and teachers were just as committed and available in our new school. I cannot speak highly enough of how easy the school made our transition from interstate.
I had been told to expect a knowledge gap between public and private, but there’s been no gap.
The access to resources is vastly different.
At our old school, there were twelve ovals on the property. Here, there isn’t even one. The school uses public parks for sporting activities.
There’s no indoor heated Olympic-sized swimming pool in the new school. There’s barely a semblance of a music program. And there’s certainly no French lessons.
In first term, there was a raffle to raise money for one iPad for a classroom. In our old school, parents had been expected to purchase iPads for their kids annually, and this year, had we remained, I would have been required to purchase a MacBook.
Elite private schools feel it’s important to offer the best facilities and a full range of experiences. I can see now that a lot of this stuff is the icing on the cake of life; and icing is not always a healthy thing.
The focus is not on ‘being the best’ at everything.
Our old school was very focused on humility, charity, and serving the community. It actively taught resilience and independence in every lesson.
But it also concentrated very much on the concept of ‘the best’, because the values of the parents demanded it.
If you can afford $25,000 plus a year for school fees (for usually more than one child), you are undoubtedly amongst the richest people in the country. And although those people may be loathe to admit it, money matters. Daily lives, challenges and concerns, are different. Most of the families in our old school included a stay -at-home-mum; to the point that the school literally does not offer any vacation care, because all of the kids are either away, or at home with their mums, during the holidays.
So it’s perhaps unavoidable that when parents make this sort of investment in elite education, they expect a great return. Whether it’s in academics, sports, or music, the kids are expected to deliver their best every single day, at every opportunity. They are constantly rewarded by the school for excellence, and for being the best.
With this approach, it’s difficult not to breed elitism or arrogance; a sense of being better than others.
And with the sort of material privilege that naturally occurs in these families – the houses, the cars – the concept of “the best” – of having the best, of being the best – is introduced and reinforced so often, it becomes an expectation of every student for what they want from life and how they view themselves.
I’ve found this isn’t the case in our public school. The approach seems to be getting the most out of life – rather than focusing on driving ‘the best’ out of the kids.
There are still fees.
Public education still costs parents money. Sure, there's no "voluntary building contribution" to add another swimming pool. But we still pay for everything - from transport for excursions, to fees for the school camp, uniforms, and school supplies.
But of course, the overall cost is significantly cheaper.
The community is just as strong.
There's a strong school spirit here. Yes, the movie night fundraiser wasn't held on the private lawns of a building acquired last century which now serves as the headmaster's residence. And yes, it wasn't catered by one of the finest restauranters in the city, whose child happens to attend the school.
But the kids still had a blast. And the school still raised money. And those were the only objectives of the night.
A lot of people say that sending your kids to a private school is about making connections for the future. I guess you do get to be in contact with other privileged families. But I'm not sure that translates to any guarantees for success.
My conclusion.
Whilst my son was beginning to suffocate with the competition in his old school, in his new school he is being recognised almost weekly for his general knowledge, contribution to discussions, kindness and effort.
He is positively thriving.
And so, I am very glad I was wrong about public schools.
Top Comments
My husband is a deputy principal in a large public high school, & I work in a small public primary school, our 3 kids have attended both our schools. We could not be prouder of our schools & what they offer the community.
Sure, we don't have the beautifully kept & immaculately mowed sporting ovals of the local elite private schools, but we are inclusive of everyone, no matter what you earn, whether you have a disability, or what your religious or cultural back ground is, nor your academic or athletic ability.
While no school is perfect, & we are always striving to better our schools for the benefit of students, I do think that there is often a misconception that public schools, & in particular, public high schools are less than ideal. Choose the school that works for you, by all means, but don't write off public schools as not being good enough. Some of the most passionate & dedicated teachers I've ever met, work in public schools.
I find the characterisation here of public schools (under resourced but well meaning kindly spaces encouraging mediocrity) against private schools (elitist, luxuriously appointed institutions only interested in stellar achievement) somewhat generalised and patronising. I live in an affluent part of a capital city with a wide variety of well established private, public and catholic schools. My children attend a primary school with a strong focus (and corresponding results) on academic challenge and achievement, music and, not that my offspring value it much, team sport. It is a pleasant physical environment although a lot is done with fundraising rather than drawing on capital expenditures funds. It is a public school. We originally intended to go private but an uncertain economy and some financial wobbles plus a desire to eat more than pet food when I retire has meant that we will enrol our children in the local high school which offers selections of various specialty programs. It has beautiful leafy grounds, new or refurbished buildings and its yr 12 results routinely meet or beat the neighbouring so-called elite co-Ed private school which also draws a lot of its students from our primary school. I don't kid myself that this public education is free or low cost as my mortgage has cost more than a R-12 private school experience for all 3 children but I will at least have a house and asset to sell when my children are starting uni or doing a gap year. I accept that this may not be a typical experience and I am relatively fortunate and privileged to have these options but my aim is to get commentators to consider how the broader demographics of a family and community influence the values and outcome of any school rather than falling back on tired stereotypes,