Jane, Great article. Shame most other posters just don't get it. Bondi Pete, no kids I assume, mate, i am a dad of two 12 and 9 very involved in all the decisions we make about our kids education, sport etc etc. Most middle class blokes are more and more involved with being parents. Sure Janes article is based on middle class issues and these are pressures on parents out there. Drop us a line in a few years when perhaps actually being a parent will give you real experiences to comment on. And Wendy L let me guess, you do all the mothering and dad earns the money and even though perhaps you do reluctantly have to work its really just to pay those pesky private school fees.You would really be much happier spending all your time project mananging your family. Your the sort of great Australian mum that would say to me family income(200k+) and sending their kids to secondAry and primary schools that we are making the WRONG choice and failing our kids!! wENDY l-am i right??

pdev

TurnRightThenLeft: You said, "These variety of choices aren't the biggies, but they do cause stress."

Au contraire, some may not be biggies, but some of the choices mentioned in the article (and in the conclusion) are extremely important which is precisely why so many parents (not just of the current breeding generation) stress (and have stressed) over them. It's a lot more than providing a roof, some food and not beating them. To give but one example, results consistently show that private education vastly outperforms public education. That's no biggy though, and it's not worth worrying about, right?

Actually shorbe, results show nothing of the kind.
The only consistent reason behind high educational achievement is socio-economic background of the parents, public and private have no impact in and of themselves. Private schools with high levels of middle class parents do well, so do similar public schools.
But once kids get to uni, there is a great deal of evidence that kids from comprehensive public do better. 4 studies ( the most recent from Monash Uni in Melb, I think) have shown that kids from comprehensive public schools who get to uni generally start out with a 5 mark disadvantage. By the end of their first year, this has been neatly reversed and the public school kids are out performing both their private and selective school peers by, wait for it, an average of 5 marks.
So, if you're middle class, your kid will probably do well whatever school you send them to, but if you want them to do really well at uni - send them to the comprehensive public.

ena: I think you're defining things extremely narrowly. Firstly, the socio-economic background of parents of private school children is not necessarily middle class (or upper class). In many cases, the parents have much lower educational levels than their children will have, and the parents simply aren't wealthy. So, whilst (to use a Melbourne example) there might not be a difference between Camberwell High School and C.G.S., there's a massive difference between the performance of students who live in Springvale and attend the local high school compared to those who attend nearby Haileybury College. That's the whole point of the "suburban" private school: you buy your kid a ladder to the next socio-economic class. Otherwise immigrants and other aspirationals wouldn't fork out five figures a year per child. It would be a pretty bad investment.

Secondly, regarding performance at university, I'm not disputing that, but what you're missing here is that a much larger number of kids from private schools get there in the first place (even if they have to be spoon fed), and not all of those are from middle class backgrounds. Otherwise, like I said, the aspirationals wouldn't make the sacrifices they do to send their kids to private schools to begin with.

Finally, regarding where to send kids who are already in the "right" socio-economic class, I suggest it's as much about networking. As much as anyone might claim to dislike the Old Boys' Club, once again, it performs.

You're trying to hold up a handful of kids who would probably succeed no matter what as evidence that the government system isn't a complete shipwreck (which a lot of people who send their kids to private school are only too aware of).

While the socio-economic background of kids at private schools is not necessarily middle class, it is more likely to be, merely because they charge up front fees.
Latest figures say 1 in 6 kids at private schools is from a "low income' family ( or understating their taxable income). That means 5 out of 6 are from higher income families.
It is the bleeding obvious that schools that don't charge up front fees get more of the poorer kids. That is the most likely reason many public schools don't get the results private ones do. Schools like Killara High, Cheltenham Girls and Mosman High in Sydney out perform most private schools. Why? because they draw from high socio-economic areas.

Maybe ena,
a word in shorbe's first comment motivated you to write the comment that you wrote.

That word is "STRESS". Have you studied the motivational psychologists Freud, Yung, Fromm, Erikson, Rogers, Maslow, Pavlov and of course Skinner who taught a pigeon to bowl?

University study is a major dose of 'stress' and it is how you cope under stress that defines what will happen the student. Under stress, all humans go under the pressure of the "fight or flight' syndrome. It is how we are motivated and what motivates us in life that decides what and how we evolve as people and go forward in society, or back.

Some fight, some sit and freeze and fret, and some flee and run away.
Now if a public school student is subjected to some stress they begin to learn how to cope with stress and develop coping strategies against stress. Some take up smoking, some drugs, some listen to music.

Others who are put in cotton wool in private school and their mummy and daddy looks after them in that cotton wool, when they go to university they can not cope.
The public school child is better able to cope and they have had some stress more than private school students.
It has nothing to do with intelligence. It is how we cope in the world on our own under stress that predicts what we will become

Now Ena you say:
"The only consistent reason behind high educational achievement is socio-economic background of the parents . . ."
Yes, that is correct because it is the best starting point up Maslow's ladder and it gives tenacity against stress and whether under stress you will fight and move forward learn and make your way in the world . . . and pass that exam, and get that job, and marry that girl and buy that business, and become a person of respect in society, a leader and not a follower.
Someone like Jane Caro who was made into who she was and is before the age of seven.