The Liberals’ Steve Doszpot is stamping his tiny feet that the Greens and Labor won’t agree with him about guaranteeing rivers of gold to private schools.
“I presented this motion today to give the Greens and the Labor Party an opportunity to step up an support the non-government education sector, which provides quality educational outcomes for over 40 per cent of Canberra students,” Mr Doszpot said today.
“I’m extremely disappointed that neither party could give the assurance of adequate funding to the over 25,000 students and their parents that chose to send their children to a non-government school in the ACT…
“In fact at a ACT Labor party conference only four years ago, Deputy Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher and former Education Minister, Simon Corbell voted for a motion to ‘unashamedly support’ public education over non-government schools.
In the true spirit of the modern Liberal party Steve promises to make sure that more money which could be spent making public schools good will go to schools parents will already pay to send their children to.
UPDATE: Andrew Barr has been in touch to let us know that Labor and the Greens passed the following motion yesterday instead of Steve’s:
That this Assembly:
(1) notes:
(a) the old public-private debate is over; and
(b) all children in all schools should get the best education possible;
(2) reaffirms:
(a) its strong support for the Australian Government’s comprehensive review into education funding; and
(b) its strong support for a system that provides the most funding to the neediest schools, whether public, Catholic or independent; and
(3) calls on all parties in this Assembly to:
(a) support needs-based education funding in future; and
(b) work together in the interests of all students in all schools, not to attempt to profit from the politics of division.
Loading ...
So much for the almighty ‘power of the free market’, apparently it needs to be constantly propped up by middle-class welfare with an exaggerated sense of entitlement.
Next they’ll be demanding that the gummint supports private health insurance at the expense of the public system … oh, hang on, already happening.
I agree Jim. If you want to “privately” educate your child, away from all the common nit ridden kids, then pay for it. Don’t ask me to.
If you want to send your kids to private school you can bloody well pay for it yourself.
If parents want the government to pay for the education of their children, why don’t they just send them to public school?
That’s not to say I won’t necessarily use this to my advantage if and when I have kids, but I do think the government funding private education is an oxymoron.
The knowledge that private schools receive *any* govt funding drives me spare. Education and health care for the masses; what greater priority could any self-respecting Australian govt have? If people want to go do their own thing, fine. Do it on your own dime.
I’ve heard all the mealy-mouthed arguments in favour of funding non-govt schools. It’s still wrong. Discretionary spending can’t possibly warrant subsidising.
It’s bad enough that the churches – some of the biggest and most successful businesses in the world – get tax breaks for misleading/exploiting the sheep. Actually giving them $$ on top? Beggars belief.
Also interesting to note that the Liberals have started rhetorically confusing the distinction between ‘private’ and ‘public’ schools, and now refer to private schools as ‘independent’ or ‘non-government’. They’re not technically ‘private’ any more, because they now get f$ckloads of money from the government.
I am amazed that private schools require government funding at all, they are funded by the parents of the kids who pay upwards of $80 a week per child. I did attend a private school for two years for availability reasons and the school had no shortage of funds, kids were given free scholarships for their rugby ability, all school excursions were covered by the school, “brothers” who were supported by the school never seemed to do anything yet had new cars every year, facilities were perfect. Prior to that I had come from a public school which I enjoyed even though the school was falling apart, excursions had to be covered by the parents and obviously not all kids families could afford to send them, teachers earned a lot less and probably had to put up with a lot more. I have nothing against parents that chose to send their kids to private schools but why should those with kids who are getting a public education have to pay for the private school kids through their taxes when public schools are falling apart, and those students that need more help are going unnoticed…
When was the last time teachers employed by private schools went on strike…
wow, I think some people on here are feeling guilty that they have settled for a second rate education for their kids.
Each and every kid is entitled to the same amount towards their education, if I choose to supplement it that is up to me and no skin of your nose.
shadow boxer said :
Where the hell did that ‘right’ come from? I’ve searched through UNICEF and can’t find it anywhere.
Everyone has a ‘right’ to education – this is provided by the publically funded, public system. If you want to opt out of that system, why should the taxpayer have to pay for your choice? More importantly, why should the public system be starved of funds and suffer as a result of the private education system being funded by people who can’t afford to access it for their children?
I suspect it’s similar to the middle class “right” to the same welfare as the genuinely needy.
Also interesting to note that the Liberals have started rhetorically confusing the distinction between ‘private’ and ‘public’ schools, and now refer to private schools as ‘independent’ or ‘non-government’.
In the federal Dept for Education, both DEEWR and DEST before that, they have always been referred to as such. So it’s not a liberal or labor thing, it’s just how it is.
No conspiracies I’m afraid.
Someone might need to explain position of advantage and ‘exaggerated sense of entitlement’ that people who send their kids to private schools have.
Public education is entirely free and that ‘free-ness’ paid for by the Govt.
Private education is not free, it is paid for by the kids parents and partially subsidised by the Govt.
So what people are saying is that people who pay for their kids education are in a position of advantage as opposed to those who don’t? They must teach funny maths in those public schools.
Interestingly enough, parents of private school kids probably contribute to them their ‘taxes’ people are banging on about
of course, it is a spurious assertion that the single philosophy of how to provide a [free] education for all students resides in a single system and this means that alternative philosophies of education delivery exist. and it is, from their perspective – and who’s to say they’re wrong? – incumbent upon a government representing all to provide appropriate support.
not that i have an affiliation with any alternative education provider; just saying. it seems to be missing from the debate raging one-sidely above…
If I take my kids out of private school and send them to public school it will cost the taxpayer more. You will have to fund them, if all 40,000 parents in canberra do it and the private schools close and the organisations running them remove the 100′s of millions of dollars they put in you will have to fund them big time.
Governments know this, it’s economics 101
I have 4 kids at private school and it costs me about 22k a year from my public service salary. To achieve that I sacrifice a flash car, an annual holiday and various hobbies and entertainments through the year.
It’s a matter of priorities and the vast majority of parents I meet at the private school are doing the same thing and struggling along making sacrifices and doing the best they can.
I dont understand the relevance of your middle class welfare comment though..
Why don’t we have education vouchers, worth exactly the cost of a public education.
Then those who want to opt out can do so, receiving just the cost of the public alternative.
Then the private system can charge whatever the market will bear over and above that.
This way, it is revenue neutral to govt and to us who were educated in the public system, and who send/sent our kids there as well.
vg said :
Exaggerated sense of entitlement of people who send their kids to private schools *and expect this to be heavily financially subsidised for them*.
Analogous to someone who refuses to use the public health system, but expects the gummint to pick up the bill.
“If I take my kids out of private school and send them to public school it will cost the taxpayer more. “
Apart from being irrelevant, it’s utter bollocks. Do some research, in many cases private school students are disproportionally funded over public school students. And that’s ignoring the fact that a greater level of participation in the public system sees greater economies of scale.
You can sacrifice for your children, good on you – I do the same, as many parents do. I have nothing against that, and nothing against private education. But expecting the public to pay for private education is patently ludicrous.
Should the public also pay for the health bills of people who don’t want to use the public health system?
Should the public purse pay for me to run my car because I don’t like the public transport system?
does anyone have a comprehensive break down of private school vs public school funding? its my understanding that on a per child basis , public and private schools receive the same amount of funding from state governments but private schools receive more from the federal govt (per child). since most of the funding comes from the states, the difference is fairly small. still seems wrong to me though. is this correct?
I did my research as requested, this appears to be the facts
The reality, as noted in the 2010 Report on Government Services, is that total government funding per state school student is $12,639, while non-government schools receive $6,606 per student. Every student that attends a non-government school saves government, and taxpayers, approximately $6,000.
Johnboy, you need to run this thread on a monthly basis so that the comrades can dust of all the old class-warfare rhetoric.
Meanwhile, in the real world, parents who are able will avoid taking part in grand social experiments like the ‘Super’ schools and send their children to the best school they can.
At the private schools, they will join most of the children of Labor politicians, who are happy to use the politics of envy at branch meetings but find excuses not to practice it themselves.
shadow boxer said :
That sounds fair to me. Each kid should be entitled to the same money spent on their education. If that entitlement ‘amount’ is $100, then each public school should get $100 per student and each private school should get $100 minus whatever the parents pay. Each student then receives equal minimal (‘entitlement’) funding for their education.
The problem is, the private schools dont want fair education and students to get equal entitlements, or it diminishes the value of the private school systems elitism. If private schools are charging less than what it costs to educate a child and that child is receiving sub-standard education, then by all means the government should make up the difference. But just because the private schools cant make ends meet, with an even larger budget than public schools have, that shouldnt mean the public should have to support their bad accounting/business practice.
Flawed logic dude, why would you minus what the parents pay, That would only work if you also removed the $100 that I pay in taxes towards the public schools.
johnboy said :
Exactly – there are people here arguing that ‘everyone should get the same amount [of money] for education’, regardless of need or ability to pay for private education.
So wealthy parents get money to subsidise a private education because they choose not to use the system that is offered for free (while arguing how important ‘choice’ is).
Poorer parents can’t afford to pay extra for private education (apparently ‘choice’ is a ‘right’ that only adheres to the more wealthy of our society) so their children go to public schools, whose funding (and quality) is being eroded by the increasing amount of funding being diverted to private schools.
The result of this on a macro-scale is a perpetuation and escalation of class/economic difference – wealthy parents have comparatively better-educated children who have higher incomes and send their children to private schools, poorer parents send their children to public schools and they end up with comparative lower income jobs and can’t afford to send their children to private schools.
One of the functions of freely provided public education is to attempt to lessen this sort of pattern, not to exaggerate it by starving the public system of funds and diverting these funds to the wealthy.
The thing that appalls me about the debate is that I haven’t seen anyone argue that private schools should be heavily funded by government coming from a position of egalitarianism or social equity – it’s all very clearly coming from the position of “I send my children to a private school and you can take my subsidised private education from my cold, dead hands – I don’t care about the public system or the greater good of Australian society, I want what’s mine and screw the consequences”.
shadow boxer said :
And do you think that the government should pay for the health bills of people who choose not to use the public health system?
What about transport – should the government subsidise the private transport of people who choose not to use public transport?
Jim Jones said :
I don’t like ‘my’ taxes being used to pay for someone else’s unemployment benefits.
Game
Set
Match
shadow boxer said :
So you’re saying that wealthy people, who pay more taxes, should receive greater government funding for education and related services than poor people?
shadow boxer said :
Oh snap, there goes the comrades argument holus bolus
So your solution is to close down the private schools and make the public system worse because it will need to find the extra $6,000 per student that is currently funded by the parents and private school system.
Lofty goals you have there…
If you really cared about equality of education your target should be free university for all, something the Labor party put an end to, not picking on private school parents for wanting (and paying) for something more than what is currently offered for their kids.
justin heywood said :
Which ignores the fact that the ‘best’ schools could be public schools – if they were funded properly and not demonised by certain sectors of society (and a lot of politicians).
I mean, really – if a fundamental, foundational part of the Australian social infrastructure is starting to look broken, what’s the smart thing to do? Fix it? Or run away and pretend it’s not happening?
It seems to me that the fairest way to do this would simply be to allocate a dollar amount that each school place receives from the government per year. The government schools can operate with thaat amount, and if parents want to pay more to give their child something different, fine.
That said, I’m planning for my children to go to public school.
shadow boxer said :
Because its about putting the kids on a level playing field, not the parents. You pay your taxes towards public schools, whether you use them or not. You also pay your taxes towards rubbish collection too, that doesnt mean that if you decide to order a trash pack instead of using your green bin, that you should receive some subsidy from the government for your choice.