Private school now the majority

I’ll also add that when we were checking out high schools for my daughter, we took her to one government high school for an open day for new students, and there was an all-in brawl between a couple of gangs of students involving perhaps 20 kids in front of the prospective parents and children.

We immediately removed that school from our list of choices.

Watson said :

Jethro said :

This is because I believe that the benefits of exposing your children to people from all cultures and all walks of life are enormous. I also believe that public schools do offer our kids great educational opportunities.

One of the things that persuaded me to send my child to the local public school was the fact that they boasted about their social inclusion policy. Which means they do not give up on kids with behavioural problems or who underperform. Which is the kind of community spirit that I want my child to grow up with. Not an “we can afford to ignore the less fortunate who bug us because we pay for it” attitude that is displayed in a few posts here. Yes, there are disruptive kids. And again, it depends very much on the teacher and principal how this is dealt with.

They had a boy last year who started in term three for which they regularly had to evacuate a whole class of kids because when he lost it he became downright dangerous. Apparently an ADHD case. He’s still there this year and I have not heard any more complaints and am happy for the boy and his parents that he found a place where they did not immediately give up on him.

If you think raising your child in a bubble is the best thing for them, fine. Let’s just hope it won’t be your child that gets expelled one day.

Also, a social inclusion policy does of course bring the NAPLAN scores down. And the school still performs above average on most levels.

I’m one of those “child in a bubble people” you’ve mentioned, and I think you’ve misrepresented me there.

I’m glad to hear the story of the disruptive kid who has apparently had a positive result from whatever interventions have been applied. That’s the way things ought to pan out.

But at the government school my kids have attended, that was not the case. As I said, my eldest son went through an entire primary school career in the company of a violent and disruptive kid. Seven years of the same old crap happening regularly, including assaults on teachers and children with sticks, rulers etc. There were other less extreme long term problem kids, and as I’ve also mentioned, in one case I arrived in just time to stop another parent assaulting my then 10 year old son and his friend.

If this sort of stuff had been dealt with effectively, my kids would still be in a government school, I’d be happier, and I’d also be a lot better off financially.

Much appears to depend on the strength and leadership of the principal, and the support given to the teachers by the principal and the parents.

Jethro said :

This is because I believe that the benefits of exposing your children to people from all cultures and all walks of life are enormous. I also believe that public schools do offer our kids great educational opportunities.

One of the things that persuaded me to send my child to the local public school was the fact that they boasted about their social inclusion policy. Which means they do not give up on kids with behavioural problems or who underperform. Which is the kind of community spirit that I want my child to grow up with. Not an “we can afford to ignore the less fortunate who bug us because we pay for it” attitude that is displayed in a few posts here. Yes, there are disruptive kids. And again, it depends very much on the teacher and principal how this is dealt with.

They had a boy last year who started in term three for which they regularly had to evacuate a whole class of kids because when he lost it he became downright dangerous. Apparently an ADHD case. He’s still there this year and I have not heard any more complaints and am happy for the boy and his parents that he found a place where they did not immediately give up on him.

If you think raising your child in a bubble is the best thing for them, fine. Let’s just hope it won’t be your child that gets expelled one day.

Also, a social inclusion policy does of course bring the NAPLAN scores down. And the school still performs above average on most levels.

LSWCHP said :

LeatherJen said :

To suggest that ACT public schools are even on the same planet as private schools in terms of maintaining discipline is laughable.

My eldest son went through a government school from Kindy to year 6 with a kid who was extremely disturbed. On several occasions over the years my son came home and told me how this other kid had gone berserk in the classroom, assaulted the teacher with a weapon, assaulted other kids in the classroom or playground, tipped over half the desks in the classroom in a fit of rage etc etc etc. It went on and on and on for 7 years. He was the worst, but not the only one of his kind.

When my son started year 7 at his new private school, similar things happened with another child in his year. After a few months and a number of incidents, the other child went away. Maybe it sounds harsh, but I honestly don’t give a shit about what happened to him. He was disruptive in the school, and now he’s not. I didn’t have to go and complain pointlessly to the principal or anything, it just happened. That’s what “exclusive school” means. Screw up, and you will be excluded.

Overall, I think it’s well worth the money. And if Andrew Barr thinks this is all because of bad marketing of government schools, well, that just confirms my opinions of him.

I’ll add that it’s a catholic school, and my opinions about organised religion are similar to those of Pommy Bastard. However, my kids appreciate the environment and opportunities, and are smart enough to understand that the religious education stuff should be treated like fairy stories.

Attending the odd class about religion is a very small price to pay for being part of a good school. I’m glad you’re going to the effort to send your kids to a private school, it sounds like it’s just what they need.

“I’d sure be interested to know what happens at private schools when a student tells a staff member to f-off…

They become an ex student

LeatherJen said :

To suggest that ACT public schools are even on the same planet as private schools in terms of maintaining discipline is laughable.

I’m not suggesting that at all. Private schools have the right to expel or not accept any student they want to. (Which, interestingly, is one of the reasons I am a supporter of public education over private education…. being a teacher at a private school where a girl was expelled basically because she was suffering from depression and they didn’t want to have to expend the resources or time helping her was a pretty saddening experience. Similarly, the use of entry tests to determine if a child should be enrolled or not is a pretty poor way to run an educational institution, yet I am aware of private schools that do this.)

Public schools in the ACT do not have the ability to do expel out of control students. If a child is from the school’s catchment area the school must keep them enrolled. I can see why parents find this unacceptable. The public system would probably be better served in Canberra if there was a school for the incorrigibles. Most other public school jurisdictions have this option at their disposal and I believe Canberra may have had it a long while back. I’m not sure why we don’t have it today.

However, outside of expulsion public schools have at their disposal a wide range of disciplinary measures. It probably depends on each school’s leadership team how much they use these measures. In my experience public schools do have have very clear expectations of behaviour and very clear consequences for breaches of those expectations. Schools that are consistent in their approach to behaviour management usually don’t need to resort to expulsion anyway, as things will be less likely to escalate to such a point. It is disappointing to hear from other teachers and parents on this forum that this clear and consistent approach to behaviour management isn’t always the case. To mine, that is a matter of an individual school’s leadership, not a systemic problem within the public system itself.

I deeply care about our public schools and think they can be a real positive power in Canberra. I think it is a shame that apparently more than half of Canberra’s parents don’t share this faith. Perhaps if they did and if they were willing to invest this faith in the public system (by enrolling their children in their local public school, offering some money as voluntary contributions, joining the P&C and basically participating in the school community) they would help our public schools be the schools they want them to be.

Jethro said :

Gerry-Built said :

[
I’d sure be interested to know what happens at private schools when a student tells a staff member to f-off…

Any public school I’ve worked at (across two states/territories) that has been an automatic external suspension. You should be speaking to your principal if that is not the case where you work.

Definitely not an automatic suspension at my School. In fact, most often, a child is returned to the same class a few minutes later, with some bleeding heart story (such as “he has mental health issues”) and I’m told I have to ring the parents and follow the School Behaviour Management system. I have taken to submitting “Accident/Incident Report” forms to DET every time I am “verbally abused”, despite the fact this was never their intended use. I don’t feel very well supported in this regard, and I know a lot of my colleagues feel the same way – though they certainly do the best they can with the limits they are given.

Last term, parents of several of my Year 8 class were unable to be contacted as the parents had provided false contact details to the school. Without an ability to follow up on their behaviour, the kids knew they could get away with anything… (and these kids regularly swore at me and refused to undertake work).

Interestingly, the Principal has been in the media recently for successfully lowering the suspension rates… The Principal is the only staff member at a school with authority to suspend a child. As far as I am aware, suspending a student carries a financial disincentive for the school, along with mountains of paperwork. I do not think there are DET guidelines as to what behaviour constitutes a suspendable offence, and if the child lives “in area” they must be permitted to attend their local school (with some provisos).

Anyhow – writing this is damaging my calm…

LeatherJen said :

To suggest that ACT public schools are even on the same planet as private schools in terms of maintaining discipline is laughable.

My eldest son went through a government school from Kindy to year 6 with a kid who was extremely disturbed. On several occasions over the years my son came home and told me how this other kid had gone berserk in the classroom, assaulted the teacher with a weapon, assaulted other kids in the classroom or playground, tipped over half the desks in the classroom in a fit of rage etc etc etc. It went on and on and on for 7 years. He was the worst, but not the only one of his kind.

When my son started year 7 at his new private school, similar things happened with another child in his year. After a few months and a number of incidents, the other child went away. Maybe it sounds harsh, but I honestly don’t give a shit about what happened to him. He was disruptive in the school, and now he’s not. I didn’t have to go and complain pointlessly to the principal or anything, it just happened. That’s what “exclusive school” means. Screw up, and you will be excluded.

Overall, I think it’s well worth the money. And if Andrew Barr thinks this is all because of bad marketing of government schools, well, that just confirms my opinions of him.

I’ll add that it’s a catholic school, and my opinions about organised religion are similar to those of Pommy Bastard. However, my kids appreciate the environment and opportunities, and are smart enough to understand that the religious education stuff should be treated like fairy stories.

To suggest that ACT public schools are even on the same planet as private schools in terms of maintaining discipline is laughable.

Gerry-Built said :

[
I’d sure be interested to know what happens at private schools when a student tells a staff member to f-off…

Any public school I’ve worked at (across two states/territories) that has been an automatic external suspension. You should be speaking to your principal if that is not the case where you work.

shadow boxer said :

It is probably fair to say that the behaviour of the repeat offenders is now quite extreme. Serious criminal misconduct, assaults, AVO’s from teachers, rampant under age drinking.

not sure if I made the point that it is only a handful of kids in any school… Also – I’ve not known of any teacher taking out an AVO, but there have certainly been several student/student ones…

I’d sure be interested to know what happens at private schools when a student tells a staff member to f-off…

I just don’t buy into this argument that supposes each of us with children has a certain allocation and we can use it for public or private education. We have a funded public scheme. If you want private education, then pay for it.
To add insult to injury, private schools can expel difficult students who may then end up back in the public system. So private system expects funding, but gets to pick and choose which students – that’s not fair. If private was completely self funded then pick and choose would be reasonable.

Gerry built said Well – that summarises (but over-simplifies) a couple of my points, yes. It is a necessity to deal with disruptive and “damaged” students through adequate programs and services; especially those that are repeat offenders that make up the pointy-end of school suspension data. These kids need to be adequately dealt with – because they are not being dealt with now.

I think this is a good point and one that weighs heavily on people considering their options. It is probably fair to say that the behaviour of the repeat offenders is now quite extreme. Serious criminal misconduct, assaults, AVO’s from teachers, rampant under age drinking.

It’s not the friendly hi-jinks of past times, You can’t really blame people for avoiding it if they can. I’m not sure what the answer is though because when I speak to some teachers I know the parents can be worse than the kids.

Just to clarify the comments of subsidising private schools. I pay may taxes, if I choose to send my child and pay extra at a private school, that is my choice. But when I pay my taxes, each and every student in Australia receives money for education that is given to their school. SO – private schools are not subsidised but are given their fair share of money as per the children sent there as are children in public school. It just so happens that there are now more children being sent to private school. Am I so wrong to want a better education for my child and be happy to pay my taxes and spend extra on their education? The writing is on the wall unfortunately.

aidan said :

Gerry, it seems your arguments boil down to two main factors

1. Funding levels for guvvie schools are too low (for maintenance and value-added activities)
2. Private schools can kick out disruptive kids who then go into the public system

Seems you are advocating an increase in public school funding. Given that money doesn’t grow on trees, it seems many are advocating a reallocation of funding based on need.

Well – that summarises (but over-simplifies) a couple of my points, yes. It is a necessity to deal with disruptive and “damaged” students through adequate programs and services; especially those that are repeat offenders that make up the pointy-end of school suspension data. These kids need to be adequately dealt with – because they are not being dealt with now.

I went to public schools. There is nothing rong with how I turned out.

I am a teacher in a public high school. The school I work at is excellent.

Our students are challenged and given fantastic opportunities to learn and we have a strong and supportive community. I would definitely send my kids there and I’d recommend you do to.

But it is a great school in spite of the funding available. Our building is in pretty poor order and the temperature in classrooms is anywhere between 5 and 40 degrees depending on the time of year. We have our fair share of challenging students (with challenging families attached) but we also have a great Student Services team. We have a counsellor once or twice a week so that isn’t optimal. We have many computers but the network is patchy. It all comes down to money.

I’m not convinced by the argument of some that all students in Australia have a fixed dollar amount attached to them wherever they decide to be educated. Would we also attach money to students choosing to be educated outside of Australia? Are the same standards of teacher qualifications, curriculum or departmental policy regimes now imposed in private schools when they take the cheque?

People are making a choice to move to a private, corporate entity for a service. That service may cost a lot, it may cost a little – but it is a choice. Normally, if a business offers a product at a rate too high for consumers either they lose customers or drop their prices. By having the Australian and ACT Governments provide money to the private sector they aren’t doing anything to lower prices for parents interested in the private school option – if anything you are keeping it higher and keeping potential competitors out of the market. The ACT Government school system is owned by all Canberrans – even the ones who have chosen the private sector. Private sector schools are owned only by the institution itself (or major religion). If the Australian people want Government school buildings that are awful or fantastic that is a conscious choice.

Private and public school parents should be nagging the ACT Government for two things: Way more private schools and/or a bigger slice of the pie allocated to education generally. More private school licenses would presumably lower tuition fees through competition. The downside is that choosing/switching schools is not the sort of product you can trial and ponder over without adding other costs but that’s a risk that some would be willing to take.

If the private sector is going to receive some sort EFTSU based funding then means testing seems the fairest way, right? I know its easy to take a free kick at the shooting ranges, swimming pools etc of the richest and obviously least needy institutions but I’m willing to accept, if pushed into compromise, that some private schools need money – in the short term at least.

But maybe we all need to get real. This isn’t a class war. This isn’t a religion v atheist war. This is actually a bigger decision about the general behaviour of both Liberal and Labor parties giving public funds to private organisations. We see it in health, education, greenhouse gas polluters (is there any polluter not getting a free pass?), banking, internet. Maybe we should just be happy that, in a general sense, there is more money at all for education…..

Ms 2604 works in a government high school in South Canberra, and this comes as absolutely no surprise having heard some of the stories she brings home about the way government schools are run.

The whole misguided philosophy revolves around the primacy of each child’s emotional wellbeing, which means that a student can never be held responsible for his or her own actions. If a student swears at a teacher, he doesn’t get reprimanded because he was just expressing himself. If a student has consistent attitude problems with teachers, other students, or rules, it is blamed upon ADHD, ODD, or anything other than the child’s own (bad) choices.

Bullying is not blamed on the perpetrator, but on his or her life situation, and he or she gets put straight back into the classroom with the victim.

Children can’t repeat a year at school, because it might “emotionally disadvantage” them. Ergo, kids can slack off without fear of failing. Likewise, the fact that students don’t repeat means that some kids progress right through high school without being able to read, write or add up.

Students are asked to return textbooks and library books at the end of the year, but face no sanctions if they don’t. So, the school has to consistently waste money re-stocking books each year.

We would like nothing more than to send our kids to a free, local high school. But the idea of them being stuck there with kids who are free to bully and distract with no fear of any consequences will surely drive us into the private system, along with the rest.

I note that Andrew Barr is doing his usual head-in-the-sand trick and blaming the exodus on inadequate marketing and differentiation of the government system.

I was educated in a very exclusive (GPS) private school and the bullying and violence that occurred at that school was worse than anything I have seen in my years working in the public education system. The attitude that a large percentage of the boys at that school towards women was also pretty sickening and I would suggest was a product of its single-sex environment.

Of course, all schools are different so I don’t want to tar all private schools with that brush, but it is too simplistic to say private schools = good children, public schools = bad children.

I work in the public system and my children will be educated in it. This is because I believe that the benefits of exposing your children to people from all cultures and all walks of life are enormous. I also believe that public schools do offer our kids great educational opportunities.

The money saved from spending them to a public school would probably also be much better spent on paying for tertiary education fees upfront (I know I would appreciate not being burdened with a HECS debt running into the tens of thousands of dollars).

Hmm. The research tends to show that while private school graduates have high chances of going on to uni, and a bit of a grade advantage in the first semester over their publicly schooled counter-parts, once you get past the first semester public school graduates perform equally as well at uni as private school graduates.

I attended both public and private schools as a child and was fortunate to find that the public school I attended offered a superior education. I know that this is rare and probably had something to do with it being selective at the time.

As a child of two teachers in the public system, I respected the time, effort and caring that went into the students at the schools where they taught. I am terribly disappointed that this too, now seems rare and sympathise with public educators who seem to be swimming against the tide.

I have tried the public system in the ACT and decided that it is not the best for my children on the basis that:
* The standard of teaching and entry to teaching, which has been acceptable for a number of years, is unacceptable to me – teachers should, at the very least, know how to spell;
* high performing teachers should be paid what they are worth (I also support performance-based pay, including in the APS);
* while I am an atheist, I send my kids to a Catholic school and tell them to treat it like a history/human sociology subject. It is a valuable subject and need not be a brain-washing or renditioning of your child;
* parents who pay a bit extra for their child’s schooling seem to be more involved in their education, including attendance to behavioural and learning issues. Two of my children have had learning difficulties. While the public system faffed around for years either not acknowledging there was an issue or saying it didn’t have the resourcing to deal with it, the Catholic school is onto things promptly and at least offers some suggestions;
* discipline in the public system is ridiculous – if my kid has been pushed, shoved or bullied, don’t send them to the “thinking centre” with the perpetrators. Punish the perpetrator and phone the parents – even if my kid is the perpetrator;
* accountability – I am paying for a service and expect that service to be delivered. I am pleased to say that I receive that service. So why is that same attitude not present in the public sector? Security of tenure?

All in all, I do not disagree with a lot of the comments on here – both for and against. In the end, it comes down to individual circumstances with the available schools and the desires for, and ability of, your children. No-one should be pilloried for choosing what they think is best for their kids.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fees-bullies-and-poor-results-behind-private-school-exodus/2006/03/18/1142582575193.html

While this was NSW, either these student swings (private/public school) are somewhat cyclical, or perhaps all private schools have all miraculously fixed some of the problems mentioned (eg. bullying) in the last 5 years, which I doubt. Therefore, the fact that many of you believe private schools are filled with model citzens, and immune from bullying is probably a little off the mark. Kids will always pick on each other whether at public or private schools, it just may be in different ways. Perhaps we all believe that anything that costs more must be better? It helps if we’re well-paid professionals too!

Pommy bastard said :

I object to my tax dollars paying to subsidise someone else’s indoctination of their kids into the catholic cult.

You want them to learn mumbo-jumbo, pay for it yoruself.

(Oh and don’t come crying to me if your son comes home with a size nine @rse.)

Where you’re argument falls over PB is that not everyone who send their kids to a catholic school is a catholic, or even cares about religion.. I was a catholic, and can’t stand any God who has a fan club with a mentality stuck in the year zero. I know many folk who have no religion that send their kids to private schools, including catholic ones, purely for the education and discipline. I do.

Seems to me, if you close a stack of local government schools and then crow about it for half a decade, people might not trust you won’t do it again. Especially if China stops buying all our stuff.

I-filed said :

I don’t regard Catholic schools as “private”. They’re mostly cheap church schools. Other than St Clare’s and St Eddy’s, none of the Catholic schools are expensive …

Dunno about that. It’s about $4200 per annum per kid where my lot are going. Maybe I’m not earning enough, but that seems like an awful lot of money to me, once you multiply it by a few kids.

You want 4 words to demonstrate why parents my prefer the private option for high school, well here they are:

Gold
Creek
High
School

EvanJames said :

But their parents wanted things the public system didn’t offer. Single-sex education for some, for others it was the emphasis on discipline and accountability, the strong school rules and standards, and the biggie was the expectation on the kids that they would study and take it seriously.

My observation, especially in recent years, is that public schools have little power to do anything about disruptive, problem kids whose parents often have no interest in controlling hteir kids. It downgrades the education experience for all the kids. So the parents who choose to pay high fees are trying to ensure that their kid gets a fair go at learning stuff, as well as behaviour, values and self-discipline.

What EJ said.

I’m a well paid professional, but not a millionaire. All my kids have been to public primary schools, but they are going to private high schools. Funding this is difficult, but worth it.

I do this because the private school is exclusive, in the sense that troublesome kids are given a chance, but if they want to be long term arsehats they are excluded. I see this as a good thing, and worth paying bucketloads of money for.

In contrast, they suffered regular harassment and educational disruption from dysfunctional kids at primary school. On one occasion I arrived at school to find my eldest (12 year old) son in the process of being assaulted by a grey skinned, ratfaced green toothed junkie who had developed the mistaken idea that my son had been hassling his appalling child, when in fact some other kid had been doing the hassling. I sorted him, but had I not been there, I dunno what might have eventuated.

Nothing like that has happened at the private school. I’d love to use the money to pay off my mortgage, but the wellbeing and education of my children comes first. I think most of the other parents who are sending their kids to the school are in the same boat. I don’t see a lot of flash cars, or flash houses amongst my kids friends.

This thread is rife with sweeping generalisations about both public and private schools. How many schools have you taught at? How many schools have your kids or your friends kids attended? How many schools did you try out as a kid?

There’s always good and bad principals, teachers, parents, school boards and kids and none of them are limited to one side of the fence.

I don’t regard Catholic schools as “private”. They’re mostly cheap church schools. Other than St Clare’s and St Eddy’s, none of the Catholic schools are expensive …

I’m Canberran born and raised. I went to a Government Primary school, High school and College here in Canberra and enjoyed them all. Now as a Primary school teacher working in the Government system and parent I’m sad to say I’ll probably be looking at the Non-Government sector when it’s time for my kids to go to school.

This has a lot less to do with the quality of education and certainly nothing to do with image (actually quite the opposite, as a non religious person I find the idea of my kids receiving a religious education slightly unnerving) but rather, as others have said, from what I have seen the behaviour expectations and consequences for negative behaviour in the non-Government system are more in line with the expectations that my partner and I have. The Government system seems to be geared almost wholly around the rights of students and their families with no regard for their corresponding responsibilities.

Obviously this doesn’t mean that the Non-Government system is free from unacceptable behaviour. A few years back I had the pleasure of teaching the young lady featured on the cover of the current issue of the City News (who with the help of the Salvos has worked hard to turn her life around, leaving drugs and crime behind her – a really lovely story) while she was at a Catholic Primary School here in Canberra. Let me tell you on a bad day she could be as nasty as any of the kids I work with now. However I found her to be the exception rather than the rule.

Last week a student at my school informed a peer that she was a ‘Fyshwick whore who sucked for a buck’ Suspension? Nope. Detention? Nope. Rather a “stern telling off” from our sexual harassment officer.

No thanks ACT DET. I’ll pass thanks.

Cheap said :

I don’t understand why parents send their kids to private schools. Narrabundah College came 2nd overall in the ATAR ranking last year, beating all private schools besides Radford. What’s the point of paying money for a private school when your kids aren’t necessarily getting a better education?

Who came first in the rankings? If I’m not mistaken, Canberra Boys Grammar is not included in these rankings due to their participation in the NSW system.
In any case, I would suspect that academic rankings are simply one factor in choosing a school for any parent who desires a liberal and global education for their child. After all, the true purpose of education is to develop well rounded citizens, ready to make a constructive contribution to our society. This might be in academia, the arts, sport etc, and parents should be free to choose the environment which offers the best opportunities to experience all of these and more, public or private.

gravessam said :

Pommy bastard said :

Watson said :

Does teaching kids about a religion for an hour a week cost extra money? No. Does teaching kids using the Steiner method cost extra money? No. So why is there such a strong reaction against funding them the same way we fund public???

Well form my perspective; why is public money being used to subsidise the anti-education of the catholic cult’s ideals?

“In the 2006 census, 64% of Australians listed themselves as Christian, including 26% as Roman Catholic and 19% as Anglican. About 19% of the population cited “No religion” Wikipedia – Trust it as much as you like..

I find it interesting that you refer it as the ‘catholic cult’ when there are more catholic’s in this country then non-believers…

pot.. kettle.. black…

I think you are blinded by the role of religion in private school. I went to one and I consider myself a non-believer. So they really got to me didn’t they…

http://www.censusnoreligion.org/

luther_bendross said :

Gerry-Built said :

luther_bendross said :

… I don’t believe that they should receive the proportion of public funding that they do.

EVERY Australian child should be entitled to equal funding of their education… if parents want to pay extra to add something they don’t believe is offered from a Public Education – that is fair and reasonable.

You are 100% correct. All children are entitled to equal funding, it’s known as the public school system. If you want to pay more then that is fair and reasonable, I just believe it should be a lot more than it currently is. If less funding went to private and more to public schools then public schooling standards would improve..

OK, then let’s stop funding private schools completely. Which would mean that 90% of the parents currently sending their kids to those schools, would no longer be able to afford it. But fortunately there is the public system! We’d only have to double the amount of schools to support the move. Easy!

Fair enough to let parents pay more if they insist that they’re child’s school needs a tennis court and a 50m heated swimming pool. But why would they need to pay for the basic education that public school kids receive for free, I really don’t get.

Pommy bastard said :

I object to my tax dollars paying to subsidise someone else’s indoctination of their kids into the catholic cult.

You want them to learn mumbo-jumbo, pay for it yoruself.

(Oh and don’t come crying to me if your son comes home with a size nine @rse.)

I object to a lot of things that governments, both state/territory and federal do with tax payers dollars. Unfortunately the taxation system isn’t an opt in system that means you can support only those areas requiring funding that you ascribe to.

I personally believe that education should be based on an entitlement model. The Commonwealth should attach a certain dollar value per child per year, if you don’t want any extras, you take your kidlet and their entitlement funding off to the local guvvie school (which has additional infrastructure and resource funding). If you want to pay more for based on religious belief, single sex schooling, philosophical outlook (Steiner/Montessori, mumbo-jumbo claptrap) then you pay in addition to your entitled funding.

Cheap said :

I don’t understand why parents send their kids to private schools. Narrabundah College came 2nd overall in the ATAR ranking last year, beating all private schools besides Radford. What’s the point of paying money for a private school when your kids aren’t necessarily getting a better education?

Cherry picking much?
However, even comparing known exceptional highs compared to known exceptional highs, I note that the Private system still won your comparison though.

Not everywhere in the public system is a Narrabundah, not everywhere in the private system is like Radford. But the median of one system that can keep a reasonable population good teachers in one-place year-to-year is probably predictable, compared to the year-by-year randomness of public education.
IE: Paying for a steady-quality private system educator is better than the variably hit-and-miss public system, in any case.

It just improves the odds, Narrabundah is a credit to the public system but it is fed from selective Primary schools isn’t it so it’s not really equal ?

Jesus Christ, you’re missing the point here.
STOP FIGHTING AMONGST YOURSELVES OVER SCRAPS, BUILD A BIGGER EDUCATION PIE INSTEAD.

Playing the “Private school spending is wasted spending” card results in less money overall, and keeps public schools in line for waste-targetting cuts.
Private schools already have the opportunity to play the “We take Commonwealth and State funds to stay on a Commonwealth and State agreed curriculum” card if they want to. Do you really want to be advocating letting them off the leash and galloping down the path to a two-class system?
(IE: Keep them on side until you want that card played…)

Private schools budget their maintenance, costing for class consumables, etc out of private contributions also. (You don’t pay, you don’t play.)
Public schools tend to operate off consumable allowances that are meant to be paid by every family, but tend to be paid by some minority of families, who end up getting less than their money’s worth since the school needs to “top-up” in the vicinity of 90%.
Maintenance is sorted at a school-based level, rather than systemic, leading to exactly the kind of inefficiencies of small-scale they should avoid.

If you want a well-funded public ssystem, stop expecting handouts bason on electoral whims and generosity, and demand a better system be enshrined.

I don’t understand why parents send their kids to private schools. Narrabundah College came 2nd overall in the ATAR ranking last year, beating all private schools besides Radford. What’s the point of paying money for a private school when your kids aren’t necessarily getting a better education?

Gerry-Built said :

luther_bendross said :

… I don’t believe that they should receive the proportion of public funding that they do.

EVERY Australian child should be entitled to equal funding of their education… if parents want to pay extra to add something they don’t believe is offered from a Public Education – that is fair and reasonable.

You are 100% correct. All children are entitled to equal funding, it’s known as the public school system. If you want to pay more then that is fair and reasonable, I just believe it should be a lot more than it currently is. If less funding went to private and more to public schools then public schooling standards would improve. The financially elite can take their uppity schools, still doesn’t stop their students turning out to be A-grade wankers when they’re 30.

shadow boxer said :

It’s a shame to get posts like this because some people have put a lot of thought into some excellent posts on here.

I lol’d at Pommy Bastards post. If you don’t like the bluntness, don’t continue to feed the trolls.

Pommy bastard said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Pommy bastard said :

I object to my tax dollars paying to subsidise someone else’s indoctination of their kids into the catholic cult.

You want them to learn mumbo-jumbo, pay for it yoruself.

(Oh and don’t come crying to me if your son comes home with a size nine @rse.)

I object to my tax dollars being spent on subsidising those who want to emigrate here from another country, for example, y’know like the UK perhaps. Thing is, in a peaceful and stable country I think it is better to accept not every tax dollar will be spent on things we approve of. Or, if you choose, you can debate the issue like a grown up instead of carrying on like a spoilt kid.

Hang about here? I was not subsidised in anyw ay, I’ll have you know.

See, it’s pretty easy to get a bite when you pigeon hole a subject so narrowly isn’t it.

I have no concern over how you arrived in Australia and it’s none of my business anyway, I wish you well. I just wanted to make a point.

I do happen to believe in freedom of religion, though, and even though I was raised a Catholic I would have called you on that post regardless of the religion you named.

Pommy bastard said :

Watson said :

Does teaching kids about a religion for an hour a week cost extra money? No. Does teaching kids using the Steiner method cost extra money? No. So why is there such a strong reaction against funding them the same way we fund public???

Well form my perspective; why is public money being used to subsidise the anti-education of the catholic cult’s ideals?

“In the 2006 census, 64% of Australians listed themselves as Christian, including 26% as Roman Catholic and 19% as Anglican. About 19% of the population cited “No religion” Wikipedia – Trust it as much as you like..

I find it interesting that you refer it as the ‘catholic cult’ when there are more catholic’s in this country then non-believers…

pot.. kettle.. black…

I think you are blinded by the role of religion in private school. I went to one and I consider myself a non-believer. So they really got to me didn’t they…

Holden Caulfield said :

Pommy bastard said :

I object to my tax dollars paying to subsidise someone else’s indoctination of their kids into the catholic cult.

You want them to learn mumbo-jumbo, pay for it yoruself.

(Oh and don’t come crying to me if your son comes home with a size nine @rse.)

I object to my tax dollars being spent on subsidising those who want to emigrate here from another country, for example, y’know like the UK perhaps. Thing is, in a peaceful and stable country I think it is better to accept not every tax dollar will be spent on things we approve of. Or, if you choose, you can debate the issue like a grown up instead of carrying on like a spoilt kid.

Hang about here? I was not subsidised in anyw ay, I’ll have you know.

I did however put forward my views on catholicism and public subsidising (what I consider) a not worthwhile indoctrination into a religion, in what is supposed to be an education establishment.

Now some are wailing and moaning that they cannot discuss here as I have expressed my views? It says little for the strength of these views, or their ability to put forward their own perspectives, let alone their ability to ignore that which I wrote.

If you don’t like my views, please feel free to ignore them. I’ll not post my views on this subject in their thread any further, as it may encumberance the catholics here, poor souls.

Typing too fast… I meant “I just don’t understand why anyone would find this such a big deal and think that a child that goes to a weekly religion class (could be daily, I don’t really care) would not deserve to be subsidised in the same way as a child who doesn’t get that class.

Or something along those lines anyway. 😉

Gerry, it seems your arguments boil down to two main factors

1. Funding levels for guvvie schools are too low (for maintenance and value-added activities)
2. Private schools can kick out disruptive kids who then go into the public system

Seems you are advocating an increase in public school funding. Given that money doesn’t grow on trees, it seems many are advocating a reallocation of funding based on need.

Last year Canberra Grammar received $4.3m in recurrent Government funding.

Pommy bastard said :

Watson said :

Does teaching kids about a religion for an hour a week cost extra money? No. Does teaching kids using the Steiner method cost extra money? No. So why is there such a strong reaction against funding them the same way we fund public???

Well form my perspective; why is public money being used to subsidise the anti-education of the catholic cult’s ideals?

Some people think teaching kids maths or French is a waste of money too. So lets just all send them to the mines like in the good old days!

I just don’t understand why anyone would find it such a big deal that a child that goes to a weekly religion class (could be daily, I don’t really care) would not deserve to be subsidised in the same way as a child who doesn’t get that class. The vast majority of the subjects they get taught at private schools are exactly the same as what they get taught at a public school. So how about we fund them on a 95% ratio of what we fund public then? A 5% penalty for the 5% of their curriculum that is related to religion.

What about Steiner and Montessori schools? I think my child would’ve greatly benefited from these education methods but I did not get a choice to send her to one of those schools because of the funding gap and the resulting steep school fees.

Can I just add that my child does attend a public school and is doing very well now? Now in year 1, fantastic teacher, some great school initiatives and projects, lots of involvement from parents. I have no complaints about the school (that I wouldn’t have had about any other school!)

Kerryhemsley said Don’t know about a lot of thought but I know you come up with the same old PR for the Anglican school in Gungahlin while making ridiculous generalisations about the public system every time this subject come up.

I thought some of the posts were quite well thought out and constructed, particulalry Gerry and VicePope. References to size 9 arses not so much.

Could you point me to one of my generalisations please, I try not to do that so I’m interested.

Pommy bastard, a man whose image and self-esteem issues are manifest from his handle, has reminded me why I generally stopped participating on this forum some time ago. What has started out as a sensible discussion of a social phenomenon has become an opportunity for him to engage in some kind of anti-Catholic tirade. Was he once bitten by a rabid nun? There is no point in continuing, I fear.

Pommy bastard said :

I object to my tax dollars paying to subsidise someone else’s indoctination of their kids into the catholic cult.

You want them to learn mumbo-jumbo, pay for it yoruself.

(Oh and don’t come crying to me if your son comes home with a size nine @rse.)

I object to my tax dollars being spent on subsidising those who want to emigrate here from another country, for example, y’know like the UK perhaps. Thing is, in a peaceful and stable country I think it is better to accept not every tax dollar will be spent on things we approve of. Or, if you choose, you can debate the issue like a grown up instead of carrying on like a spoilt kid.

Watson said :

Does teaching kids about a religion for an hour a week cost extra money? No. Does teaching kids using the Steiner method cost extra money? No. So why is there such a strong reaction against funding them the same way we fund public???

Well form my perspective; why is public money being used to subsidise the anti-education of the catholic cult’s ideals?

shadow boxer said :

Pommy bastard said :

I object to my tax dollars paying to subsidise someone else’s indoctination of their kids into the catholic cult.

You want them to learn mumbo-jumbo, pay for it yoruself.

(Oh and don’t come crying to me if your son comes home with a size nine @rse.)

Well as long as my taxes don’t have to subsidise your public school kids or pay for a system I don’t use you have a deal, I know who will come out of it better.

It’s a shame to get posts like this because some people have put a lot of thought into some excellent posts on here.

Don’t know about a lot of thought but I know you come up with the same old PR for the Anglican school in Gungahlin while making ridiculous generalisations about the public system every time this subject come up.

shadow boxer said :

It’s a shame to get posts like this because some people have put a lot of thought into some excellent posts on here.

Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.

Pommy bastard said :

I object to my tax dollars paying to subsidise someone else’s indoctination of their kids into the catholic cult.

You want them to learn mumbo-jumbo, pay for it yoruself.

(Oh and don’t come crying to me if your son comes home with a size nine @rse.)

My tax dollars fund a whole range of things I do not believe in or don’t use. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

Does teaching kids about a religion for an hour a week cost extra money? No. Does teaching kids using the Steiner method cost extra money? No. So why is there such a strong reaction against funding them the same way we fund public??? They all have the same primary goal, they all have largely the same structure and the same curriculum, plus or minus some extra bits.

It is most likely because I haven’t grown up with a system like this that I find it quite illogical, but there definitely seems to be some historical hang-up that creates this massive divide.

As for the implication that you should send your kids to a public school if you’re left-leaning. Way to go using your child a political pawn!

What I find interesting is the fact that the definiton of ‘majority’ in this case is ‘not quite parity’ – ie 50.3%

Granted, that is a majority. Nominally.

Wikipedia (that fountain of accuracy) tells me that there are currently 17 government high schools and 19 private schools that take students from year 7 onwards in the ACT.

I could do some more maths here, but I have to do some work that they actually pay me for.

Pommy bastard said :

I object to my tax dollars paying to subsidise someone else’s indoctination of their kids into the catholic cult.

You want them to learn mumbo-jumbo, pay for it yoruself.

(Oh and don’t come crying to me if your son comes home with a size nine @rse.)

You don’t want to subsidise other peoples’ kids, but you have no problem with people without kids paying for yours? Hypocrite!

Most people recognise schools as a social necessity, and the parents who pay to send their kids to private schools are already paying for their place at public school, they’re just not using it. So they’re paying for the public school, AND the private school.

Interesting the mention of run-down public schools, and then the mention of how parents at private schools get more involved in their schools. Exactly. Reading that account by the teacher at the public school, I wondered why the hell aren’t the parents getting involved, maybe holding working bees or something to fix the schools their kids attend? To build things they need? They’ll moan about underfunded schools and how the government is no good, and yet all those able bodies could be fixing the problem.

sepi said :

People are disappointed that a majority of parents are sending their kids out of the public system, as this leaves the out of control kids at public school at a higher percentage.

If all kids were at public school, public schools would be better places. If only the broke or negligent send their kids to public schools, they become pretty undesirable places.

I feel quite offended by the suggestion that kids of “the broke” are blamed for making schools undesirable places! I’m raising a child on a single income and could not afford private school fees, but that does not automatically imply that I am a bad parent whose child is out of control, I would’ve thought!

It’s actually an attitude like that that will push some people to choose against public education, I reckon! Whilst I have no problem if they choose for private education because of their believes relating to religion or teaching methods etc., to have people choose to pay for education because of the perception that parents who cannot afford it produce scum offspring, is rather sad.

Pommy bastard said :

I object to my tax dollars paying to subsidise someone else’s indoctination of their kids into the catholic cult.

You want them to learn mumbo-jumbo, pay for it yoruself.

(Oh and don’t come crying to me if your son comes home with a size nine @rse.)

Well as long as my taxes don’t have to subsidise your public school kids or pay for a system I don’t use you have a deal, I know who will come out of it better.

It’s a shame to get posts like this because some people have put a lot of thought into some excellent posts on here.

I object to my tax dollars paying to subsidise someone else’s indoctination of their kids into the catholic cult.

You want them to learn mumbo-jumbo, pay for it yoruself.

(Oh and don’t come crying to me if your son comes home with a size nine @rse.)

Gerry-Built said :

sepi said :

… I don’t believe that they should receive the proportion of public funding that they do.

EVERY Australian child should be entitled to equal funding of their education… if parents want to pay extra to add something they don’t believe is offered from a Public Education – that is fair and reasonable.

apologies to “Sepi” – I cut the wrong attribution off – quote was really from “luther_bendross”

sepi said :

… I don’t believe that they should receive the proportion of public funding that they do.

EVERY Australian child should be entitled to equal funding of their education… if parents want to pay extra to add something they don’t believe is offered from a Public Education – that is fair and reasonable.

sepi said :

If only the broke or negligent send their kids to public schools, they become pretty undesirable places.

Especially when there is little support/deterrent for those kids…

I know it is a long post – but the subject-matter necessitated it…

I am a teacher in the Public System, but I send my own kids to a private (Catholic systemic) school. I am a non-practicing Catholic. I have every faith in the education my colleagues provide in the public sector, believing it to be at least as good as that provided in the private system. I have many reasons for my preference for private education (Non-religious private schools are a rare entity, and I generally have no major issue with religions – if it harm none, [practise and believe] as ye will).

Firstly, if I was to send my children through Public Education, I would pay “Voluntary Contributions” – as I know a majority of (Public System) teachers who have their children in Public Education, do. However, with (often well-)less than 25% of families paying these; my VCs would be subsidising every other student. I teach in elective areas, so I know what an impact VCs has had to delivery of elective subjects in the last 10 years. A majority of the cost of consumables used in Art, Wood, Metal, Cooking etc is worn by the budgeted funds – meaning those funds are no longer available to improve/replace resources. It is fine and well to say that Public Education should be free, but reality is a different animal. In the private system, there are no VCs – you pay, or you don’t get… In a class of 24 students, I’d be lucky to have 2-4 students pay VCs – though I am not privy to that information anymore, as Schools have been instructed not to supply details to staff.

Secondly, I know the capacity of a small number of my own students to disrupt classes in ways that disrupt the learning of every other student in the room for a overly undue proportion of class time. These kids come to our schools, beaten down and broken through their family situations (or lack thereof) – with few boundaries and even less support. This group of kids simply don’t exist in the private system (or if they do, they soon get removed and placed in their local public school). Whilst teachers and staff within schools do everything within their power to cope and even assist these kids – the Public System just does not provide an acceptable amount of support, structures or staffing for these kids – and the kids will NEVER change to more socially acceptable behaviour while there are no deterrents or supports to create that change…

Thirdly, I am quite aware of the Public System’s approach to providing facilities; ie School-Based Management. This is resulting in run down schools – often in such a bad state of repair that the only option becomes bulldozing the lot and rebuilding from scratch. Repairs are often done by School’s BSO (Building Services Officer, ie Janitor) in a less than professional way. Many hazards simply get ignored, because the School cannot wear the cost of the replacement/repair. If you think this is a crock – take a walk around your local public school; it is simply not maintained in an acceptable way. Even the newer schools will be in the same way in ten years time – because there is a LOT of wear and tear, and very little money for appropriate repairs (ie tradesmen, appropriate materials etc). In the school I teach in, for example, walls are often patched with sheets of MDF, holes in carpet repaired rather than replaced, holes in the Asbestos soffits patched with silicon sealant and sheet metal, graffiti patched over with whatever paint is available.

Finally, I believe the level of support and participation from parents in the day-to-day life of schools is MUCH greater in the private system. As an involved parent, I’d like to have a fair contribution from others in the community – not just a small number who continually contribute until they are plain “burnt-out” from unsupported efforts.

I believe EVERY child in Australia is entitled to an equal level of Government support toward their education, but if parents want to pay extra for their child’s education (to support their religious upbringing, or perceived improvements), that should be perfectly acceptable.

+1 for red_dog. I’ve thought for a long time that this is fairly black and white:

Public school = publicly funded
Private school = privately funded

I don’t have anything against people who want to send children to private schools for whatever reason (including social and religious), however I don’t believe that they should receive the proportion of public funding that they do.

What VicePope suggests, to actually ask those leaving the public system for a more expensive one, is key. It’s no good speculating or sneering at people being snobs, the fact is many parents are choosing an expensive choice over a cheap/free one. WHY?

I’ve never attended a public school so my view is coloured, but the private schools I went to featured many kids from families of modest means, both parents worked, and they lived in normal homes in normal suburbs. Some were rich, most were “normal”. But their parents wanted things the public system didn’t offer. Single-sex education for some, for others it was the emphasis on discipline and accountability, the strong school rules and standards, and the biggie was the expectation on the kids that they would study and take it seriously.

My observation, especially in recent years, is that public schools have little power to do anything about disruptive, problem kids whose parents often have no interest in controlling hteir kids. It downgrades the education experience for all the kids. So the parents who choose to pay high fees are trying to ensure that their kid gets a fair go at learning stuff, as well as behaviour, values and self-discipline.

Sepi – I don’t agree on the first (#15), although the kind of charging/vouchering would be critical. It might improve things with more parents feeling a cash incentive to do what they can to support the school. But this, as I indicated, is just something that probably should be debated.
On your second point (#16), I disagree again and for the same general reason. If a reason people are leaving the government system is that it is perceived to be weak on discipline, then maybe the answers are either (a) explaining why less control can be a good thing or (b) enhancing discipline. There are people who have a clue about education who probably know better than either of us where to draw the discipline/freedom/chaos/control lines.
And a further point. If all subsidies are removed from private schools, then (a) fees will increase, meaning some/many students will head for the government system, (b) some private schools will close, (c) the government system will struggle with the additional weight and (d) the surviving private schools will be the most financially elitist, increasing problems of separation rather than solving them.

People are disappointed that a majority of parents are sending their kids out of the public system, as this leaves the out of control kids at public school at a higher percentage.

If all kids were at public school, public schools would be better places. If only the broke or negligent send their kids to public schools, they become pretty undesirable places.

Charging for public schools would be the quickest way to make sure only the stony broke attend public schools.

The govt shot themselves in the foot closing all those schools, and the backlash will continue for years and years.

Hackett pre-school was on the closure list, and now has a waiting list as long as the class list.
Macarthur preschool was closed and is now being re-opened (or a new one is opening.)

There was a baby boom about 5 years ago, and all those kids are now entering schools – the govt should have known this was coming.

why are parents who send their children to private schools continually chastised for being ‘dumb and ignorant’?? surely in this country they have the right to choose what they believe is the right path for their child.

why also do people have a problem with private schools getting some government assistance. without it, the vast majority of parents could no longer afford to send their kids to these schools. all that would create would be more pressure on the public sector. they do not receive equal funding so every extra student in the private sector is a net gain to the public sector.

I have no problem with public education and i continue to believe its a fundamental pillar of our society but why do such a vocal (now) minority hate a genuine and more sustainable alternative???

im at loss – am i unreasonable??

The Macarthur pre-school has been closed and derelict for over 4 years but still proudly displays a sign reading “Public Education Works” Obviously, it doesn’t and it costs us ratepayers heaps by having this disused property not being utilised or sold.
The ACT Labor government do now intend to sell this relic with the same use purpose clause even though it closed over 4 years ago due to lack of patronage. The demographics in this part of Canberra have changed with few new breeding families moving in, a fact that Labor appear to have overlooked. Who in the private sector will want to run a pre-school there? It would be better converted to a senior’s centre or a drug-rehab clinic.
I guess ACT Labor deserve to be called “slowlearners”

I was going to post in here but VicePope is doing an outstanding job.

My choice, what is better for my kids, the out of control local high school or the Anglican school down the road, it’s not rocket science people.

To Watson – thanks. I wasn’t suggesting charging for government schools, but that we needed a debate about doing it. Free public education arose a long time ago, in circumstances a long way different from those that apply now. Maybe it’s time to look at whether it is still right and whether public schools would do better if those parents who could pay had to do so. Vouchers are another option altogether.
Disappointing that some have jumped to the line of cutting funding for the preferred and (apparently) more efficient provider. If I was selling hot dogs and you were giving them away, and both were quite good and you were getting a substantial subsidy compared to me, yet people preferred my product, would the answer be (a) punish me in some way to give you a chance or (b) see what you could do better with the advantages you already have? Because that is pretty much what is happening.
And disappointing that some have taken to attacking people who make a different choice to their own as traitors, hypocrites, social climbers and such. People have a thousand reasons for every choice they make and this is just one of them.

It wasn’t necessarliy my choice, but I went to Catholic schools for all of my schooling, in a few different states, as well. Because that as normal to me, I’ve never really understood why some people have a hang up with private education.

Similarly, and this is especially the case in Canberra, I’ve never really understood why some people have a hang up over public education.

I agree there is a perception out there that private is better, but you’d like to think any self-respecting parent would take the time to properly research all options for their kids, rather than just going for “the best” option. Foolish of me to think that, I know.

Can’t remember if it was on here, or offline that I heard of a couple declaring their toddler would go to Grammar (I think it was) because of the social networks their son would develop.

“

VicePope said :

Agree that someone’s got to start it, and it would be nice if it stayed polite and thoughtful. (Admission – I have/have had family and friends who taught in all systems and were educated in all systems. My own kids went to Catholic schools because they offered things – like single-sex education – that the government system did not and that we thought would help them).
When people prefer one service over another, that is their right. When they service they discard is free (or comparatively very cheap) and the one they choose costs their own money, that means they are exercising their right on non-financial grounds.
For some reason, an appreciable number of people are making this choice in the ACT in relation to education. That is, they are selecting a service for which the public subsidy for each student (Commonwealth and Territory) is significantly less than the public subsidy for each student in the public system. They pay their taxes, and they have a right to some level of subsidy.
The answer is not to penalise the system that is attractive, surely. That is simplistic ideology based on uninformed envy, and it lacks common sense or respect for the rights of others. If there is a public obligation to educate, the forum in which the education is provided is less relevant.
There could be, and should be, a productive debate on how well the system allocates available subsidies to different types of private school. There could be some cold, tough thinking about why this Territory (with excellent government schools) has the greatest proportion of children not using them; this may require some humility on the part of ACT Education, I expect. (Asking those who have left, are leaving or are contemplating leaving might be a good start). Would it be smarter to contract the management of government schools to people who can do it better (from other states or, gulp, the private system?). And, adventurously, is it time we got past thinking that public education should automatically be cost-free when practically every government service is now the subject of a charge and paying for a service is a way of encouraging critical engagement?
I may now retire from the fray.

I agree with the part about choice. I grew up in Belgium where the choice to send your kids to a relilgious school or one supporting a non-mainstream education method is regarded as a right that the government (read: tax payers) should pay for. Therefor there is no such thing as school fees, not for public, not for “private” which they actually call “independent education” in Belgium. And to call parents who choose private schools “traitors who don’t support the public education system” is a bit shallow in my opinion. If you’re religious, you’re religious and you’re going to send your kid to a religious school. And if you think you’re child will benefit from a different teaching method, you base your choice of school on that. If I could afford it, my child might be going to a Steiner or similar school too.

What I do not agree is that you seem to be implying that public education should charge school fees? Which I find a rather ludicrous suggestion. That’s what we all pay taxes for and it should come out of the budget. And I for one would not complain if that budget would allow for more money to go to private education, provided that the extra funding is used to reduce their school fees.

As the govt seems to give money to both public and private, if the private is becoming more popular than the govt offerings, surely they should at least tweak the funding levels between the two to allow public to be a more ‘attractive’ choice? At the moment, it seems the govt is adding to the prob by funding private schools to be larger/better, while letting their schools run down….?

For a left leaning town this speaks some hefty volumes about the Education being provided by the Government

For a left leaning town it shows a fair bit of hypocrisy.

I couldn’t agree more on that one.

For a left leaning town this speaks some hefty volumes about the Education being provided by the Government

For a left leaning town it shows a fair bit of hypocrisy.

Sure does.

Actually what it speaks volumes about is the sheep following stupidity of so many parents who will put their children into any private school assuming that it must be better than any public one. What the statistics from Naplan are starting to show (not that I am any great supporter of NAPLAN – it is too narrow a test but that is an argument for another day!) is that private school results are more about the parents socio-economic status than the quality of the education the school provides. Thats not to say that some privates schools are not good … but so are many public schools – particular in Canberra. Have a good look at the results people – you might be pleasantly surprised by your local public school. My local public school did better in NAPLAN in my child’s year than any private school in the surrounding area including one that parents pay a lot of money to send their children too. And in fact most of the schools in the area all did fairly well.

Agree that someone’s got to start it, and it would be nice if it stayed polite and thoughtful. (Admission – I have/have had family and friends who taught in all systems and were educated in all systems. My own kids went to Catholic schools because they offered things – like single-sex education – that the government system did not and that we thought would help them).
When people prefer one service over another, that is their right. When they service they discard is free (or comparatively very cheap) and the one they choose costs their own money, that means they are exercising their right on non-financial grounds.
For some reason, an appreciable number of people are making this choice in the ACT in relation to education. That is, they are selecting a service for which the public subsidy for each student (Commonwealth and Territory) is significantly less than the public subsidy for each student in the public system. They pay their taxes, and they have a right to some level of subsidy.
The answer is not to penalise the system that is attractive, surely. That is simplistic ideology based on uninformed envy, and it lacks common sense or respect for the rights of others. If there is a public obligation to educate, the forum in which the education is provided is less relevant.
There could be, and should be, a productive debate on how well the system allocates available subsidies to different types of private school. There could be some cold, tough thinking about why this Territory (with excellent government schools) has the greatest proportion of children not using them; this may require some humility on the part of ACT Education, I expect. (Asking those who have left, are leaving or are contemplating leaving might be a good start). Would it be smarter to contract the management of government schools to people who can do it better (from other states or, gulp, the private system?). And, adventurously, is it time we got past thinking that public education should automatically be cost-free when practically every government service is now the subject of a charge and paying for a service is a way of encouraging critical engagement?
I may now retire from the fray.

or the fact that the ACT Govt shut so many public schools? where were parents going to enrol their kids? Now that the independent system has had an influx of students, public education looks the poorer for it. The government should have taken better notice of the birth ratios per year. so many 4,5 & 6yo kids entering a system where there aren’t any schools, having to attempt other feeder areas and resorting to private education as the schools won’t get shut later on.

Well it speaks hefty volumes about the perception of the education provided by government schools. Might be time to stop subsidising these private schools from the public purse and let the people who want the ‘superior’ education offered by these institutions pay for it in full?

(someone had to start it)