Won't any one think of the private schools?

This thread is like Thermopylae. Jim the Spartan wedges himself in the hot gates and single-handedly takes on the idiot hordes.

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

Also notable that in your post where you pull the disingenuous “it was just a question” line, you have – once again – use the “there’s no need to get worked up” line.

Nice work milkman. If you can’t play the game, play the man. Well done!

Further mud throwing. Why don’t you answer the question?

What question is that? “Are you upset because you’re jealous of wealthy people?”

That’s about the same tenor as “When did you stop beating your wife”.

OK, so you won’t answer. No problem. The question was asked because you seemed very passionate about the issue.

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

Also notable that in your post where you pull the disingenuous “it was just a question” line, you have – once again – use the “there’s no need to get worked up” line.

Nice work milkman. If you can’t play the game, play the man. Well done!

Further mud throwing. Why don’t you answer the question?

What question is that? “Are you upset because you’re jealous of wealthy people?”

That’s about the same tenor as “When did you stop beating your wife”.

Jim Jones said :

So only Justin Heywood has the brains to engage in argument. Unsurprisingly, vg resorts to his usual tactic of assuming that anyone who doesn’t hold his view is some sort of “smart arse” – Australian anti-intellectualism at its finest. Milkman sticks with his assertion that anyone who writes more than a couple of sentences is obviously emotionally unhinged. It’s a pity that you don’t have the intellect or balls to offer anything a little more substantial: really, if all you have to offer is that boring ‘nice try, but I’ve already won’ rhetoric – really, don’t bother. I don’t particularly care, and it doesn’t make you look particularly bright.

Justin, I agree – to a degree – with some of your points. For a start, yes, the education system is in need of reform and governments of all persuasions have lacked the will to do this.

That said, I’d argue that possibly the worst way to go about this would be to have a society where the public system is classified as second-class with a public exodus into privatisation being heavily subsidised as a short-term fix-it that exaggerates any problems that do exist within the public system

If you have a look at the percentage of private/public school funding, it is readily evident that the subsidisation of private education by the government was really ramped up by the Howard government. Yes the *debate* about private and public predates this government, but the change in attitude towards funding changed at this point in Australian history. Before the Howard government, you wouldn’t find many people who would argue that the government *should* substantially subsidise private education (and I daresay that those who would have held such a view would have been decried as extreme leftists).

It’s only been in very recent history that the view has arisen the government ‘should’ subsidise something that is essentially a private industry. I’d argue that this view is widespread because of vested interests. The people arguing that the government should subsidise private education are those who are benefiting from this subsidy and they are worried about losing it. That’s completely understandable, no-one wants to lose money. But that doesn’t make it a particularly cogent argument – it’s not motivated by what is the best thing to do or the right thing to do, it just makes it the most selfishly appealing thing to do.

I’d be interested to have it pointed out where I’ve used ‘the politics of envy’ – I’ve pointed out some classic sociological analysis about education being a primary means of perpetuating wealth differentiation, but this has nothing to do with envy. I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions that I went to a private school. Why in all hell would I envy something that I already have?

In a perfect world, everyone would be given the opportunity to educate their children for free in whatever way they thought best. But this isn’t a perfect world, and if the government subsidisation of private education occurs at the expense of public education, then the government is effectively giving money to the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

So the questions that needs to be asked are: Do you think that the Education budget is a fixed budget (with a limited amount of money to go around for everything that it covers)? Do you think that the Education budget would get bigger or smaller if the proportion of private school subsidisation was reduced?

There is so much in here that is just plain wrong, funding of private schools began under Whitlam and every single state and federal govenrment has continued the trend, why, it’s basic economics, the economy needs the private capital provided by parents to be in the system if the system is to survive. This is the same scenario that applies in every developed nation in the world.

Removing this capital from the education or private health areas by making these things unaffordable will see the government needing to find billions of extra dollars every year just to maintain standards as they are now, in public hospitals this would be a massive 3.5% of GDP every year.

In Gungahlin there are probably 4-5000 kids in private school, their parents are comfortable but not wealthy, where would these kids go to school if you make it unaffordable ? Are you going to build 6 or 7 news schools ?

If you don’t understand that basic level of economics I dont know what else to say, if anyone is guilty of receiving middle class welfare it is those public servant parents that send their kids to public school and contribute nothing extra to the system except narrow minded pot shots at those who do.

Jim Jones said :

Also notable that in your post where you pull the disingenuous “it was just a question” line, you have – once again – use the “there’s no need to get worked up” line.

Nice work milkman. If you can’t play the game, play the man. Well done!

Further mud throwing. Why don’t you answer the question?

Clown Killer said :

There is another aspect to what you suggest that goes back the other way P1. There are also kids who are doing really badly in the public system who move to the Private system. These are kids that the public system has given up on. I’d suggest that this happens a lot more often than the latter part of your scenario.

While this undoubtedly happens, I respectfully disagree as to its frequency. The answer to the problem you raise of course, is a we funded school system with the facilities to cater for students with a range of needs (whether provided by the state of private organisations). Unfortunately we don’t have this.

I am not proposing that all funding be cut to private schools. In fact I am not sure that the the changes which have happened to the school system (those I have identified as negative) could, or even should, be undone. I do think that what currently exists has room for much improvement. I think that the current system could get a lot worse, and think that learning lessons from the past is a good way of avoiding this.

The problem of course (and this is largely my problem with any system which promotes private schools) is that the worst kids in private schools are kicked out (because they can be) and wind up in the public system, dragging down its stats. The best kids in the public system get scholarships, or there parents get talked into forking over the cash, and they move to the private school, bringing up its stats.

There is another aspect to what you suggest that goes back the other way P1. There are also kids who are doing really badly in the public system who move to the Private system. These are kids that the public system has given up on. I’d suggest that this happens a lot more often than the latter part of your scenario.

Also notable that in your post where you pull the disingenuous “it was just a question” line, you have – once again – use the “there’s no need to get worked up” line.

Nice work milkman. If you can’t play the game, play the man. Well done!

milkman said :

Jimbo, the question was simply whether this was something that upset you. You didn’t answer (which is fine), but there’s no need to get worked up. At no point did anyone assert you were ’emotionally unhinged’ – those are you words. The personal attack in the above post finished the redirection nicely.

Are you a politician?

No – anyone with an ounce of grey matter can see quite clearly your statement: “You dislike people who are wealthier than you. You’re upset.”

You’re chucking in a few ‘seems’ and rhetorical questions in order to masquerade as impartial (giving you the easy out: “I was just asking a question”) while slurring your opponent as motivated by base personal emotions. It’s a cheap, nasty, dishonest way to conduct an argument (particularly when you chose not to respond to a detailed post with analysis in it, but rather directed your slur at the one line throwaway gag that came after it) – who’s the politician here?

It’s also painfully obvious, and I very strongly doubt that anyone (whether they agree with my argument or not) is fooled by it.

CraigT said :

The report states, “only 53.9 per cent of participants from Catholic secondary schools reported being subjected to racist treatment, whilst over 76 per cent of students from both types of government schools indicated experiencing some form of racist treatment”.

Gee, so a sample group with less variation in religious make up had a lower level of racist treatment? What, they weren’t picking on each other for being god botherers?

That said, a large part of the reason that private schools can demand a better behaved student body is their ability to implement punishments which are unavailable to the public system. They can have detention (outside school hours, they can afford to pay staff to supervise), extra work, banned from fun activities, suspension and even full on kicking out of the student. And parents paying for their darlings to attend are likely to support the schools action. Public schools on the other hand are hamstrung by lack of funding and the requirement to be frequently politically correct, not exclude people etc. They have to provide an education for the student somewhere, even if that ends up in the juvenile detention centre.

The problem of course (and this is largely my problem with any system which promotes private schools) is that the worst kids in private schools are kicked out (because they can be) and wind up in the public system, dragging down its stats. The best kids in the public system get scholarships, or there parents get talked into forking over the cash, and they move to the private school, bringing up its stats.

So, this little difference between the two systems (the ability to punish and expel) is a reason that increasing private schools in bad for the public system in a way which is very hard to put a dollar figure on.

It’s life, Jim, but as not as you know it.

Catholic schools that take government money should not be allowed to discriminate who they take into their schools based on religion. And despite what others have said, they do discrimninate. A quick phone call to Daramalan, for example, will show you that firstly they take Catholics with siblings at the school, then Catholics from the local area, then other catholics whoever they might be. To quote them, “we rarely get to anyone on a waiting list who doesn’t fit these categories.’ And even if they did get to those non catholics who don’t fit into these categories, why should my tax money go to support such a blatantly discriminatory institution? No public money to schools who discriminate on the basis of religion. Religion should stay i=n the privacy of the home, not in public insitutions.

Jim’s still missing the point – in the ACT, over 40% of children are not enrolled in the public education system. Parents are exercising their right to choose, and they will also vote for the political party which supports their right to choose. Views such as Jim’s – which alienate practially half the electorate – are not even sensible, let alone justified.

It’s like this, Jim: we pay tax. Tax is spent providing fundamental services, one of which is education. Education is provided according to a number of different models including the dysfunctional controlled-by-government model (where our taxes are corruptly spent buying small tin sheds for $1,000,000 each), and the more economically and socially productive models provided by anglican and catholic schools.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/independent-schools-are-bastions-of-equality-and-tolerance-20091123-it24.html

” In a just-released report by the Foundation for Young Australians, The Impact of Racism on the Health and Wellbeing of Young Australians, the evidence is that students who attend Catholic schools are 1.7 less likely to experience racism when compared to students in government schools.

The report states, “only 53.9 per cent of participants from Catholic secondary schools reported being subjected to racist treatment, whilst over 76 per cent of students from both types of government schools indicated experiencing some form of racist treatment”.

Additional evidence that Catholic and independent schools successfully promote social cohesion and tolerance is found in an analysis of the 2005 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes by education commentator Andrew Norton.

Norton’s analysis concludes that those who had attended Catholic schools rated higher than those from government schools in terms of social involvement and a commitment to the types of values and attitudes needed for social stability.

It should also be noted that the social composition of Catholic school communities largely mirrors that of government schools. Instead of only serving the privileged, many Catholic schools exist in low socio-economic communities with a strong multicultural profile.

The rationale for strong, properly funded and autonomous non-government schools is not just about social cohesion and reducing discrimination. Central to any democracy is parents’ right to choose where their children go to school and to have them educated according to their morals and beliefs.

Surveys show that the reason parents choose non-government schools is not because they are better resourced or because of smaller classes. Parents choose because non-government schools because they are faith-based, there is a disciplined environment, strong academic standards and such schools best reflect the needs and aspirations of their local communities.”

Jimbo, the question was simply whether this was something that upset you. You didn’t answer (which is fine), but there’s no need to get worked up. At no point did anyone assert you were ’emotionally unhinged’ – those are you words. The personal attack in the above post finished the redirection nicely.

Are you a politician?

So only Justin Heywood has the brains to engage in argument. Unsurprisingly, vg resorts to his usual tactic of assuming that anyone who doesn’t hold his view is some sort of “smart arse” – Australian anti-intellectualism at its finest. Milkman sticks with his assertion that anyone who writes more than a couple of sentences is obviously emotionally unhinged. It’s a pity that you don’t have the intellect or balls to offer anything a little more substantial: really, if all you have to offer is that boring ‘nice try, but I’ve already won’ rhetoric – really, don’t bother. I don’t particularly care, and it doesn’t make you look particularly bright.

Justin, I agree – to a degree – with some of your points. For a start, yes, the education system is in need of reform and governments of all persuasions have lacked the will to do this.

That said, I’d argue that possibly the worst way to go about this would be to have a society where the public system is classified as second-class with a public exodus into privatisation being heavily subsidised as a short-term fix-it that exaggerates any problems that do exist within the public system

If you have a look at the percentage of private/public school funding, it is readily evident that the subsidisation of private education by the government was really ramped up by the Howard government. Yes the *debate* about private and public predates this government, but the change in attitude towards funding changed at this point in Australian history. Before the Howard government, you wouldn’t find many people who would argue that the government *should* substantially subsidise private education (and I daresay that those who would have held such a view would have been decried as extreme leftists).

It’s only been in very recent history that the view has arisen the government ‘should’ subsidise something that is essentially a private industry. I’d argue that this view is widespread because of vested interests. The people arguing that the government should subsidise private education are those who are benefiting from this subsidy and they are worried about losing it. That’s completely understandable, no-one wants to lose money. But that doesn’t make it a particularly cogent argument – it’s not motivated by what is the best thing to do or the right thing to do, it just makes it the most selfishly appealing thing to do.

I’d be interested to have it pointed out where I’ve used ‘the politics of envy’ – I’ve pointed out some classic sociological analysis about education being a primary means of perpetuating wealth differentiation, but this has nothing to do with envy. I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions that I went to a private school. Why in all hell would I envy something that I already have?

In a perfect world, everyone would be given the opportunity to educate their children for free in whatever way they thought best. But this isn’t a perfect world, and if the government subsidisation of private education occurs at the expense of public education, then the government is effectively giving money to the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

So the questions that needs to be asked are: Do you think that the Education budget is a fixed budget (with a limited amount of money to go around for everything that it covers)? Do you think that the Education budget would get bigger or smaller if the proportion of private school subsidisation was reduced?

Jim Jones said :

Well durrrrrr.

The comment about wealth was obviously made in the context of a stack of allegations that ‘you only argue against public funding of private schools because you’re jealous of wealthy people and you hate private schools’, which has – typically – continued, as opposed to engaging with the arguments I’ve presented: which is completely absent (so I can only assume that my honourable opponents in this debate are either bereft of argument or completely enamoured of ad hominem argument – probably both).

I do find it hilarious that anyone who writes more than an inane single sentence must obviously be ‘upset’. You’d have to almost functionally illiterate to think this was a the case. Looks to me that there’s a group of people who, because they can’t respond intelligently to a debate, respond to ‘you’re upset’.

At least shadowboxer had enough nous to respond to arguments. Looks like we’re now stuck with the bottom of the barrel (who keep posting … oooh they must be really ‘upset’ so we can all safely ignore what they’re saying).

It seems to me the original question was asked because of the number of posts you’ve made on this subject. And you haven’t answered this question at all, but rather have posted a ramble trying to deflect attention.

I have my own views on private schooling, and I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. Clearly you don’t share this perspective, because if you did you’d be prepared to put forward your ideas and opinions and let others do the same, rather than desperately tearing everyone else down.

Jim Jones said :

Actually, if you do want to get personal. Consider the irony of the fact that there are some people who send their children to private schools for a better education. And yet they they don’t have the basic intellect to argue about the funding models of this system of government, rather responding to ad hominem attacks.

What a great role model for children.

Nice try Jim, but you can’t win arguments by simply shouting the loudest or the most.

A couple of big words or use of Latin doesn’t suddenly turn you into Geoffrey Robertson either.

Some people may choose not to engage simply because they fell it unfair to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man……..if you want a personal reply petal

Jim, I welcome your strong stance against personal attacks, and I notice that you yourself are slightly more restrained in this than usual on this thread (only one mention of Andrew Bolt).

Your original point was that the public shouldn’t have to pay for private education. The public pays the full cost of a public education, but only half that same amount for a private education. So the claim that ‘the public pays for private education’ is not true -the public only pays for half. The public certainly doesn’t pay for “polo ponies or lacrosse or any of that sh!t”

As the private/public divide and debate has existed through governments of all persuasions, your claim that it is all the fault of the conservatives, and Howard in particular (gave up counting at 5 mentions of this), does not stand up. In addition your continued use of the politics and language of envy (so beloved of the left) indicates to me that your stance is largely a political one.

In my view, private schools have flourished because the public system has so many poor schools. Parents will line up to send their children to GOOD public schools (look at Narrabundah College), but who would happily have sent their children to Kambah High?

The public system is under-funded but the solution to this does not lie in withdrawing support for private education, which would in fact increase the burden on taxpayers, as shadow boxer argued above. ALL governments have lacked the political will to fund public education properly.

In my view, the STARTING salary for teachers should be around $100,000. This would compensate them for the crap they have to deal with and more importantly attract and keep the best graduates. Secondly, the public systems need stronger mechanisms to separate those students who want to learn from those who don’t. Both types of students need more support in both staffing and resources.

Excuse the cliche, but education is the bedrock on which our society is built. We didn’t need more school halls, but we DO need reform in the public education sector.

Actually, if you do want to get personal. Consider the irony of the fact that there are some people who send their children to private schools for a better education. And yet they they don’t have the basic intellect to argue about the funding models of this system of government, rather responding to ad hominem attacks.

What a great role model for children.

Well durrrrrr.

The comment about wealth was obviously made in the context of a stack of allegations that ‘you only argue against public funding of private schools because you’re jealous of wealthy people and you hate private schools’, which has – typically – continued, as opposed to engaging with the arguments I’ve presented: which is completely absent (so I can only assume that my honourable opponents in this debate are either bereft of argument or completely enamoured of ad hominem argument – probably both).

I do find it hilarious that anyone who writes more than an inane single sentence must obviously be ‘upset’. You’d have to almost functionally illiterate to think this was a the case. Looks to me that there’s a group of people who, because they can’t respond intelligently to a debate, respond to ‘you’re upset’.

At least shadowboxer had enough nous to respond to arguments. Looks like we’re now stuck with the bottom of the barrel (who keep posting … oooh they must be really ‘upset’ so we can all safely ignore what they’re saying).

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

… and public schools don’t have to pay for polo ponies or lacrosse sticks or any of that sh1t.

Would it be a fair assumption that you dislike people you perceive as wealthier than you? You seem quite upset by this thread.

I’d wager that I’m wealthier than most people I’m arguing with.

So you earn above average? Yippee – you’re awesome, man.

It seems to me that if you weren’t upset you wouldn’t have made so many posts.

“I’d wager that I’m wealthier than most people I’m arguing with”

My dog is blacker than your dog

My dad is tougher than your dad

Or are you joking again? I’d suggest you re-read a bit yourself to see who is getting personal. Not me, I’m getting a good giggle out of this

126 – exactly.

127 – not everyone got the 900.00

Jim Jones – the $900 went to everyone. It was everyone-welfare. A total waste of money, but nothing to do your stance on being anti-faith and anti-private school.

By the way, you’ve made your point. You really hate private schools, even if there’s no local alternative thanks to Andrew Barr. There’s no point in arguing with hate, but that doesn’t make hate right.

CraigT said :

If you live in Wanniassa, for example, and you have a child going into Year-7 next year, what are your options?

– Mary Mackillop catholic school – 400+ enrolments for Year7 next year
– Holy Trinity christian School – 100+ enrolments for Year-7 next year
– Wanniassa Public High School – 33 enrolments for Year-7 next year.

This is what’s wrong with the gov’t doing anything to help private schools.

100 years ago private schools were for the kids who need polo ponys etc . Everyone else were together in the public system, with the small percentage of violent psycho bogans being diluted amongst the masses.

Now, we still have the polo players, then we have the majority getting a normal education, and the the dregs in the public system, where the people too poor (or blessed with parents who would rather upgrade the plasma tv…) are stuck with the psycho bogans, resulting in higher levels of bullying, teachers who can’t get a better job, and economies of scale working against them.

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

… and public schools don’t have to pay for polo ponies or lacrosse sticks or any of that sh1t.

Would it be a fair assumption that you dislike people you perceive as wealthier than you? You seem quite upset by this thread.

I’d wager that I’m wealthier than most people I’m arguing with.

How do I seem upset? How does typing more than a couple of paragraphs of text in order to make a cogent argument constitute ‘being upset’?

You must think that all those nasty book-larnin’ types are mighty upset, what with all their words and sentences and paragraphs and chapters and whatnot. Damn, that Dickens bloke in particular strikes me as a positively furious character … so many words.

and public schools don’t have to pay for polo ponies or lacrosse sticks or any of that sh1t.

oh well, come the revolution the bourgeous pigs can be simply executed.

Yes, comrade. WE BLOODIED THE FACE OF THE BOURGEOISIE!!!

housebound said :

‘Middle class welfare’ is an argument used almost only when it is applied to subsidising children. Why isn’t government subsidy of aged care, or elite sports ‘middle class welfare’?

No it’s not. Private health insurance rebate is middle class welfare, it’s arguable that the $900 stimulus cheque was also middle class welfare, as was a stack of handouts throughout the Howard reign that had nothing to do with subsidising children.

vg said :

So now you’ve been caught out you were ‘only joking’.

W A P

No. I’ve presented reams of argument, which no one is engaging with. And then tacked on what is obviously a joke, which *everyone* is keen to jump on (presumably because they have no answers to anything else)

Really – try having a look at the substantive posts and asking some of the questions rather than making everything personal. I’ve made it quite clear that I attended a private school, and there’s a decent chance I’ll send at least one child to a private school at some point in time.

i like the wedding analogy. but isn’t more like not even going to the wedding, but still expecting a meal voucher and a bottle of wine?

‘Middle class welfare’ is an argument used almost only when it is applied to subsidising children. Why isn’t government subsidy of aged care, or elite sports ‘middle class welfare’?

The ‘middle class welfare’ argument only legitimately holds water where the tax system isn’t structured in a way that ensures that everyone (give or take) pays an equal share of what they can afford.

If you have a tax system with a flat rate of tax, then by all means exclude higher income families form recieving certain government benefits.

vg said :

Jethro said :

vg said :

You can’t defend the stupidity of something by saying its OK because you predicated it with ‘in my opinion’

Can I defend it with comments from people on this thread who are in support of private education and justify their support with vague (and not so vague) references to the ‘type’ of people who apparently attend public schools?

“But about the environment in which I leave my child for forty hours a week, I mind very much.”

“I don’t deny I like the fact that my kids don’t need to deal with AVO’s, bullying and violence at school.”

“Generally the kids have a better environment in which to learn and grow.”

“You will find the next generation of political, business and military leaders on the rugby fields and in the rowing sheds of our independent schools, not mingling with the plebs at the local guvvie school.”

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

… and public schools don’t have to pay for polo ponies or lacrosse sticks or any of that sh1t.

Would it be a fair assumption that you dislike people you perceive as wealthier than you? You seem quite upset by this thread.

No-one’s got much of a sense of humour, do they?

I think people here have a great sense of humour.

If you hadn’t posted many, many times about something you clearly feel very strongly about, getting quite worked up in the process, it might have been a clever comment.

So now you’ve been caught out you were ‘only joking’.

W A P

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

… and public schools don’t have to pay for polo ponies or lacrosse sticks or any of that sh1t.

Would it be a fair assumption that you dislike people you perceive as wealthier than you? You seem quite upset by this thread.

No-one’s got much of a sense of humour, do they?

As far as Jim Jones’ opinion goes, he should note that over 40% of Canberra children are not enrolled in public schools, and that a very significant proportion of Canberra parents are therefore very keen to see their taxes spent on education in a way that does not discriminate against the 40% who will not use the public system.

If you live in Wanniassa, for example, and you have a child going into Year-7 next year, what are your options?

– Mary Mackillop catholic school – 400+ enrolments for Year7 next year
– Holy Trinity christian School – 100+ enrolments for Year-7 next year
– Wanniassa Public High School – 33 enrolments for Year-7 next year.

Why does the local public school fail to attract people?
Does the fact that it is a dysfunctional haven for thugs and crooks where discipline has been abandoned and scumbags challenge authority with impunity have anything to do with it?
Why would *I* put *my* child into an education system which has so clearly failed?
Until the ACT government gives up its fringe namby-pamby human rights nonsense and starts treating criminals (and their progeny) to a bit of proper discipline they cannot possibly expect most of us to use their rubbish education system.

And as far as party policy goes – the discriminatory education funding policy of the Greens is the reason I changed a habit of a lifetime and did not vote for them in this election. The schools sent clear and unashamed notes home to parents pointing out that the Greens’ policy was clearly not in their best interest. That’s 40% of the electorate alienated in one go – *not* the way to become a serious alternative.

Jethro said :

vg said :

“In my opinion, people choose to go private because they see it as offering their children a more ‘positive’ learning environment. By this, I mean one in which their children to not have to mingle with the unwashed masses. Other see it as a means of outsourcing their parenting (I’m paying for my kid’s education, therefore my job there is done). Of course, an unfortunate consequence of this is that children will grow up with less understanding and empathy for people not like them.”

Sorry, but this is taking stereotypes and generalisations to the ‘nth’ degree. I could easily say ‘IN MY OPINION people choose to go public because they’re too busy spending their money on themselves, not their kids and couldn’t really give a rats about their kids education’…..but I don’t or wouldn’t.

You have expressed many opinions on here. That’s the whole point of a forum. I qualified my opinion with the words ‘in my opinion’ because I am not arrogant enough to view my opinion as a fact (nor am I accusing you of this either). As such, you would be within your rights to say that in your opinion people go public because they don’t care about their kids education. In fact, I am sure that in quite a few cases you are right. Many people would unthinkingly send their kids to the local public school without a second thought as to whether or not it is the right school for them.

As for the argument that my opinion is dealing in generalisations… well of course it is a generalisation. But (in my opinion) it is a fairly sound generalisation to be making. There have been a number of comments on here about violence in schools, bullying, behaviour, etc which skirt around the fact that there are certain people that some parents would rather their kids did not associate with. To argue that the this issue doesn’t cross the minds of many who choose to go private is, I think, a little dishonest.

You can’t defend the stupidity of something by saying its OK because you predicated it with ‘in my opinion’

Jim

I don’t think you’ve posted your opinion enough on the thread. Please, regale us with more

#82 Jim Jones said:

Because the government doesn’t give your child ‘money for education’ it gives your child ‘an education’. If you choose not to take up this offer and go elsewhere, that’s fine. But you can pay for your choice in the same way that anyone else who opts out of other government systems does: health, transport, blah blah blah.

No the elected parliament makes the laws that says where government can send the money to the states. I say good on the parliament in spending money they way “I” want.

And oh i cannot opt out of health care. I either get private cover or I pay for more Medicare.

vg said :

“In my opinion, people choose to go private because they see it as offering their children a more ‘positive’ learning environment. By this, I mean one in which their children to not have to mingle with the unwashed masses. Other see it as a means of outsourcing their parenting (I’m paying for my kid’s education, therefore my job there is done). Of course, an unfortunate consequence of this is that children will grow up with less understanding and empathy for people not like them.”

Sorry, but this is taking stereotypes and generalisations to the ‘nth’ degree. I could easily say ‘IN MY OPINION people choose to go public because they’re too busy spending their money on themselves, not their kids and couldn’t really give a rats about their kids education’…..but I don’t or wouldn’t.

You have expressed many opinions on here. That’s the whole point of a forum. I qualified my opinion with the words ‘in my opinion’ because I am not arrogant enough to view my opinion as a fact (nor am I accusing you of this either). As such, you would be within your rights to say that in your opinion people go public because they don’t care about their kids education. In fact, I am sure that in quite a few cases you are right. Many people would unthinkingly send their kids to the local public school without a second thought as to whether or not it is the right school for them.

As for the argument that my opinion is dealing in generalisations… well of course it is a generalisation. But (in my opinion) it is a fairly sound generalisation to be making. There have been a number of comments on here about violence in schools, bullying, behaviour, etc which skirt around the fact that there are certain people that some parents would rather their kids did not associate with. To argue that the this issue doesn’t cross the minds of many who choose to go private is, I think, a little dishonest.

Jim Jones said :

… and public schools don’t have to pay for polo ponies or lacrosse sticks or any of that sh1t.

Would it be a fair assumption that you dislike people you perceive as wealthier than you? You seem quite upset by this thread.

Jim Jones said :

… and public schools don’t have to pay for polo ponies or lacrosse sticks or any of that sh1t.

And comments like that reinforce my opinion that your argument is simply an ideological argument dressed up as something else.

If you hold the view that all students should be taught by the state in schools run by the state, then why not just argue that position?

… and public schools don’t have to pay for polo ponies or lacrosse sticks or any of that sh1t.

What demolition is that, Justin? With the greatest of respect, the arguments that shadowboxer has put forward all rely on an unstated assumption that the relation between public/private systems of education (and health) is unsustainable in any other way than that devised during the Howard era of government.

As for the idea that, without private schools, the taxpayer would pay more. For a start, I’d direct you to the fact that private schools existed without massive subsidies prior to the big round of middle class welfare (i.e. 10-15 years ago), and there’s no reason to believe that they wouldn’t continue to function effectively without the removal of whopping great subsidies.

The argument also makes the assumption that, the cost of a spot in a private school is equivalent to a spot in a public school – which is most clearly not the case (apart from economies of scale, there’s also the fact that the public system utilises systems of infrastructure and administration that are highly expensive for private schools, but don’t become a noted additional cost in the public system where these systems already exist).

Jim, while your explaining away shadowboxer’s rather impertinent demolition of your latest assertion, could I also take you back to your comment (#16) -you know the one where you dismissed as ‘bollocks’ the statement that without private schools, the taxpayer would pay more….

It seems that you were too busy to point out how shadowboxer’s subsequent research hadn’t, in fact, proved you wrong. Strangely, you began to talk about health and transport (#23).

shadow boxer said :

Here’s the health cost from the Minister at the time, I assume he was better briefed that you or I and would rather not have spent the money.

Dr. Michael Wooldridge, stated that:
“…the health of the publicly funded health sector depends upon a vital private sector. Having some six million Australians with private health insurance directly pays for around one-third of the costs of hospital care in Australia. If there were no private sector, the extra costs borne by the taxpayer would simply be unsustainable.”

Honestly, have a look outside life in the Howard era for a second. I’ve been harping on about your historical and political short-sightedness and you’ve responded by quoting the words of a cabinet minister.

Of course he said that, he was part of a government driving a highly contested ideological agenda.

Again: if a vital private sector is so important, how does funneling public money into it work? The private sector by definition is supposed to work through the ‘invisible hand’ of the marketplace, not through crude actions of government subsidy.

shadow boxer said :

Now you are just making stuff up;

From the SMH;

Private schools are publicly funded in most developed countries. However, this funding typically comes with restrictions on fees and enrolment practices. Australia is pretty much unique in allowing publicly funded private schools to have autonomy in these practices.

The SMH is correct, and the distinction between ‘most developed countries’ and Australia very important – public funding without “restrictions on fees and enrolment practices” is just funneling money into the private sector without encouraging equity.

You cited it!

shadow boxer said :

Nice try but I think you are mistaking the really rich for the 40% of Canberra’s largely public service parents who make sacrifices to give their kids the best they can. In the ACT they are on much the same wages as public school parents.

btw I had a typo in my last post, I meant to say obviously “private schools do pay their way and are making a valued contribution.”

You can tell I went to Lyneham High during its bad old days 😉

What is it with Canberrans and private schools!!

Ironic that so many work in the public sector but we have the highest percentage of private school enrolments.

Can’t count the amount of people asking parents of new borns “have you enrolled them in Radford yet?

What otherwise they will be unemployed illiterate homeless drug addict when they grow up?

Here’s the health cost from the Minister at the time, I assume he was better briefed that you or I and would rather not have spent the money.

Dr. Michael Wooldridge, stated that:
“…the health of the publicly funded health sector depends upon a vital private sector. Having some six million Australians with private health insurance directly pays for around one-third of the costs of hospital care in Australia. If there were no private sector, the extra costs borne by the taxpayer would simply be unsustainable.”

Now you are just making stuff up;

From the SMH;

Private schools are publicly funded in most developed countries. However, this funding typically comes with restrictions on fees and enrolment practices. Australia is pretty much unique in allowing publicly funded private schools to have autonomy in these practices.

This Australian characteristic of school funding is typically interpreted by the critics of public funding of private schools as the result of policy failure on the part of government, and especially federal Labor governments, that consistently cave in to the private school lobbies.

The problem with this conclusion is that by these standards, all Labor governments, including all state Labor governments that have delivered state funds to private schools with virtually no strings attached for more than 30 years are failures. This seems unlikely. An alternative conclusion is that there are some political realities about private school funding in Australia that need to be understood if a better and fairer funding system is to be negotiated.

shadow boxer said :

“Sigh”

It’s not middle class welfare, the government wants those that can afford it to take out private health because it knows there is no way it can fund a system for every Australian.

It uses a carrot (30% rebate) and stick (medicare levy if you dont take it out) approach that is combined with an increasing loss of discounts if you take it out after 30 years old.

It’s the same arguement, if you take away the 30% rebate the government will then need to find the other 70% that is currently privately financed. There may be some small economies of scale reducing this figure to about 50% or something like that but given that health is about 10% of GDP this is significant money.

Where do you propose we find these 10’s of billions of dollars each and every year ?

I’m trying to be respectful, but the way you’re doing your figures is making it really hard.

“if you take away the 30% rebate the government will then need to find the other 70% that is currently privately finance” – perhaps have a sit down and think about this for a minute.

“there is no way it can fund a system for every Australian”

That’s patently untrue – the big push to subsidise private health was introduced by the Howard government. Prior to this, the public health system was no worse than it is today (many would argue that it was superior – but there are too many variables to make the comparison and pin it on a single factor), the sky hadn’t fallen.

Let me state this really clearly: both the education and health sectors existed in a decent fashion prior to the heavy subsidisation of the private sector. This is a very very recent phenomenon.

This has only been the case since the Howard government (who were essentially throwing lots of money around as electoral bribes).

Are you really saying that you’re unable to conceive of a relation between the private and public sectors beyond that instituted by the Howard government? Hell, even the Liberal governments prior to Howard wouldn’t have undertaken this sort of fudging the line between private and public – they’re supposed to believe in the power of the free market ffs.

It is middle class welfare: what else can you call it when a government throws money at the private provision of services accessible only by the middle and upper classes to people who already have a baseline of free services made available to them?

“Sigh”

It’s not middle class welfare, the government wants those that can afford it to take out private health because it knows there is no way it can fund a system for every Australian.

It uses a carrot (30% rebate) and stick (medicare levy if you dont take it out) approach that is combined with an increasing loss of discounts if you take it out after 30 years old.

It’s the same arguement, if you take away the 30% rebate the government will then need to find the other 70% that is currently privately financed. There may be some small economies of scale reducing this figure to about 50% or something like that but given that health is about 10% of GDP this is significant money.

Where do you propose we find these 10’s of billions of dollars each and every year ?

oh, and i could add that ‘tolerance of faith’ often enough [or too often] ends up meaning ‘tolerance of our faith’ – and perhaps the argument should be made that a secular government shouldn’t be propping up religious ideologies taught over and above the curriculum..? (not accusing all religious-based school of this, of course…)

can’t we all just live in perfect harmony? like keys on a piano?

Too many white keys with too much power. Those poor black keys are so oppressed. They even call them ‘minor’ keys – I find that really offensive.

p1 said :

shadow boxer said :

Lol. couldn’t you just say your analogy was wrong, I’m new here so I wont kick off a whole private vs public health care debate.

That’s the thing. I think that your analogy made sense, he just disagrees with you opinion on private healthcare as well as private eduction.

🙂

Precisely – it’s really only over the past decade and a bit (Howard era) that the government has been funneling money into the ‘private’ systems of both health and education.

No one is going to seriously argue that private schools were unsustainable before this occured, or that the private health sector was unviable prior to this period.

The problem is that this middle class welfare has become an expectation of the public (hence all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from people who choose to opt out of the freely provided public systems but still feel that their use of the private system should be heavily subsidised).

This is what people (including me) are referring to a middle class welfare that breeds a sense of entitlement. The situation isn’t any more equitable or fair than 20 years ago. To the contrary, the subsidisation of the private sector (which can’t be accessed by many people because they simply can’t afford it) has further increased inequity.

The government shouldn’t subsidise private health or private education. A public system is provided that is freely available for all. Choosing not to access this system means that you accept the responsibility of paying a private (non-government) entity which can sink or swim according to market conditions.

Welfare exists to support the needy and the less fortunate, not so that people can send their children to private schools and go to private hospitals.

housebound said :

There is no doubt more tolerance towards faith, and a willingness to teach a values-based education grounded in faith (any faith – Muslim, Christian, Catholic)in a private school than there is in a secular school.

not all non-government schools operate to a religious ideology, of course… and it woud stand to reason that ‘faith’ is accorded a higher priority as a meme to pass on in a religion-premised education provider than in one founded on alternative ideals, but that doesn’t say much, does it? there’s more to life than faith.

shadow boxer said :

Lol. couldn’t you just say your analogy was wrong, I’m new here so I wont kick off a whole private vs public health care debate.

That’s the thing. I think that your analogy made sense, he just disagrees with you opinion on private healthcare as well as private eduction.

🙂

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

The governemnt already subsidises private health care through the 30% insurance rebate.

It does this because it knows it’s cheaper in the long run to do this and it relieves pressure on the public system, the schools funding issue is much the same.

The reason that private health care is subsidised is political, not practical. This subsidy was introduced as part of the raft of middle class welfare and electoral bribery practiced over the past decade and a half.

It should be cut. If a ‘private’ industry isn’t sustainable without heavy government support, then it isn’t ‘private’ in any meaningful sense of the word and should be left to sink or swim of its own accord, without competing with the public sector.

Lol. couldn’t you just say your analogy was wrong, I’m new here so I wont kick off a whole private vs public health care debate.

neanderthalsis said :

I personally think that government investment in private education is money well spent.

You will find the next generation of political leaders…

Right there is why all private schools should be burned down right now, with the kids inside, just in case.

I personally think that government investment in private education is money well spent.

You will find the next generation of political, business and military leaders on the rugby fields and in the rowing sheds of our independent schools, not mingling with the plebs at the local guvvie school.

shadow boxer said :

The governemnt already subsidises private health care through the 30% insurance rebate.

It does this because it knows it’s cheaper in the long run to do this and it relieves pressure on the public system, the schools funding issue is much the same.

The reason that private health care is subsidised is political, not practical. This subsidy was introduced as part of the raft of middle class welfare and electoral bribery practiced over the past decade and a half.

It should be cut. If a ‘private’ industry isn’t sustainable without heavy government support, then it isn’t ‘private’ in any meaningful sense of the word and should be left to sink or swim of its own accord, without competing with the public sector.

shadow boxer said :

The governemnt already subsidises private health care through the 30% insurance rebate.

It does this because it knows it’s cheaper in the long run to do this and it relieves pressure on the public system, the schools funding issue is much the same.

In a theoretical ideal world, where governments can administer and humans aren’t corrupt by nature, it would be cheaper in the long run for there to be nothing but public health care, cause every last dollar would go into that system, instead of profits going to the owners of service providers, insurers, etc….

But we all know communism doesn’t work in groups larger then one.

The governemnt already subsidises private health care through the 30% insurance rebate.

It does this because it knows it’s cheaper in the long run to do this and it relieves pressure on the public system, the schools funding issue is much the same.

sorry, that should have read: “if you want to compare apples with oranges”

Pandy said :

So when I sent my kids to to a private skool, why cannot I take my Federal tax dollars that they would have spent on a public education for my kids and spend it whatever school I like?

Because the government doesn’t give your child ‘money for education’ it gives your child ‘an education’. If you choose not to take up this offer and go elsewhere, that’s fine. But you can pay for your choice in the same way that anyone else who opts out of other government systems does: health, transport, blah blah blah.

Years of middle class welfare have led us to this: People who choose not to use the public system but still think they have a right to get public money and funnel it into the private system.

“If the public system wants to retain kids with wealthier and/or better educated parents, they need to lift their game.”

This is hardly going to happen when the problems within the educational system are exacerbated by inequitable funding and a social rhetoric that derides public education as substandard.

“Just out of interest Jim Jones – what makes you think that ACT public schools are “starved of funding” or “not funded properly”?”

2604 – you’re right. By and large the ACT public schools are doing quite well (although the financial inequity is quite stark when you compare – for example – the facilities and academic support on offer at a place like Radford to Wanniassah High, if you want to compare apples with apples). The situation is a little different when you cross the border into less prosperous states.

Nice try but I think you are mistaking the really rich for the 40% of Canberra’s largely public service parents who make sacrifices to give their kids the best they can. In the ACT they are on much the same wages as public school parents.

btw I had a typo in my last post, I meant to say obviously “private schools do pay their way and are making a valued contribution.”

You can tell I went to Lyneham High during its bad old days 😉

bazinga said :

Erg0 said :

Interestingly enough, if private schools were unfunded by the government then the fees would most likely go up and even fewer people would be able to afford them. This would actually make the public/private class divide even more pronounced.

It seems to me that funding to private schools has the dual benefit of saving the government money (vs. educating the private kids in the public system), as well as making private education accessible to a greater number of people. The more accessible the private system is, the more money the government saves. Obviously there’s a balance point at which this no longer adds up. but I’m going to assume that someone with access to the numbers has figured this out already.

In other words, how much of a subsidy is appropriate is grey area, but people who think it’s as simple as “if you want to send your kids to a private school then you should pay the entire cost yourself” apparently haven’t thought too hard about what would happen if that were actually the case. Either that or they oppose the whole idea of private education on principle, which means they’re just using the funding discussion as a means to further an idealogical agenda.

Have you considered that by taking the kids with better funded parents out of public schools you are also increasing the divide between public and private? When the only kids left are there because they have no financial option to go private to get a proper education there is a problem. You have also taken away the parents who possibly are better educated and less tolerant of a broken system, who might actually get involved in fixing it or at least demanding change. Middle class kids going back into the public system would raise the standard of the public system.

If the sons of company directors,
and the judges’ private daughters,
had to got to school in a slum school.
Dumped by some joker in a damp back alley,
had to herd into classrooms cramped with worry.
With a view onto slag heaps and stagnant pools,
had to file through corridors grey with age,
and play in a crack-pot concrete cage.

Buttons would be pressed,
rules would be broken.
Strings would be pulled
and magic words spoken.
Invisible fingers would mould
palaces of gold.

If prime ministers and advertising executives,
Royal personages and bank managers’ wives
had to live out their lives in dark rooms.
Blinded by smoke and the foul air of sewers.
Rot on the walls and rats in the cellars.
In rows of dumb houses like mouldering tombs.
Had to bring up their children and watch them grow,
in a wasteland of dead streets where nothing will grow.

I’m not suggesting any sort of plot,
everyone knows, there’s not.
But you unborn millions might like to be warned
that if you don’t want to be buried alive by slagheaps,
pitfalls and damp walls and rat traps and dead streets.
Arrange to be democratically born
the son of a company director
or a judge’s fine and private daughter.

PALACES OF GOLD (Leon Rosselson)

“You have also taken away the parents who possibly are better educated and less tolerant of a broken system, who might actually get involved in fixing it or at least demanding change. Middle class kids going back into the public system would raise the standard of the public system.”

Where I went to high school, the principal simply hid behind the excuses of “hands are tied” and “can’t do anything” when it came to problems. My sister, however, went to a private school (not an elite, but rather a mid range private Christian school), and whenever there was an issue, it was dealt with quickly and effectively.

And that’s why many parents who can afford to send their kids to private school do so. Generally the kids have a better environment in which to learn and grow. Of course all schools have their issues, but my experience is that private schools are far more proactive at solving problems than public.

If the public system wants to retain kids with wealthier and/or better educated parents, they need to lift their game.

Erg0 said :

Interestingly enough, if private schools were unfunded by the government then the fees would most likely go up and even fewer people would be able to afford them. This would actually make the public/private class divide even more pronounced.

It seems to me that funding to private schools has the dual benefit of saving the government money (vs. educating the private kids in the public system), as well as making private education accessible to a greater number of people. The more accessible the private system is, the more money the government saves. Obviously there’s a balance point at which this no longer adds up. but I’m going to assume that someone with access to the numbers has figured this out already.

In other words, how much of a subsidy is appropriate is grey area, but people who think it’s as simple as “if you want to send your kids to a private school then you should pay the entire cost yourself” apparently haven’t thought too hard about what would happen if that were actually the case. Either that or they oppose the whole idea of private education on principle, which means they’re just using the funding discussion as a means to further an idealogical agenda.

Have you considered that by taking the kids with better funded parents out of public schools you are also increasing the divide between public and private? When the only kids left are there because they have no financial option to go private to get a proper education there is a problem. You have also taken away the parents who possibly are better educated and less tolerant of a broken system, who might actually get involved in fixing it or at least demanding change. Middle class kids going back into the public system would raise the standard of the public system.

It seems to me that the funding of private schools by government is simply the government shirking its responsibility of an equal education for all.

MWF said :

shadow boxer said :

wow, I think some people on here are feeling guilty that they have settled for a second rate education for their kids.

Not at all. I firmly believe that Public Education Works and is the BEST.

And that is fine, I have no issues with that, this thread started with people taking uninformed pot shots at private schools because they dared to accept half the funding per child of private schools. It has now been shown that public schools do pay their way and are making a valued contribution to the education system which would be far worse without them.

It is interesting that not a single one of these people thought it a good idea or wanted to touch the issue of those that can afford it putting their hand in their pocket and contributing a bit to the public system to achieve a better outcome for their kids. Far easier to stay on the sidelines and take cheap shots at the private schools and hard working parents who actually contribute real money to the system.

I don’t deny I like the fact that my kids don’t need to deal with AVO’s, bullying and violence at school and and in terms of quality I am not a teacher but have observed that when the kids come across from the public system to join the private system (this usually occurs after an “incident” of some kind) in year 6,7 or 8 they are about 12-18 months behind their peers in the private system and they run intensive programs to catch them up by senior school in year 9.

As for that ridiculous wedding analogy, if all the guests contributed an equal amount to the wedding based on ability to pay (i.e. taxes) and you wished to drink scotch it would be perfectly reasonable for the cost of the beer to be covered in your cost with you making up the difference.

I attended eight schools as a child, four public and four Catholic (systemic/parochial, not elite). The difference was like night and day. The poorest Catholic school was a far more nurturing and child-centred place than any of the public schools.

My son has only attended Catholic and independent schools, and he loves school (he’s now 14). He is sick this week and keeps asking to be allowed to go to school, despite continually throwing up and probably being highly contagious. (Our answer: NO!) He has no clue how uncaring and heartless and isolating a bad school can be, and I’m so grateful for that. It makes every sacrifice worthwhile (I was a sole parent pensioner and used to work off his independent school fees when he was young).

Academics? As long as he performs on a par with his contemporaries, I don’t mind too much. (Actually, he performs very highly). But about the environment in which I leave my child for forty hours a week, I mind very much.

rosebud said :

So called ‘independent’ school (and I’m looking at you Catholics) should not be allowed to discriminate who they will accept into their schools based on religion if they are to receive public money. It’s discrimination at it’s most obvious and hurtful.

There are actually catholic schools in Canberra where the number of students from catholic families is in the minority.

I don’t have any complaints about public schools, I went to one, and so did my girls, they both have good jobs, regarding private schools, what if your child hasn’t got the brains? I know of several people who have gone through private schools and have done the same job as me, or others who end up with ordinary jobs. I hope it’s worth giving up everything for their education while not enjoying life, at least my girls have had the experience of enjoying holidays and we have all enjoyed ourselves.

It’s odd how there’s an unquestioned assumption that private (or non-government or independent or whatever you want to call it) equals quality education. In a lot of cases it just isn’t so. Lots of private schools pay less to their teachers than the public system and get worse outcomes (on average) for their students than the local comparable public schools.

What you do get in the private system, is a peer group for your kids that tends not to include the children of the poorest end of society. When you pack them off to private schools, you’re not paying for your kids education, you’re attempting to buy an positively skewed choice of friends.

Me, I don’t mind either way. Don’t have kids. Don’t want ’em. Send them all down t’ mill, for all I care! You breeders are all going to squander my taxes one way or another anyway. Generally while paying effective tax rates of zero, after all the transfer payments are taken into account.

#64 – our extended family has experienced both government and non-government systems. There is no doubt more tolerance towards faith, and a willingness to teach a values-based education grounded in faith (any faith – Muslim, Christian, Catholic)in a private school than there is in a secular school.

If this were not true, the Muslims, Catholics and Christians would not be going to the non-government schools to get an Islamic/Catholic/Christian education (which is really jsut a secular education with RE thrown in the mix either as a separate subject or mixed in throughout).

Of course, that is more true for primary school than high school (where preceived quality fo education comes into play). But once they’re in the private system they rarely leave it.

“In my opinion, people choose to go private because they see it as offering their children a more ‘positive’ learning environment. By this, I mean one in which their children to not have to mingle with the unwashed masses. Other see it as a means of outsourcing their parenting (I’m paying for my kid’s education, therefore my job there is done). Of course, an unfortunate consequence of this is that children will grow up with less understanding and empathy for people not like them.”

Sorry, but this is taking stereotypes and generalisations to the ‘nth’ degree. I could easily say ‘IN MY OPINION people choose to go public because they’re too busy spending their money on themselves, not their kids and couldn’t really give a rats about their kids education’…..but I don’t or wouldn’t.

I went through a private school education and I am damn sure that, through that and what ensued afterwards, that I have as good, if not infinitely better, understanding and empathy for others. The fact I went to a private school has f all to do with it. I like what the private system offers my kids more than the public. You like the opposite. Live with it instead of your woe is me generalisations and feelings of insecurity.

I believe that the smaller private schools should be funded the same as they are now, but the elite schools should get less. The elite schools are causing the gulf between the classes.

I can choose to pay for private health insurance, or I can give extra to subsidise the plebs on Medicare.

So when I sent my kids to to a private skool, why cannot I take my Federal tax dollars that they would have spent on a public education for my kids and spend it whatever school I like?

Sheesh. Why must we be dragged down to knuckle dragger level?

Providing universal education is a basic government duty. The government can choose to discharge that duty as it wishes – just as it can choose how it wants to discharge other duties like maintaining public spaces or producing licence plates or collecting garbage.

As the Productivity Commission figures show, it costs $12,600 for the public sector to educate a child, but the government can pay the private sector $6,600 to educate that same child. If the private sector delivers the same outcome, at a lower cost to the taxpayer, what is wrong with “outsourcing” it in this way? Surely they are just two different ways of arriving at the same end?

Just out of interest Jim Jones – what makes you think that ACT public schools are “starved of funding” or “not funded properly”? Anyone familiar with the situation in ACT public high schools will tell you that the main issue is not funding, but poor leadership by the ACT Education Department and within schools, bad succession planning leading to teacher shortages across the system, lack of accountability (esp for school principals), and disengaged parents and communities. Until some of these issues are solved, the public system should not have a monopoly on education in the ACT.

The level of empathy and understanding kids grow up with comes primarily from parents. Most religious schools in Canberra are hardly what you’d call ‘hostile to other religions’.

One of the main reasons parents like private schools is because of the higher level of responsiveness (on average) that they get from staff and management, especially around things like bullying. Sure, private schools don’t have all the answers, but I reckon they try a bit harder.

So which is better for your kid? Who knows, every kid is different.

justin heywood said :

rosebud said :

So called ‘independent’ school (and I’m looking at you Catholics) should not be allowed to discriminate who they will accept into their schools based on religion if they are to receive public money. It’s discrimination at it’s most obvious and hurtful.

Rosebud, you need to do a bit of research before you let your emotions fly -otherwise you simply look like an ignorant bigot.

Well said

MWF said :

shadow boxer said :

wow, I think some people on here are feeling guilty that they have settled for a second rate education for their kids.

Not at all. I firmly believe that Public Education Works and is the BEST.

Well not for you pal. No need to capitalise public, education and works.

bobbatty said :

The ‘private’ schools can afford to employ better teachers due to parent contributions and therefore produce much better students.

Private school and public school teachers are actually paid very similar rates. You will find that the quality of teachers in both systems is about the same – some great teachers, some poor teachers and most trying their best in a difficult job.

housebound said :

The people we know who choose these schools do so for reasons of values education. They simply don’t want their kids to be in a public system that is openly hostile to their claimed faith. That’s why you have Islamic schools, catholic schools, ecumenical christian schools etc.

You will actually find that public schools are openly welcoming of people with faith. Public schools, being the melting pots that they are, actually help expose people to other people from different cultures and belief backgrounds, as opposed to a largely homogeneous cohort, consisting of other people who look, act and think like each other.

From my experience, public schools in Canberra celebrate the religious and cultural diversity of their students.

In my opinion, people choose to go private because they see it as offering their children a more ‘positive’ learning environment. By this, I mean one in which their children to not have to mingle with the unwashed masses. Other see it as a means of outsourcing their parenting (I’m paying for my kid’s education, therefore my job there is done). Of course, an unfortunate consequence of this is that children will grow up with less understanding and empathy for people not like them.

shadow boxer said :

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.

I read it differently: every student that attends a non-government school costs the government, and taxpayers approximately $6000.

rosebud said :

So called ‘independent’ school (and I’m looking at you Catholics) should not be allowed to discriminate who they will accept into their schools based on religion if they are to receive public money. It’s discrimination at it’s most obvious and hurtful.

Rosebud, you need to do a bit of research before you let your emotions fly -otherwise you simply look like an ignorant bigot.

shadow boxer said :

wow, I think some people on here are feeling guilty that they have settled for a second rate education for their kids.

Not at all. I firmly believe that Public Education Works and is the BEST.

A few facts here:

1. If the government really supports public education it could try not closing schools and forcing everyone into second-rate superschools; oh, and the Greens could try supporting the community rather than keeping their schools closed. School closures led to a direct increase in private school enrolments, and the drift to the private system is continuing. But that’s a whole argument in itself. (ok, so there’s some opinion there)

2. Most private schools take anyone who comes along, within limits. Lyneham High school is more selective than most catholic schools I know of. The catholic schools will always take a real catholic, even if they can’t pay, and they’ll always take paying customers of course (exception: high schools that are nearly full)

3. There’s private schools and then there’s expensive, elite private schools. The Grammars and Radfords of ther world, with their $10k+ fees (or even $20k), are the exception in Canberra. Most private schools charge a lot less, and they are nowhere as well resourced. The people we know who choose these schools do so for reasons of values education. They simply don’t want their kids to be in a public system that is openly hostile to their claimed faith. That’s why you have Islamic schools, catholic schools, ecumenical christian schools etc.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I am going to my nephews wedding in a couple of weeks, at the reception there will be free beer and wine. Whilst this is all well and good, I prefer to drink whisky, top shelf preferably.

Now the question is; should I demand that my nephew pay for part of my drink? Say the equivilent cost of a beer or a glass of wine? If not why on earth not?

If this is an analogy about the topic of public vs. private schools, I think you have missed out some vital elements…

Clearly you would be paying your nephew for the priviledge of being invited to his wedding. He promises that “there will be drinks there which are suitable for everyone!” so you assume that it will suffice. If I was paying for a service and I didn’t feel like it was adequte for my needs, I would be quite annoyed.

After all, why should I subsidising the beer that someone else likes while my own preferred brand is ignored?

The ‘private’ schools can afford to employ better teachers due to parent contributions and therefore produce much better students. Even in the public system we have ‘selective schools which receive more government funding per student than the bog standard public school.

It’s a simple reality, better teachers, better facilities equals better outcomes. In this case it’s educated students.

So called ‘independent’ school (and I’m looking at you Catholics) should not be allowed to discriminate who they will accept into their schools based on religion if they are to receive public money. It’s discrimination at it’s most obvious and hurtful.

I don’t know why it is always assumed that government funding works on an “either/or” system. There’s no guarantee that cancelling funding for private schools would result in an increase of public school funding.

Just like cancelling the arboretum wouldn’t see our suburbs festooned with street trees again.

astrojax said :

shadow boxer said :

Given 40% of Canberra’s kids currently go to private schools you are probably right Jim, and yes it is a little bit sad.

I would argue however that with private school kids only receiving half the funding of the public school kids we have probably given our bit.

There are lots of parents at public schools that can afford to contribute and forego the new jet-ski or Nissan Patrol, why dont we pro-rata mandatory public school fees based on income.

There is nothing like cutting a check for 20k in school fees to focus the mind.

Man, I’m going to get flamed now….

flamed? why yes; it’s ‘cheque’, not check! which school did you go to? 😉

Touche, Lyneham High/Dickson college

53 comments so far, 20 of them by Jimbo Jones.

Hmmm.

vg said :

Interestingly, Jim, since you’re mentioning stereotypes, perhaps you can try this one on from your first post.

“apparently it needs to be constantly propped up by middle-class welfare with an exaggerated sense of entitlement”

Pot,this is kettle……over

What stereotype is that statement alluding to precisely?

shadow boxer said :

Given 40% of Canberra’s kids currently go to private schools you are probably right Jim, and yes it is a little bit sad.

I would argue however that with private school kids only receiving half the funding of the public school kids we have probably given our bit.

There are lots of parents at public schools that can afford to contribute and forego the new jet-ski or Nissan Patrol, why dont we pro-rata mandatory public school fees based on income.

There is nothing like cutting a check for 20k in school fees to focus the mind.

Man, I’m going to get flamed now….

flamed? why yes; it’s ‘cheque’, not check! which school did you go to? 😉

Interestingly, Jim, since you’re mentioning stereotypes, perhaps you can try this one on from your first post.

“apparently it needs to be constantly propped up by middle-class welfare with an exaggerated sense of entitlement”

Pot,this is kettle……over

colourful sydney racing identity said :

I am going to my nephews wedding in a couple of weeks, at the reception there will be free beer and wine. Whilst this is all well and good, I prefer to drink whisky, top shelf preferably.

Now the question is; should I demand that my nephew pay for part of my drink? Say the equivilent cost of a beer or a glass of wine? If not why on earth not?

It’s your right.

You’re actually making everything cheaper for your nephew.

If you didn’t drink whisky, then the cost of beer and wine would rise dramatically.

vg said :

Comrades = communists?

Oh really, no-one can even pretend to be that stupid.

dtc said :

Jim Jones said :

No-one’s talked about closing down private schools – but the simple fact of the matter is that there free education is offered by the government. If anyone chooses not to take it up, they should pay to engage the private system – ditto with health, transport, etc.

So does that mean if I choose to go to a doctor that doesnt bulk bill (ie utilise the government funded health system), I should not be entitled to any Medicare rebate?

If there were an equitably available range of doctors who *do* bulk-bill, then, yes.

As we all know, however, this isn’t even remotely the case.

Jim Jones said :

No-one’s talked about closing down private schools – but the simple fact of the matter is that there free education is offered by the government. If anyone chooses not to take it up, they should pay to engage the private system – ditto with health, transport, etc.

So does that mean if I choose to go to a doctor that doesnt bulk bill (ie utilise the government funded health system), I should not be entitled to any Medicare rebate?

Jim Jones said :

vg said :

Oh snap, there goes the comrades argument holus bolus

A little bit sad when your argument relies on dull stereotypes of people as ‘communists’.

What’s next ‘latte sipping elitists’, ‘chardonnay socialists’ perhaps?

This sort of stuff does well over on the Andrew Bolt blog, perhaps you should pop over there and try it out.

Comrades = communists?

If leaping to conclusions was an Olympic sport you just scored yourself an AIS scholarship.

Who is Andrew Bolt?

Interestingly enough, if private schools were unfunded by the government then the fees would most likely go up and even fewer people would be able to afford them. This would actually make the public/private class divide even more pronounced.

It seems to me that funding to private schools has the dual benefit of saving the government money (vs. educating the private kids in the public system), as well as making private education accessible to a greater number of people. The more accessible the private system is, the more money the government saves. Obviously there’s a balance point at which this no longer adds up. but I’m going to assume that someone with access to the numbers has figured this out already.

In other words, how much of a subsidy is appropriate is grey area, but people who think it’s as simple as “if you want to send your kids to a private school then you should pay the entire cost yourself” apparently haven’t thought too hard about what would happen if that were actually the case. Either that or they oppose the whole idea of private education on principle, which means they’re just using the funding discussion as a means to further an idealogical agenda.

I am going to my nephews wedding in a couple of weeks, at the reception there will be free beer and wine. Whilst this is all well and good, I prefer to drink whisky, top shelf preferably.

Now the question is; should I demand that my nephew pay for part of my drink? Say the equivilent cost of a beer or a glass of wine? If not why on earth not?

shadow boxer said :

Given 40% of Canberra’s kids currently go to private schools you are probably right Jim, and yes it is a little bit sad.

I would argue however that with private school kids only receiving half the funding of the public school kids we have probably given our bit.

There are lots of parents at public schools that can afford to contribute and forego the new jet-ski or Nissan Patrol, why dont we pro-rata mandatory public school fees based on income.

There is nothing like cutting a check for 20k in school fees to focus the mind.

Man, I’m going to get flamed now….

Well, yeah, flamed for the equality comment – see above.

I agree with the idea of pro-rata school fees based on income – we already do this, it’s called ‘tax’.

shadow boxer said :

Ahh now I get it, you want us to lower our goals to your level.

Be careful me and the other “wealthy” private school parents might need to sneak out at night and hold clandestine tutoring sessions for our kids.

We will hold them in darkened cellars by candlelight in case the equality police come a’calling and force us to provide them for your kids as well or we are accused of advantaging our kids.

I’ve pointed out very clearly that I’ve no problem with private schools (I went to a private school FFS, I’ll probably send my children to private school, I’ve worked in education for a long long time) but having them funded by the public purse at the expense of the public system is ethically appalling.

You really are very self-absorbed aren’t you? Really, try getting your head out of your arse and looking around at the educational outcomes of other people for a second.

shadow boxer said :

I’m not involved in them but I am guessing all but a handfull of private schools would close if you removed government funding.

If they are not viable they should close.

Given 40% of Canberra’s kids currently go to private schools you are probably right Jim, and yes it is a little bit sad.

I would argue however that with private school kids only receiving half the funding of the public school kids we have probably given our bit.

There are lots of parents at public schools that can afford to contribute and forego the new jet-ski or Nissan Patrol, why dont we pro-rata mandatory public school fees based on income.

There is nothing like cutting a check for 20k in school fees to focus the mind.

Man, I’m going to get flamed now….

shadow boxer said :

I’m not involved in them but I am guessing all but a handfull of private schools would close if you removed government funding.

It’s all good though and each to their own. For me at the end of the day it’s a local thing, my local high school is appalling and downright dangerous at times.

Education funding is a long-term issue and should be directed by ‘needs-based funding’.

The big problem is that, largely because of underfunding (but I daresay also because of mismanagement and lack of attention), there is some of the public system that is second rate and desperately needs to be brought up to standard.

But this isn’t going to happen without a shift in the way that education funding is determined.

The current system not only perpetuates the problem, it exaggerates it.

So far, both political parties have addressed the problems with mechanisms that would only further exaggerate the problem (i.e. funding ideas by which better performing schools receive more money).

Without some actual dedication and actual vision given to public education, I’m really afraid that we’ll end up with a much more socio-economically stratified society – where public schools really are where only people who can’t afford education send their children.

Ahh now I get it, you want us to lower our goals to your level.

Be careful me and the other “wealthy” private school parents might need to sneak out at night and hold clandestine tutoring sessions for our kids.

We will hold them in darkened cellars by candlelight in case the equality police come a’calling and force us to provide them for your kids as well or we are accused of advantaging our kids.

vg said :

Oh snap, there goes the comrades argument holus bolus

A little bit sad when your argument relies on dull stereotypes of people as ‘communists’.

What’s next ‘latte sipping elitists’, ‘chardonnay socialists’ perhaps?

This sort of stuff does well over on the Andrew Bolt blog, perhaps you should pop over there and try it out.

vg said :

Jim Jones said :

vg said :

Someone might need to explain position of advantage and ‘exaggerated sense of entitlement’ that people who send their kids to private schools have.

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?

I don’t like ‘my’ taxes being used to pay for someone else’s unemployment benefits.

Game

Set

Match

That’s one hell of an ‘own goal’ actually.

dvaey said :

shadow boxer said :

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.

Because its about putting the kids on a level playing field, not the parents..

By god, but that’s the smartest thing I’ve ever heard you say here.

That’s worth quoting for it’s brilliant brevity.

I’m not involved in them but I am guessing all but a handfull of private schools would close if you removed government funding.

It’s all good though and each to their own. For me at the end of the day it’s a local thing, my local high school is appalling and downright dangerous at times.

georgesgenitals said :

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.

So you’d *increase* the amount of funding that private schools get?

You do realise that would involve very drastically reducing the funding of public schools, right?

The only way that the ‘everyone gets the same amount of education money’ scheme would be ‘fair’ would be in a society where everyone had a comparable income level.

Jim Jones said :

Should the public purse pay for me to run my car because I don’t like the public transport system?

If I promise not to catch a single ACTION bus this year, can I not pay rego?

shadow boxer said :

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.

No-one’s talked about closing down private schools – but the simple fact of the matter is that there free education is offered by the government. If anyone chooses not to take it up, they should pay to engage the private system – ditto with health, transport, etc.

This is not ‘picking on’ private school parents. If you want something other than is offered by the government, good on you: I daresay that I will do this very thing in the near(ish) future. But that choosing to opt out of the public system should still be paid for by the public purse is ridiculous and damages the public system – thereby intensifying the problem of inequitable outcomes.

Your notion that adding students to the public education system will ‘make things worse’ because the gummint will have to pay more for public school students is based on a simplistic misunderstanding of the way that the budgets work.

Finally, I’m completely for free University education and no Labour supporter on education issues. As far as I’m concerned, both of the major parties are appallingly short-sighted when it comes to education.

shadow boxer said :

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.

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.

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.

justin heywood said :

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.

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?

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.

shadow boxer said :

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.

Oh snap, there goes the comrades argument holus bolus

shadow boxer said :

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.

So you’re saying that wealthy people, who pay more taxes, should receive greater government funding for education and related services than poor people?

Jim Jones said :

vg said :

Someone might need to explain position of advantage and ‘exaggerated sense of entitlement’ that people who send their kids to private schools have.

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?

I don’t like ‘my’ taxes being used to pay for someone else’s unemployment benefits.

Game

Set

Match

shadow boxer said :

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.

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?

johnboy said :

I suspect it’s similar to the middle class “right” to the same welfare as the genuinely needy.

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”.

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.

shadow boxer said :

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

vg said :

Someone might need to explain position of advantage and ‘exaggerated sense of entitlement’ that people who send their kids to private schools have.

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?

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.

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..

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…

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

shadow boxer said :

Each and every kid is entitled to the same amount towards their education

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?

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

If you want to send your kids to private school you can bloody well pay for it yourself.

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.

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.