Zed and Steve plan to send more money to the struggling private schools

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If you want to post something as fact, it either needs to be historically recognised or you need to post sources as well.

Source?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If you want to post something as fact, it either needs to be historically recognised or you need to post sources as well.

Proboscus said :

Mysteryman said :

Proboscus said :

The Catholic Church is the biggest corporation in the world. They also pay next to zero in taxes. They should be solely responsible for funding their schools. Ditto for the every other tax avoiding, devil dodging school in Australia.

Do you know why churches and other religious organisations are tax exempt?

It’s one of the Ten Commandments?

Nope. Take another guess.

Unsurprising coming from the Canberra Catholics/ Canberra Liberals.

A better idea would be to return the prime land and taxpayer funded facilities to public use.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Source?

Gamer_Nerd, Comic_And. 2012, Various Comments.
Available from: . [30 August 2012]

How’s my referencing?

Impeccable. A+.

I’m not sure you guys understand what source means.

don’t hold your breathe waiting for Miseryman to back up any of his claims – it is his MO, make unsubstantiated claims about other posters and when called on it he responds with ‘troll’, idiot’ or the very Beverly Hills 90210 ‘douche’.

Well, because I’ve got some time… Here’s the backup to my claims of terrible spelling:

This makes me happy. Not only for the ghungalin muslim community but also becuase its going to cause a bunch of intolerant morons rage.

Locked doors dont do much when they have acomplises holding it open.

Again, you appear to be specualiting instead of relying soley on factual evidence

And while we’re at it, some evidence of having no idea about what facts are:

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If you want to post something as fact, it either needs to be historically recognised or you need to post sources as well.

here is another one, FACT: if money is spent upgrading and improving bicycle infastructure (sic), more people will be inclined to use it.

motor sport benifits (sic) nobody besides a small group of bogans

Exactly. Most multinationals are evil just by existing.

It’s a shame, CSRI, that you’re so intent on attacking me and trying to prove me wrong that you can’t see the stupidity of the argument you’re backing. I know there are people in this world who are so persuasive that they can take the wrong side of an argument and make it look like the right one, but mate, you aren’t one of them. You’re just starting to look desperate and a bit pitiful.

Jethro said :

Seems to me that they want to have their cake and eat it too. If you want public funds, you should be open to the whole public.

So organisations that accept public money need to be open to the whole public?

This argument just got a whole lot bigger. Do you apply this to everything or do you only apply this to schools?

Do you rail against government selective schools and advanced programs as well?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

If you want to post something as fact, it either needs to be historically recognised or you need to post sources as well.

Source?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Source?

Gamer_Nerd, Comic_And. 2012, Various Comments.
Available from: . [30 August 2012]

How’s my referencing?

Impeccable. A+.

I’m not sure you guys understand what source means.

don’t hold your breathe waiting for Miseryman to back up any of his claims – it is his MO, make unsubstantiated claims about other posters and when called on it he responds with ‘troll’, idiot’ or the very Beverly Hills 90210 ‘douche’.

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Source?

Gamer_Nerd, Comic_And. 2012, Various Comments.
Available from: . [30 August 2012]

How’s my referencing?

Impeccable. A+.

I’m not sure you guys understand what source means.

Something you put on your meat pie?

Please elaborate, is this another factpinion?

If you want to post something as fact, it either needs to be historically recognised or you need to post sources as well.

Diggety said :

Two verifiably false presumptions often tossed up in this debate:

– Parents who choose to send their children to private schools are rich.
– Parents who choose to send their children to public schools are poor.

No prizes for guessing which side of politics those come from.

Diggety said :

Jethro said :

If private schools want public funding they should be open to the whole public…. kids with behaviour problems, indigenous kids, refugee kids, kids with learning disabilties, etc.

And that is of course, is not true either.

Now now Diggety, settle down. Surely you know how it goes by now. The thread is only up to the ‘bash the Catholics’ stage. Don’t go spoiling people’s fun by injecting reality.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Source?

Gamer_Nerd, Comic_And. 2012, Various Comments.
Available from: . [30 August 2012]

How’s my referencing?

Impeccable. A+.

I’m not sure you guys understand what source means.

Something you put on your meat pie?

Please elaborate, is this another factpinion?

Jethro said :

If private schools want public funding they should be open to the whole public…. kids with behaviour problems, indigenous kids, refugee kids, kids with learning disabilties, etc.

And that is of course, is not true either.

Two verifiably false presumptions often tossed up in this debate:

– Parents who choose to send their children to private schools are rich.
– Parents who choose to send their children to public schools are poor.

No prizes for guessing which side of politics those come from.

Mysteryman said :

Proboscus said :

The Catholic Church is the biggest corporation in the world. They also pay next to zero in taxes. They should be solely responsible for funding their schools. Ditto for the every other tax avoiding, devil dodging school in Australia.

Do you know why churches and other religious organisations are tax exempt?

It’s one of the Ten Commandments?

Jim Jones said :

2604 said :

Jim Jones said :

Offering parents a genuine choice between a well-funded private school or a government school system that’s been starved of funds to the point that only people who can’t afford to pay for private schools will send their children there.

Which is lovely. Poor people are terrible and one wouldn’t want ones children to associate with them. Also it helps to stifle class and economic mobility.

Yep, the ACT is so starved of funds that it can only afford to spend $70 million building a primary school in Bonner. Not to mention poorly equipped schools like Namadgi and Amaroo.

As for parents using private schools to keep their kids away from “poor people”, is that why your parents sent you to Radford?

Gonski report anyone?

Or would you prefer to keep the ad homs kicking along instead?

Well, did your parents send you to an exclusive private school to keep you away from “poor people”, or did they not? Either they didn’t want you mixing with “poor people”, or your argument sucks.

You still haven’t explained how an education system which can afford to spend $70 million on a primary school in Bonner, $56.5 million on Namadgi school, and $72 million on Gungahlin College is “starved of funds”. Are you implying that if the primary school in Bonner cost $100 million instead of only $70 million, its students would do better? Maybe all that money being spent on capital works should be put into student resources or teacher education instead, but that has nothing to do with private school funding.

Jethro said :

If private schools want public funding they should be open to the whole public…. kids with behaviour problems, indigenous kids, refugee kids, kids with learning disabilties, etc.

But they’re not. They’re exclusive. They get to choose who they want and who they don’t. So, all the difficult kids get lumped in the public schools and the private schools get to market themselves as having higher standards and a better ‘class’ of kid.

Seems to me that they want to have their cake and eat it too. If you want public funds, you should be open to the whole public.

And there it is. Everybody who pays tax is funding private schools, but only a small percentage of those people who are funding the private schools will ever be able to send their children to those schools.

It’s a crap situation. Disclaimer: Even though I know it’s a crap, two of my kids go to a private school. Why? Because the private school is exclusive in the sense that that hoods are given a fair chance, but if they don’t get with the program they are excluded.This means my kids don’t have to deal with the bullying and other shite I went through at school.

So yeah, it’s crap and I know it, but I’m just trying to give my kids the best chance I can with the resources I’ve got.

2604 said :

…

As for parents using private schools to keep their kids away from “poor people”, is that why your parents sent you to Radford?

Meanwhile, somewhere in Griffith:

Jemima, come here and read this!
Yes, that’s funny isn’t it? Radford is *for* poor people.

If private schools want public funding they should be open to the whole public…. kids with behaviour problems, indigenous kids, refugee kids, kids with learning disabilties, etc.

But they’re not. They’re exclusive. They get to choose who they want and who they don’t. So, all the difficult kids get lumped in the public schools and the private schools get to market themselves as having higher standards and a better ‘class’ of kid.

Seems to me that they want to have their cake and eat it too. If you want public funds, you should be open to the whole public.

Proboscus said :

The Catholic Church is the biggest corporation in the world. They also pay next to zero in taxes. They should be solely responsible for funding their schools. Ditto for the every other tax avoiding, devil dodging school in Australia.

Do you know why churches and other religious organisations are tax exempt?

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Source?

Gamer_Nerd, Comic_And. 2012, Various Comments.
Available from: . [30 August 2012]

How’s my referencing?

Impeccable. A+.

I’m not sure you guys understand what source means.

The Catholic Church is the biggest corporation in the world. They also pay next to zero in taxes. They should be solely responsible for funding their schools. Ditto for the every other tax avoiding, devil dodging school in Australia.

chewy14 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Source?

Gamer_Nerd, Comic_And. 2012, Various Comments.
Available from: . [30 August 2012]

How’s my referencing?

Impeccable. A+.

greyswandir said :

I attended a Catholic all-girls’ high school for years 7-10. I do clearly recall them refreshing their IT systems every couple of years as well as spending an absolute motza on Rock Eisteddford every year…

I’ll never forget just over 20 years ago, at the tender age of 15 speaking with an acquaintance who was a student at Girls Grammar. They had just won the rock eisteddford, with the most amazing costumes and sets you ever saw, but my friend insisted it was because they were ‘good dancers’.

There will always be people with money to burn, who send their kids to snotty schools. I’d be more interested in seeing resources put towards helping those in the public system.

Well nothing will lose you an election quicker than promising handouts to elite schools so they can ummm … green up the lawns.

If this is all the libs have come up with in the last four years than God help us. Oh no wait, green waste – an idea they flogged from someone else.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Source?

Gamer_Nerd, Comic_And. 2012, Various Comments.
Available from: . [30 August 2012]

How’s my referencing?

Mysteryman said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Really gross. As any public school teacher here will tell you, government schools need every cent they can get, while and private school teacher here can tell you, private schools need no helping hand.

I do work at both and the gap is amazingly huge. Give the 30 mil to government schools instead.

I hope you aren’t a teacher. I really do.

Because he can compare two situations that he has an intimate knowledge of? Yeah, sure that should disqualify someone from teaching…

Do you make a habit of answering your own questions? It would explain a lot.

No, because most of his/her posts contain an offensive amount of misinformation, speculation, and generalisation. Also, he/she seems to have difficulty understanding the difference between opinion and fact (demonstrated time and time again). Then there’s also the large number of spelling mistakes in the vast majority of posts. Not the sort of qualities one hopes to find in an educator.

Source?

Jim Jones said :

The issue of fairness for me was well raised in the Gonski report. Yes, I accept that private schools get government funding. But fairness in education is not achieved by having funding given equally between private and government schools. Fairness is achieved by having funding tied to quality of education, so that there are real options in education, not the situation we’re developing at the moment, where the choice is to send your kids to a private school if you can afford it (and from there try to negotiate your way through all the religious crap that is implicitly part of this) or put up with a substandard public system if you can’t afford it.

That’s a good point. But I do think that improving the quality of of public education can be done while still funding private education.

Jim Jones said :

“If the government system is underfunded then surely the non-government system is also under-funded seeing as they get less government money per student?”

Government schools are funded *solely* by the public purse. Private schools are heavily subsidised in other ways. Hence the lack of parity.

“The fact that some parents are willing to top up their school’s funding with extra money should be irrelevant to the overall funding picture. If public schools are underfunded then they should be making the argument to receive more funding instead of always complaining about private schools. It shouldn’t be an us vs them argument.”

I agree it shouldn’t be an us or them argument (which is extremely counterproductive) – this is more likely than not a diversion that’s part of political game playing. That said, a key issue is not that parents are “willing” to top up the funding. It’s that some parents are “able” to top up the funding, and some aren’t.

“As long as some parents are willing to pay more money to get their child educated and the school teaches to an approved curriculum then i’m happy because they’re saving me money in tax.”

Honestly, the financial quandary we have with educational system we have at the moment isn’t going to go away. And there’s no way in hell that funding of non-government schools is going to be stopped. Realistically there’s no point arguing that private schools shouldn’t get government funds; we’re well beyond that point.

The issue of fairness for me was well raised in the Gonski report. Yes, I accept that private schools get government funding. But fairness in education is not achieved by having funding given equally between private and government schools. Fairness is achieved by having funding tied to quality of education, so that there are real options in education, not the situation we’re developing at the moment, where the choice is to send your kids to a private school if you can afford it (and from there try to negotiate your way through all the religious crap that is implicitly part of this) or put up with a substandard public system if you can’t afford it.

I have no doubt that there are *some* non-government schools that deserve greater funding. And there may be some public schools that are adequately funded. But you’d be hard put to argue that private schools are poorly funded compared to their public counterparts. If this were the case, there wouldn’t be so many threads on riotact whining about crappy public schools.

Yep, good post. Interesting thoughts.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Really gross. As any public school teacher here will tell you, government schools need every cent they can get, while and private school teacher here can tell you, private schools need no helping hand.

I do work at both and the gap is amazingly huge. Give the 30 mil to government schools instead.

I hope you aren’t a teacher. I really do.

Because he can compare two situations that he has an intimate knowledge of? Yeah, sure that should disqualify someone from teaching…

Do you make a habit of answering your own questions? It would explain a lot.

No, because most of his/her posts contain an offensive amount of misinformation, speculation, and generalisation. Also, he/she seems to have difficulty understanding the difference between opinion and fact (demonstrated time and time again). Then there’s also the large number of spelling mistakes in the vast majority of posts. Not the sort of qualities one hopes to find in an educator.

“If the government system is underfunded then surely the non-government system is also under-funded seeing as they get less government money per student?”

Government schools are funded *solely* by the public purse. Private schools are heavily subsidised in other ways. Hence the lack of parity.

“The fact that some parents are willing to top up their school’s funding with extra money should be irrelevant to the overall funding picture. If public schools are underfunded then they should be making the argument to receive more funding instead of always complaining about private schools. It shouldn’t be an us vs them argument.”

I agree it shouldn’t be an us or them argument (which is extremely counterproductive) – this is more likely than not a diversion that’s part of political game playing. That said, a key issue is not that parents are “willing” to top up the funding. It’s that some parents are “able” to top up the funding, and some aren’t.

“As long as some parents are willing to pay more money to get their child educated and the school teaches to an approved curriculum then i’m happy because they’re saving me money in tax.”

Honestly, the financial quandary we have with educational system we have at the moment isn’t going to go away. And there’s no way in hell that funding of non-government schools is going to be stopped. Realistically there’s no point arguing that private schools shouldn’t get government funds; we’re well beyond that point.

The issue of fairness for me was well raised in the Gonski report. Yes, I accept that private schools get government funding. But fairness in education is not achieved by having funding given equally between private and government schools. Fairness is achieved by having funding tied to quality of education, so that there are real options in education, not the situation we’re developing at the moment, where the choice is to send your kids to a private school if you can afford it (and from there try to negotiate your way through all the religious crap that is implicitly part of this) or put up with a substandard public system if you can’t afford it.

I have no doubt that there are *some* non-government schools that deserve greater funding. And there may be some public schools that are adequately funded. But you’d be hard put to argue that private schools are poorly funded compared to their public counterparts. If this were the case, there wouldn’t be so many threads on riotact whining about crappy public schools.

Mysteryman said :

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

Offering parents a genuine choice between a well-funded private school or a government school system that’s been starved of funds to the point that only people who can’t afford to pay for private schools will send their children there.

Which is lovely. Poor people are terrible and one wouldn’t want ones children to associate with them. Also it helps to stifle class and economic mobility.

If the government system is underfunded then surely the non-government system is also under-funded seeing as they get less government money per student?

The fact that some parents are willing to top up their school’s funding with extra money should be irrelevant to the overall funding picture. If public schools are underfunded then they should be making the argument to receive more funding instead of always complaining about private schools. It shouldn’t be an us vs them argument.

As long as some parents are willing to pay more money to get their child educated and the school teaches to an approved curriculum then i’m happy because they’re saving me money in tax.

THIS.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Really gross. As any public school teacher here will tell you, government schools need every cent they can get, while and private school teacher here can tell you, private schools need no helping hand.

I do work at both and the gap is amazingly huge. Give the 30 mil to government schools instead.

I hope you aren’t a teacher. I really do.

Why is that?

Mysteryman said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Really gross. As any public school teacher here will tell you, government schools need every cent they can get, while and private school teacher here can tell you, private schools need no helping hand.

I do work at both and the gap is amazingly huge. Give the 30 mil to government schools instead.

I hope you aren’t a teacher. I really do.

Because he can compare two situations that he has an intimate knowledge of? Yeah, sure that should disqualify someone from teaching…

chewy14 said :

Please explain what’s wrong with my logic.

Parent’s send their children to private school —> costs the government less money than sending them to public school + Gives an equally good or better education than public system
= Win for taxpayer.

I don’t think the government has a responsibility to provide “schooling”, I think they have the responsibility to provide “education” to children and to do so in the most cost effective manner possible. If that comes through providing money to private schools, which once again if you weren’t reading, have to teach to an approved curriculum, then that’s fantastic. The government’s responsibility is to the children, not to the schools.

Now if you want to argue about that public schooling is the most cost effective way of providing that education, then i’ll listen.

My problem with that is that there are so few private schools that aren’t driven by some kind of ideology, be it religious like BCC or elitist like Grammar or whatever you would describe places like Orana as being, apart from pathetic and sad. I think children should be given the best education possible without being indoctrinated into any kind of belief system or being given an outrageous sense of entitlement and personal worth.

Focusing on quality secular education, I think that will have the best out come for the children and thus, Australia’s future. Now the feasibility of a system like this is a different matter.

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

Offering parents a genuine choice between a well-funded private school or a government school system that’s been starved of funds to the point that only people who can’t afford to pay for private schools will send their children there.

Which is lovely. Poor people are terrible and one wouldn’t want ones children to associate with them. Also it helps to stifle class and economic mobility.

If the government system is underfunded then surely the non-government system is also under-funded seeing as they get less government money per student?

The fact that some parents are willing to top up their school’s funding with extra money should be irrelevant to the overall funding picture. If public schools are underfunded then they should be making the argument to receive more funding instead of always complaining about private schools. It shouldn’t be an us vs them argument.

As long as some parents are willing to pay more money to get their child educated and the school teaches to an approved curriculum then i’m happy because they’re saving me money in tax.

THIS.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Really gross. As any public school teacher here will tell you, government schools need every cent they can get, while and private school teacher here can tell you, private schools need no helping hand.

I do work at both and the gap is amazingly huge. Give the 30 mil to government schools instead.

I hope you aren’t a teacher. I really do.

shirty_bear said :

Worst. Logic. Ever.

The government has a responsibility to provide schooling. It’s there for everyone. If that’s not good enough for you – or if you require god-bothering thrown in – fine, you can go elsewhere. At your own expense.

It’s that simple. If I could have my druthers, non-govt schools would get no public $$ at all.

Please explain what’s wrong with my logic.

Parent’s send their children to private school —> costs the government less money than sending them to public school + Gives an equally good or better education than public system
= Win for taxpayer.

I don’t think the government has a responsibility to provide “schooling”, I think they have the responsibility to provide “education” to children and to do so in the most cost effective manner possible. If that comes through providing money to private schools, which once again if you weren’t reading, have to teach to an approved curriculum, then that’s fantastic. The government’s responsibility is to the children, not to the schools.

Now if you want to argue about that public schooling is the most cost effective way of providing that education, then i’ll listen.

shirty_bear said :

Fail.

For the first time in a long time, I had been uncertain how I would vote at the next election. Not any more. These peanuts have just put a line through themselves.

chewy14 said :

If the government system is underfunded then surely the non-government system is also under-funded seeing as they get less government money per student?

The fact that some parents are willing to top up their school’s funding with extra money should be irrelevant to the overall funding picture. If public schools are underfunded then they should be making the argument to receive more funding instead of always complaining about private schools. It shouldn’t be an us vs them argument.

Worst. Logic. Ever.

The government has a responsibility to provide schooling. It’s there for everyone. If that’s not good enough for you – or if you require god-bothering thrown in – fine, you can go elsewhere. At your own expense.

It’s that simple. If I could have my druthers, non-govt schools would get no public $$ at all.

I agree, whenever I hear that pollies want to spend money on private schools I get the impression it’s because they are either too gutless, lazy or incompetent to have a proper go at making our public education system the best it can be.

“We’ll just throw money at the private education sector because it’s cheaper and easier, besides only proles and peons send their children to public schools *evil laugh*”

While i could support a small fund for niche schools, like an islamic school and a catholic school, that would only to be to provide an alternative for the religious fundies and i only think we should fund them so that the government can have some influence over what is being taught there. And I wouldn’t want more than a few of such places to be provided for in the A.C.T.

Our education system is supposed to be secular, we should reinforce that idea by not making it so easy for nutters to start their own sectarian brain-washing farms.

I attended a Catholic all-girls’ high school for years 7-10. I do clearly recall them refreshing their IT systems every couple of years as well as spending an absolute motza on Rock Eisteddford every year… and then handing out flyers for us to take home to our parents complaining about how the government short-shrifted them on funding.

Even as a thirteen-year-old I didn’t get how they could be so unselfconscious about their entitlement issues.

Fail.

For the first time in a long time, I had been uncertain how I would vote at the next election. Not any more. These peanuts have just put a line through themselves.

chewy14 said :

If the government system is underfunded then surely the non-government system is also under-funded seeing as they get less government money per student?

The fact that some parents are willing to top up their school’s funding with extra money should be irrelevant to the overall funding picture. If public schools are underfunded then they should be making the argument to receive more funding instead of always complaining about private schools. It shouldn’t be an us vs them argument.

Worst. Logic. Ever.

The government has a responsibility to provide schooling. It’s there for everyone. If that’s not good enough for you – or if you require god-bothering thrown in – fine, you can go elsewhere. At your own expense.

It’s that simple. If I could have my druthers, non-govt schools would get no public $$ at all.

2604 said :

Jim Jones said :

Offering parents a genuine choice between a well-funded private school or a government school system that’s been starved of funds to the point that only people who can’t afford to pay for private schools will send their children there.

Which is lovely. Poor people are terrible and one wouldn’t want ones children to associate with them. Also it helps to stifle class and economic mobility.

Yep, the ACT is so starved of funds that it can only afford to spend $70 million building a primary school in Bonner. Not to mention poorly equipped schools like Namadgi and Amaroo.

As for parents using private schools to keep their kids away from “poor people”, is that why your parents sent you to Radford?

Gonski report anyone?

Or would you prefer to keep the ad homs kicking along instead?

Aimed squarely at the people who choose to send their children to private school and then sit around whingeing about the fees.

It’s like complaining about the mortgage on a beach house.

Really gross. As any public school teacher here will tell you, government schools need every cent they can get, while and private school teacher here can tell you, private schools need no helping hand.

I do work at both and the gap is amazingly huge. Give the 30 mil to government schools instead.

2604 said :

Jim Jones said :

Offering parents a genuine choice between a well-funded private school or a government school system that’s been starved of funds to the point that only people who can’t afford to pay for private schools will send their children there.

Which is lovely. Poor people are terrible and one wouldn’t want ones children to associate with them. Also it helps to stifle class and economic mobility.

As for parents using private schools to keep their kids away from “poor people”, is that why your parents sent you to Radford?

*zing*

Jim Jones said :

Offering parents a genuine choice between a well-funded private school or a government school system that’s been starved of funds to the point that only people who can’t afford to pay for private schools will send their children there.

Which is lovely. Poor people are terrible and one wouldn’t want ones children to associate with them. Also it helps to stifle class and economic mobility.

Yep, the ACT is so starved of funds that it can only afford to spend $70 million building a primary school in Bonner. Not to mention poorly equipped schools like Namadgi and Amaroo.

As for parents using private schools to keep their kids away from “poor people”, is that why your parents sent you to Radford?

Deref said :

[

Education funding is not a zero sum game. Allowing people to pay to have their children privately schooled is one thing; assisting with its cost and the appropriate funding of public schools are two distinctly other things.

But the essential argument of the left is that education funding IS a zero sum game: i.e. any money given to private schools reduces the funding for the public system.

Why is the argument not about total education funding? Because it’s easier for Labor governments to tickle the ever-reliable class warfare nerve than it is to find the money to run a decent public system.

IMO every teacher should start on $100 k. We should have enough teachers that the top and bottom of the mainstream get the attention that they need. But this would require a huge amount of money and a long wait for a payoff. It’s much easier for the government to point towards the white picket fence outside The Kings School.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

We have the highest level of non-government school students and the lowest funding, clearly then cost is less of a barrier than in any other jurisdiction.

Given that in their begging bowl leaflet, the Liberals are going to make unspecified cuts to unspecified taxes, where will this $30 million dollar bail out package for the impoverished parents of Canberra Grammar School students come from?

If equality is the goal, then it could well end up with the poorer catholic primary schools and a couple of the small independents. The stats show they seem to ‘lose out’ on a comparative basis.

That said, we all know that the elites never miss out. So probably not the best policy all in all.

Jim Jones said :

Offering parents a genuine choice between a well-funded private school or a government school system that’s been starved of funds to the point that only people who can’t afford to pay for private schools will send their children there.

Which is lovely. Poor people are terrible and one wouldn’t want ones children to associate with them. Also it helps to stifle class and economic mobility.

If the government system is underfunded then surely the non-government system is also under-funded seeing as they get less government money per student?

The fact that some parents are willing to top up their school’s funding with extra money should be irrelevant to the overall funding picture. If public schools are underfunded then they should be making the argument to receive more funding instead of always complaining about private schools. It shouldn’t be an us vs them argument.

As long as some parents are willing to pay more money to get their child educated and the school teaches to an approved curriculum then i’m happy because they’re saving me money in tax.

just remeber the lack of costings in this debate… its actully an extra $20-30 plus million a YEAR, recurrent, that Zeds committing to… and all 2 months before Gonski will go before Federal Parliament…

Offering parents a genuine choice between a well-funded private school or a government school system that’s been starved of funds to the point that only people who can’t afford to pay for private schools will send their children there.

Which is lovely. Poor people are terrible and one wouldn’t want ones children to associate with them. Also it helps to stifle class and economic mobility.

cmdwedge said :

If you’re subsidising a child at a non-government school $x per year, then surely that’s better than paying for the same child costing a whole lot more in a government school?

A classic false equivalency.

Education funding is not a zero sum game. Allowing people to pay to have their children privately schooled is one thing; assisting with its cost and the appropriate funding of public schools are two distinctly other things.

We have the highest level of non-government school students and the lowest funding, clearly then cost is less of a barrier than in any other jurisdiction.

Given that in their begging bowl leaflet, the Liberals are going to make unspecified cuts to unspecified taxes, where will this $30 million dollar bail out package for the impoverished parents of Canberra Grammar School students come from?

If you’re subsidising a child at a non-government school $x per year, then surely that’s better than paying for the same child costing a whole lot more in a government school? I was government schooled myself (parents were neither rich nor religious), but the pitchfork-wielding when it comes to non-government schools makes no sense to me.

tldr; Pop a little money into non-gov, and it saves you a lot of money by the child not being in a gov school.