Stop treating private schools like rich snooty cousins

acotrel says:

06:04am | 15/11/11

Perhaps the Australian Government would do better to fund more schools like this one - the academic results speak for themselves.  The only thing you don’t get from this school is a lot of friends to help you with your career when you’ve finished university :
http://resources.mhs.vic.edu.au/mhs/

malohi says:

06:20am | 15/11/11

weasel words;
“Normally, one expects”
“a strong case can be put”
” as critics argue”
“Ignored is the research both here and overseas”
“more generally associated with”
“One of the most common attacks “
Can you spot more???

Sorry they just jumped out at me. You know that with the internet you can hyperlink references? Or is your lofty title as education king (or whatever) supposed to be good enough for us normal folk?
I see comments with more meat than this article everyday.

acotrel says:

07:25am | 15/11/11

@malohi
‘I see comments with more meat than this article everyday. ‘

It’s pretty obvious where he was educated.  The fallacious arguments are a dead giveaway.

malohi says:

08:27am | 15/11/11

I am surprised that you are making those assumptions Acetrol. I went to both private and state schools, sandstone and “2nd tier” unis and I never found a difference in ability or intellect.

Only arrogance, which as you pointed out does not count for much in any subjective assessment. I got an op1 in a state high school that resembled the set of to sir with love. You cannot honestly say that private schoolers were any smarter come uni.
If your kid is smart/ naturally ambitious or better yet, athletic, they will excel wherever they go. If they fall behind a one on one tutor is worth much more than a private school can provide and costs a fraction.
The drug/ street culture in the state schools does scare me a bit for my son, but then I think that it is no different from the adult social/buisness world.

Labor is Toxic says:

08:51am | 15/11/11

@ Acotrel

Rowing?? Is that it?? We have a great public schooling system because a high school in Melbourne acan row.  I send my son to school for an education ..... not sport. Even though he won the MVP playing No1 in the 16A Tennis Team while only 14yo, has been preselected in the Opens for next year, he knows “IT’S ONLY SPORT!!!” I wish those MHS boys all the best but I don’t know how much money is in the ‘coxless fours’.

The public school system is failing because some years ago a moronic director chose to remove teacher’s authority and moved away from the rigid structure that was the only successful education system. Artsy-fartsy doesn’t work. Children who need help don’t get it and children who don’t need help are dagged down because they become volunteer teacher aids, asked to help those who are falling behind and never get the opportunity to advance.

And don’t go on about class sizes ..... I was in a class of 52 in Grade 1

If you want to see results they are posted on the internet in Most of the Ultra-Schools are Private Schools ...... most of the Under-achieving schools are state schools.

Bob says:

04:28pm | 15/11/11

Schools are a state responsibility. The Feds should butt out and let the market sort it all out.

Tim says:

06:27am | 15/11/11

The fact that you think private schools are all religious shows your depth of thought on the issue.
Private schools exist because there isn’t one right way to teach children and many parents want their children to be educated with similar values to themselves.
By sending their children to these schools they are actively saving the taxpayer money, and for that I thank them.

malohi says:

06:59am | 15/11/11

Why is “morally bankrupt” being bandied so often?
oh.. INB4 hatersgonnahate.

Mark G says:

07:18am | 15/11/11

There are a few problems with your statements.

1. Not every private school is religious. In fact many of the best performing private schools are the secular grammar schools.

2. Not funding private schools but allowing them to exist, actually promotes separatism and elitism. The cost to parents of a private school education is kept in check by government funding. Their fees are based on their expenses. If you take away government funding, all you do is increase the tuition fees and therefore exclude many students who are presently struggling to afford the schools. You therefore make the schools even more elitist because only the very rich can afford them.

3. “Happy to accept OUR money”. Really? Your money? The vast majority of private school students come from the middle class. Not the Upper class. The middle class as a percentage of their overall income pay more tax than any one. They are often in the highest income tax bracket without creative accountants to get the out of paying tax. If we are talking about who’s money is being spent to fund what then I would argue that private school parents (through their taxes) are funding the private system and a good proportion of the Public school funding. So I pose the questions back to you. Who’s money?

acotrel says:

07:22am | 15/11/11

@Tim
‘By sending their children to these schools they are actively saving the taxpayer money, and for that I thank them. ‘

Obviously a reason for increasing their funding ? If we do enough of that how would we be able to distinguish the private schools from the public system ? Perhaps we should just cut to the chase, and integrate the lot ?

Mahhrat says:

07:23am | 15/11/11

Err Tim, Ronny didn’t say any such thing.

Alf says:

07:24am | 15/11/11

@ronny. “...happy to accept our money”.

What do you mean -  OUR money? Are you implying that ppl who opt for private education do not pay taxes?

Tubesteak says:

07:40am | 15/11/11

Ronny jonny
I totally agree. The government gives everyone the option of choosing a government school for their kids. If parents choose to forego that option then no government money should NOT follow them. Just like I can use public roads, I don’t ask the government to fund a private road that I’ve chosen to build myself.

The more money that is ripped out of the public education system the lower the standard of education for all. It is up to the government to consider the needs of the many and not the selfish whims of a few. The government needs to focus on providing the highest quality one-size-fits-all option that money can buy. Not dilute this by giving money to schools who already have more than enough money.

The argument that if money is not given to private schools then the students will go back to public also does not wash. The parents chose the private school not because of the public money but because of other reasons (eg religion or old school tie on the resume). They won’t flood back to the public system. Government money for private schools just means more funding for already elite schools and less funding for struggling public schools.

Tim
rj did not say it was all about religion.

acotrel says:

07:56am | 15/11/11

@Alf
‘What do you mean -  OUR money? Are you implying that ppl who opt for private education do not pay taxes? ‘

Obviously not enough taxes, or they’d be demanding a public system which provides value for money, and sending their kids there !

OchreBunyip says:

07:57am | 15/11/11

@RJ, Not all private schools are religious. Private schools exist because they can attract high quality teachers, provide diverse resources to school activities, provide an environment of effective discipline for the students, ensure workable class sizes and in some cases they can provide single-sex education which some parents and students prefer. You fail to address the taxes the parents of private school students pay of which the greater proportion goes to state schools - so you, who reject the freedom of choice for others to attend a private school, are morally bankrupt for accepting those taxes.

Attending private school is not rejecting the state/community; it is making a choice that will be very expensive for the benefit of your children. You seem to oppose freedom of choice, perhaps you have some rules for what men and women should wear and think as well?

Tim says:

08:29am | 15/11/11

Apologies to Ronny,
he said it was all about seperatism, elitism and religion.

All are wrong.

Tim says:

08:35am | 15/11/11

Tubesteak,
the argument that private school students wouldn’t flood public schools if funding was cut is the argument that doesn’t wash.

Yes some parents send their children to posh private schools with large fees and would be able to absorb an increase in their fees with little problem.
But this ignores the fact that the vast majority of private schools are low fee systemic schools that charge fees of a few thousand dollars a year. If these fees suddenly became $10K+, then there is no way that the parents would be able to afford them and these kids would be put back into the public system.

The public system is already stretched and this would simply transfer the extra cost burden back to the taxpayer.
I don’t want to have to pay extra taxes just to satisfy some people’s ideological desires about the public/private systems.

james says:

09:10am | 15/11/11

+1 Ronny

Every child is allocated a government school position, if the parents choose to reject that then they should pay the total cost to educate the child in a private school.
No one is removing choice or freedom.
Private schools should be exactly that, private and elite for those that CAN afford it.

AdamC says:

09:11am | 15/11/11

Tubesteak, de-funding private schools would be quite unlikely to increase the standard of education at government schools. Monopolies have a history of doing quite the opposite of that. So, if you want to improve the quality of government education, featherbedding state schools further by squeezing their main competitors is the opposite of what you would do.

That is why I tend to think that many people aren’t really interested in making public schools better. Rather, they fixate on making private schools worse. Which, for anyone who thinks education is a good thing (which, notionally at least, I think we all do) that is not a good thing.

Bomb78 says:

09:35am | 15/11/11

Tubesteak: do some research - start with the government’s My School website - and ignore the very wealthy, top tier private schools. Have a look at the suburban (mainly Catholic) schools, and look very closely at the total amount of money they get from government sources. Then compare that to the state schools in the same area. You’ll find these small, suburban private schools get around 20-30% less government funding per student that the local state schools.
The parents that send their kids to these schools are in the majority of those that send their kids to private schools. They are effectively subsidising the government, not the other way around. They are middle class, middle income earners.
My son will attend a private school next year. It exists in total on funding of around 80% per student of the local state school. It has comparable number of students and comparable KPI performance. Yet it has three less ‘principals’, and half the admin staff working the front office. It built a hall over twice the size of the one the state school got, for less money, from the BER project.
You want to improve the financial position of the state education system, try cutting up the bloated bureaucracies,let principals run their own budgets, and make local schools accountable to their community. In the business world, the underperforming entity would look at those doing better, and learn. It’s about time that the public education system starting learning some lessons from the private sector – they are not perfect but they can certainly run a financially more efficient operation.

Mark G says:

10:07am | 15/11/11

James,

“Private schools should be exactly that, private and elite for those that CAN afford it.”

In your anti-private school funding statement, did you actually argue that Private schools should be elitist?  And the government should make private education elitist? This statements certainly suggests that. Unlike other people on the Punch, at least you can see that government funding to private schools is probably the very thing that is reducing the elitism in the sector.

Ando says:

10:57am | 15/11/11

Tim,
If people want to pay for the privilege of separating there kids from the “public” system for whatever reason whether it be religion or bad influence then good luck to them.  In the meantime the public system is responsible for the rest, including the majority of troubled and at risk kids,which also effects the teachers and more motivated students . Surely the greater benefit for our tax dollar is to offer support for schools with a broader student base, rather than to schools whose students already have good facilities and support and whose parents at least care enough to make financial sacrifices.

james says:

11:03am | 15/11/11

@Mark G

Your point is?

Private schools cater for a need in a capitalist society, and that is how we should treat them.

Parents who reject the public funded system should then pay for the full cost to educate their child in the private system.

Mr GG says:

11:05am | 15/11/11

@Tim
fine then they pay. Choices have consequences. You can be a Bigot either social or religious but then you can live with consequence of paying for it yourself

Fees should go up because the parents shouldn’t have to pay them, that’s what the public system is for. Every student out of the public system damages it through reducing funding. It is called economies of scale. Education like just about every other industry seeks efficiencies through synergy, the more kids the more opportunities for synergy, the better value solution you can implement.
As for flooding public schools, as the private school is currently getting the funding that would revert back the public school where it belongs all that happens is it allows greater economies of scale.

RobJ says:

11:06am | 15/11/11

“The fact that you think private schools are all religious shows your depth of thought on the issue.”

If you had a private education Tim you ought to ask for your money back.

PTom says:

11:17am | 15/11/11

@Tim
“By sending their children to these schools they are actively saving the taxpayer money, and for that I thank them. “

Rubbish Public funding is then reduced and the money then goes to Private.
If Private school lose students then public should increase, but it does not Private keep their funding levels because of whinges like you.

Timmy says:

11:49am | 15/11/11

It would be interesting to know if people who are dead against public funding of private schools live in an area like mine.

The local public high school is run down, the teachers are happy to just get through the day, the playground is appalling and academic outcomes (NAPLAN, matriculation to higher education, employment prospects) are not great.

The local private school is a stark contrast. It is vibrant, the students do well, the teachers are really enthusiastic and are trying new things. The grounds look great, although they are a bit 80’s in their design.

My kids will go to the private. Not because they we are well off. Not because we want the religious aspect of the private school, but because we feel that we have no choice. The public high school is not adequately fulfilling its purpose.

Incidentally this has NOTHING to do with funding. The private school’s income is $2000 less per student.

Tubesteak says:

12:17pm | 15/11/11

Tim
If they stop subsidising the students in private schools then they will have money left over for which ever ones come back to the public system. You also have considered the fact that they are in the private system for other reasons than cost. I would think most would be left there if it went from $3k to $10k.

AdamC
That has more to do with educational standards set by the Board of Studies than who we are funding in the private system. Private schools will continue to rocket along. More money going to public schools means we could fix some of the problems with the system. It’s more to do with government accountability through the Board of Studies.

Bomb78
If they’re getting 20-30% less then it still means most of their funding comes from the government who already has a system that the parents can utilise. As I said initially, if you choose to eschew what is already provided then you should fund it out of your own pocket.

Tim says:

12:42pm | 15/11/11

Tubesteak,
the vast majority of students in private schools aren’t from rich families, they are from middle class families earning average wages.
An extra $5-10K would force a lot of them back into the public system.
Then instead of the government having to fund 70-80% of their education, they would be paying 100%.

The other thing that get ignored in this debate is the fact that these private schools don’t just get to teach whatever they want. The government funding they receive is dependent on teaching a government approved curriculum.

Craig says:

12:47pm | 15/11/11

Totally agree with Ronny. what is it that people don’t get about the word “private”?  Oh, but they’re “independent” schools I hear you say - call them what you like, at the end of the day they exist because some folk think they are entitled to more than others. My argument has nothing to do with envy; if people are stupid enough to spend a fortune on a private education for their kids, fine, let them do it. Just don’t take it from the public purse.

Anne71 says:

12:56pm | 15/11/11

@Malohi “Why is morally bankrupt” being bandied so often?”
I could not agree more. Like that other cliche, “unAustralian”, it is everywhere these days.
Reminds me of that scene from The Princess Bride:
“Vizzini - Inconceivable!
Inigo Montoyez - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

jade (the other one) says:

01:18pm | 15/11/11

@Timmy. I’m dead against the existence of private schools. I lived in one of the most socio-economically disadvantaged areas of my state. I believe quite strongly that it is the existence of private schools, and the divide that they enable, through drawing away the most motivated, well-provided for, and high-achieving students, as well as splitting educational funding that has caused the current state of affairs, with woefully underperforming state schools.

I personally am proud of my state school education. It was not only an academic education, but a social education which taught me very early in life just how privileged I, as a white, middle class female was in our society, simply because I had a roof over my head, and two parents committed to each other and to me, and food to eat. Had I gone to a private school, and mixed with only students like me, I doubt I would have had the wealth of education that I had.

Paul Horn says:

01:20pm | 15/11/11

That’s right ronny jonny remove all funding from private schools and make them even more elite. Well Done mate, high distinction for infallible logical reasoning.

And of course the fact that the Governmet receives its income from the private sector means that all those private citizens must have their choices heavily restricted to a centralised secular educational model.

What was that about the Government serving the people? Oh stupid me I’ve got it around the wrong way! We are in fact here to serve the centralist model of Communist omniscience!

Remove all funding from private schools, restrict parents choices and then clap our hands in glee as hundreds of thousands of children will be forced to return to the State School System.

Then watch educational standards drop big time as the Government struggles to fund an ever burgeoning school system and the Commissariat of Education can enjoy enforcing its sick “secular” philosophies on an even greater population of children while celebrating the benefits of much reduced competition.

Good on ye mate - straight out of the Communist manifesto!!

Paul Horn says:

01:20pm | 15/11/11

That’s right ronny jonny remove all funding from private schools and make them even more elite. Well Done mate, high distinction for infallible logical reasoning.

And of course the fact that the Governmet receives its income from the private sector means that all those private citizens must have their choices heavily restricted to a centralised secular educational model.

What was that about the Government serving the people? Oh stupid me I’ve got it around the wrong way! We are in fact here to serve the centralist model of Communist omniscience!

Remove all funding from private schools, restrict parents choices and then clap our hands in glee as hundreds of thousands of children will be forced to return to the State School System.

Then watch educational standards drop big time as the Government struggles to fund an ever burgeoning school system and the Commissariat of Education can enjoy enforcing its sick “secular” philosophies on an even greater population of children while celebrating the benefits of much reduced competition.

Good on ye mate - straight out of the Communist manifesto!!

Cookie Monster says:

01:22pm | 15/11/11

Tubesteak “If they stop subsidising the students in private schools then they will have money left over for which ever ones come back to the public system.”

How - if a student is subsidised, hypothetically, 80% by the government at a private school and then has to go to public then the government will have to subsidise them 100%. Stopping subsidises to private schools will not increase the level of education offered at public schools - it’s simple economics.

“I would think most would be left there if it went from $3k to $10k.” - times the increase by the number of children you have a private school and that will tell a different story.

ronny jonny says:

01:45pm | 15/11/11

I never said all private schools are religious, though in my local area they are. I personally know people who send their kids to the local private Catholic school so they can have the nice blazer and tie, despite not being Catholic… It is also a cheap form of snobbery, they consider themselves superior to the kids at the state school yet the fees are a mere $4000 per year! As well as the schools TER being lower than the state school and percentage of students going on to tertiary also lower. Yet there is still a perception, baseless in this case, that they deliver a superior education. That is in my local area, mind, not anywhere else.
I think that if you want the prestige of attending a private institution, you should pay for it. It seems pretty hollow when it is paid for out of the public purse.
Whose money? Taxpayers money, who elses?
Apologies to those offended by my use of “morally bankrupt”, I am vocabulary bankrupt, ha ha!

Economist says:

01:59pm | 15/11/11

Cookie Monster, Tubesteak is correct. The savings argument is bogus because currently the funding goes to all students at non-government schools, though the amount of funding varies under SES. The issue is whether the drop out rate, from non-government schools back to government schools, would be large enough to cost the government. This would require approximately over 40% of students dropping out, calculation I’ve shown previously on the punch.

ronny jonny says:

02:40pm | 15/11/11

As far as a left vs right issue, I am just a little further to the right than Gaydolf Titler was. I believe that if you want elite/exclusive/religious schools, go your hardest. Just don’t do it with taxpayers money.

Cookie Monster says:

03:24pm | 15/11/11

Economist says:02:59pm | 15/11/11

So I take it when you made your calculations you took into account the different SES scores of non-government schools, took out special assistance, indigenous schools and funding guaranteed schools, took into account the difference in funding between primary and secondary schools and subsequent drop-out rates (I suspect parents would take their children out of primary to save for private secondard education) and took into account the BER (depending on how recent your figures were).

Economist says:

05:25pm | 15/11/11

Cookie Monster your trying to be too clever. Firstly I said approximately 40%. secondly an easier way is to take to total $6.6B split into secondary and primary and divide the Average Government School Recurrent Costs.for each sector to give you the number of students that the $6.6B would fund.

In addition the savings are marginal given that a subsidy increase demand which increases price which devalues the subsidy. But on the flip side the same can be said for government expenditure.

Fifthly I didn’t support Tubesteak proposition, but just highlighted that the savings to the public purse are generally exaggerated

Finally, BER has nothing to do with it. That was discretionary spending.

Dean says:

07:50pm | 15/11/11

Tubesteak, James
I take it from your comments that you don’t own a private car and you only use public transport?If you do, you only drive on private toll roads. You don’t have private health insurance and if you do you don’t claim medicare component? When filling out your tax return you don’t claim your private health insurance rebate?
Yes I am mocking you. You make it so easy because your argument is dumb. In more enlighten societies, like Sweden, New Zealand & Scotland, schools regardless who runs them, receive the same funding per student. Why? Because these countries see it as discrimination not to.

Your argument might hold some weight if, the students who go to private schools, when they have graduated disappeared to some parallel universe, but thy don’t. They become tax paying citizens and contribute to this country. So the question remains that are you happy to take the benefits that come from education regardless of who provides it and not help pay for it? Just because you disagree with what people believe in?

B says:

02:30pm | 16/11/11

@ronny jonny.

Fact is buddy.  It is their money too.  Not just yours.  They have paid the same, if not more tax than you.  So how is that fair?  Want everyone to pay for you do you?

Jess says:

06:44am | 15/11/11

Couldn’t have put it better myself - Removing funding from Private Schools will potentially drive up the cost of private education and trigger an influx from private to public schools; something which will ultimately cost the state system and thus the tax-payer more money than they are complaining about now.

Having been privately educated myself, I believe that the freedom to choose is an essential part of the Australian education system; the government should support this right to choose by funding both state and private, and as Bill pointed out, each private school student receives less funding than a public school student already - is this not sufficient?

Super D says:

07:26am | 15/11/11

The fools who think that only public schools should get public funds (ignoring the fact that all public funds are private funds appropriated by government) should perhaps familiarise themselves with events surrounding the the 1962 Goulburn Catholic schools strike.

I am frankly amazed at the number of lessons from history that the progressive left has failed to learn a single thing from.

acotrel says:

07:33am | 15/11/11

@Jess
‘as Bill pointed out, each private school student receives less (GOVERNMENT ) funding than a public school student already - is this not sufficient? ‘

You talk about ‘less funding’, I suggest the total funding is far greater. Perhaps the tax laws should be adjusted and more effort made to provide a ‘level playing field’ for students. All that happens now is that privilege buys more privilege, and we accelerate towards a class difference.

Tim says:

08:38am | 15/11/11

Acotrel,
“All that happens now is that privilege buys more privilege”

That’s life in a free capitalist society, deal with it.

What you’re advocating is a society where every member has equality of outcome and that’s somewhere that I don’t want us to go.

Peter says:

09:01am | 15/11/11

@Tim - equality of outcome?  I thought we were talking about educating children?  You know, the people who haven’t done anything yet so deserve to be treated equally.  You are not talking about equality of “outcomes” but privilege for children who’s parents have more money.  Is that what you support?

fml says:

09:01am | 15/11/11

Super D,

“(ignoring the fact that all public funds are private funds appropriated by government)”

You make it sound like the government is appropriating private property and funds from individuals, way to bastardise the concept of taxation.

james says:

09:14am | 15/11/11

@Tim
That’s life in a free capitalist society, deal with it.

If parents reject the government school system, then they also reject the monies the state provides for their child education.

Parents should pay the full price of a private school education.

Tim says:

09:49am | 15/11/11

Peter,
Acotrel is saying that no child should be better off than another child regardless of their circumstances. That is ignoring reality and trying to punish parents because they are successful is crazy.
If a child’s parent is willing to put their hand in their own pockets to help their child get a better education and save the taxpayer money , then I’m all for it.

James,
I disagree. I think the funding should be linked to the child and not to the school.

Super D says:

10:32am | 15/11/11

@fml - taxation is the appropriation of private resources by governments/rulers.  It always has been and always will be.  I have no qualm with the notion of taxation, just the notion that suddenly private money becomes public money and public money is considered limitless.  Every dollar of additonal expenditure requires an extra dollar of taxation.  Advocates of big spending governments tend to forget this.

james says:

11:21am | 15/11/11

@Tim

I disagree, parents who reject the government system also reject government funding.
Government should therefore not be funding private schools, whether they are rich or poor.

PTom says:

11:31am | 15/11/11

Bill,
Why do Private less government funding per Student then Government.
Did you include all the infrastucture, teachers in the public system per Student, I beat you did just like the ISCA does takes the whole allocation of State education budget and divides per student.

So Private Schools have no infrastucture or teachers funding.

Tim
“If a child’s parent is willing to put their hand in their own pockets to help their child get a better education and save the taxpayer money , then I’m all for it.”

That is not what happens at all the funding is then switched from Government funding Public to Government funding Private.

Peter says:

11:32am | 15/11/11

“If a child’s parent is willing to put their hand in their own pockets to help their child get a better education and save the taxpayer money , then I’m all for it.”

Yes, which is why we should have two systems of roads.  One for wealthy families to drive on (which have less cars, better surfaces etc) and one for the rest of us.  The government should fund both because that would save taxpayer money, you know.

Tim says:

11:44am | 15/11/11

PTom,
“That is not what happens at all the funding is then switched from Government funding Public to Government funding Private. “

Yes, but not as much as if the student was going to the government school. Hence, taxpayer money is saved.

Tim says:

11:49am | 15/11/11

Peter,
if you could design a seperate road system that people paid for that would save taxpayer dollars then I’d probably support it.
Oh, you were being facetious. Sorry.

Cookie Monster says:

01:17pm | 15/11/11

PTom says:12:31pm | 15/11/11 “Bill, Why do Private less government funding per Student then Government”

Because the fees paid by the parents make up the rest.

james says:12:21pm | 15/11/11 “I disagree, parents who reject the government system also reject government funding. Government should therefore not be funding private schools, whether they are rich or poor.”

So can I also reject my taxes going to pay for other children’s education because my children go to private school. Why should I pay 100% for my kids AND then your kids on top of that because you can’t afford it.

And I thought the government was supposed to offer an education to ALL children of school age - are you calling for discrimination based on socio-economic differences. Why is it always ok to discriminate up but not down?

james says:

02:37pm | 15/11/11

@Cookie Monster

I can afford it and my kids will go to a private school.
In my opinion the system is broken.
If you can afford to reject the state system then you should have to pay for that rejection.

Cookie Monster says:

03:28pm | 15/11/11

james says:03:37pm | 15/11/11 | You still didn’t answer my question -

So can I also reject my taxes going to pay for other children’s education because my children go to private school. Why should I pay 100% for my kids AND then some elses kids.

The lefties seem to not want to pay for my childrens’ education but they’re quite happy for me to pay for theirs.

And I thought the government was supposed to offer an education to ALL children of school age - are you calling for discrimination based on socio-economic differences. Why is it always ok to discriminate up but not down?

james says:

08:52am | 16/11/11

@Cookie Monster

Your point?

Why can private schools be selective in who can attend? If they want the funding then they cant be so precious.

You can’t have it both ways champ.

Cookie Monster says:

10:12am | 16/11/11

james - non-government schools can be selective because of supply and demand factors - so yes I can have it both ways. They are hardly being precious - there are less places then there are students that want to attend to schools.

You still haven’t answered my question - if I pay 100% for my childrens’ education why should I also have to fund someone elses? You can’t accuse me of wanting it both ways and yet also support this.

Potato says:

07:25am | 15/11/11

More tax dollars are spent on car drivers than almost anything else in the country.  How do you think all those roads and bridges get built - thats right TAX PAYERS!

Jess says:

07:12am | 15/11/11

you can tell you never went to private school…

Jane2 says:

07:48am | 15/11/11

My PUBLIC high school had/has blazers and it is very green (it backs onto the towns botanical gardens and we use/d that for sport etc). But I guess those things are ok for my school because its public.

Get over your ignorant hatred. Most people who go to private schools these days do not come from silver spoon families, they come from blue colour families where parents are working extra hard to give their kids the best opportunities they can. People who are willing to sacrifice for their children. People who chose to live on $40,000pa so their kids can have the best they can afford.

Would I do it for my kids? It depend on the schools in the area, if there was a public school like the one I went through that prized academic achievement then it will be public, otherwise I will scrap and skimp to put my kids in a school where attending school is about learning, not about babysitting.

Nathan says:

07:51am | 15/11/11

So you disagree with the argument that if the government stops funding private schools their costs go up and more people go into the state schools system meaning more funny needs to be found and the overall standard will decrease?

Why go after private school kids here when the schools you actually describe represent a small % of actual private schools. Having gone to a private school that would be deemed as exclusive i will say one thing here your perception is wrong. There wasn’t a superior feeling i felt going to the school and we where normal children. Have a read of the following and tell me what you think of the students involved
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/st-andrews-cathedral-school-will-carry-the-name-of-kundayi-chiundiza-who-died-playing-rugby/story-e6freuzi-1226193176082

Nick says:

07:57am | 15/11/11

Calling an argument old doesn’t reduce it’s validity - your hardline stance on no support for non-state systems is only one of many possible stances on how to build a fair society.

From your comment it sounds like you are unaware of private girl’s schools?  Let alone all those private schools offering alternative approaches to education (eg Steiner schools etc), and those where the kids are more likely to be in boardies and bare feet than a blazer?  Private schools let parents choose the method that best suits their kid and the parent’s own philosophy.  They pay through the nose for the right and at the same time reduce the load on the state system.  What’s so bad about that?

PTom says:

08:43am | 15/11/11

That means some private schools will get more government funding then public schools. Yet take no local students. Which is what BS we have now.

If private school want funding based on their area then they should take local students only.

fml says:

10:36am | 15/11/11

Agreed Mahhrat,

Its about breaking the cycle.

Mahhrat says:

11:02am | 15/11/11

@PTom, funding should be dependant on what’s necessary to get the kids up to speed.

That means KPIs and a national curriculum for kids, and it also means transparent methods of teaching and governance for school administrations so they’re not deliberately cooking the results to secure more funding.

I’ve always advocated a national curriculum, and that kids should be tested on it away from school.

PTom says:

11:36am | 15/11/11

Mahhrat,

I have no problem with that and that is what Naplan is starting to show.
I disgree with whole SES measurements it is crap and to easy to abuse as is seen in the funding now.

Loddlaen says:

07:55am | 15/11/11

Because these children will end up paying the taxes that will support your future retirement lifestyle.

Mark G says:

08:02am | 15/11/11

Because the taxes you pay are about more than just you. Its call a society.

Robert says:

08:12am | 15/11/11

Joan maybe if you had a better education you may have understood the argument.

Your and my taxes go to pay for education. The same amount of money should be spent on each student regardless of if they are in a Public or Private School.

As the amount funded per student attending a private school is less than the amount per student in a public school you are not paying for anyone’s lifestyle choice.

Blame that on middle class welfare that gives people the funds to pay for it in the first place, not how the funds are spent in the education system.

Jeremy says:

08:18am | 15/11/11

In that case I never want to have to pay for your hospitals use, provide my taxes to build roads because you want to travel, provide a pension to you because you chose to retire. What goes around comes around Joan, and I’m assuming you’re at least staying on topic and saying all children’s education should be privately funded?
I’m sure I’m younger than you, and thanks for your taxes that helped educate me, I’m returning the favour by putting in myself. Don’t you think that makes sense?

Jane2 says:

08:24am | 15/11/11

Why should I pay for hospitals and nursing homes and public transport, if people lifestyle choices mean they need them, let them pay for them. It doesnt have the same ring when you apply the logic to everything tax payer money subsidises but you dont currently use does it?

Nick says:

08:54am | 15/11/11

User pays is a great way to build a community

marley says:

03:06pm | 15/11/11

@Joan - well, I assume then that you never rely on people with education to provide services you need.  You never use doctors or nurses or pharmacists;  you don’t have a lawyer do conveyancing on your property or draw up a will;  you don’t live in a house that has been designed by an architect or built by someone who can read a blueprint;  you don’t drive on roads designed and built by transport and civil engineers;  you don’t rely on having your mail delivered by someone who can read your address; and you don’t worry about whether the cashier at your bank is numerate.

Whether we have kids or not, we all benefit from the products of the educational system - people who can read, write and figure.  That’s worth paying for.

Tim says:

08:25am | 15/11/11

I’m with Al. How dare these super rich people expect anything in return the massive amount of income tax they pay..!!
I love how whingey lefties are happy to collect taxes from the rich, but turn apoplectic with rage whenever those rich snobs ask for a little bit back.

Bill says:

08:27am | 15/11/11

@ Al - I’ve never heard of “Knox, Trinity and Kings”, but I assume from your sneering tone that they are private schools.

Your argument is weak and baseless. Perhaps you can enlighten us with what you think “the elite” are. Exactly what “privileges” are bestowed upon children who attend private schools? Helicopters?

The parents of children who go to private schools do NOT receive “additional grants”. It’s called government expenditure, and these parents actually receive LESS from the government than parents of children who go to public schools. That’s right. LESS! How is that fair?

Why should a parent be penalised based on the the school their kid attends?

brendan says:

08:43am | 15/11/11

Al,
Recent studies into the BER stimulus program indicates that in QLD non-government schools built similar facilities for aroud 1/3 less than the state schools. This gap was wide in Victoria. The study finds the causes to be poor forward planning, poor project management, and in NSW & Vic a one size fits all approach across dissimilar schools.
I would suggest that these factors are at play not only in procurement of buildings in the public system, but more broadly acroos all parts of the various public school departments. Bad management, political manouvering and lack of flexibility at the state level hamstring local schools before the students walk in the door.

Peter says:

09:06am | 15/11/11

@Tim, so you are not for a “fair go” for kids, I take it?  You believe that those with wealth deserve to not only enjoy that wealth themselves, but should be allowed to set up dynasties.  In short, you believe that we should have an aristocracy.  A class-based system. 

Do you not see how this totally contradicts your other political beliefs (at least the one’s you seem to espouse here on the Punch)?  I thought you were a bit of a Libertarian, but you are really more of a Monarchist.

Mark G says:

09:16am | 15/11/11

You have one big assumption there. That said basketball stadiums and swimming pools were built with public funds. You kinda answered your own question by identifying that these schools cost $10000 a term. The schools you are talking about are the top end of the private schools and are the ones that government funding has little effect on. Take the funding away and little would change. Not all private schools are that well funded and it doesn’t cost $10000 a term to go to the vast majority of private schools.

Tim says:

09:53am | 15/11/11

Peter,
different Tim.
Regards, Other Tim.

Tim says:

09:57am | 15/11/11

No Peter, I am all for the ‘fair go’, thats why i think all schools should receive government funding, public or not.
And i think you confused me with another Tim.

PTom says:

10:17am | 15/11/11

Mark G,
So Federal funding at the top private schools have little effect, so why the hell did Trinity need 29.2 million of Federal funding are they such a disadvantage school with a low SES.

This is for NSW only $26 Billion to the top Privates School and people whinge about taking money away from them.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudds-26b-funding-gift-to-private-schools-20090823-ev4p.html

There would be dozen of public schools in worst need that could uses that funding better.

Ben C says:

10:33am | 15/11/11

@ Bill

Three of the highest profile private schools in Sydney.

@ Al

You obviously have never paid private school fees. These structures that you talk about are funded by school building funds, paid for by the parents of students as part of the fees (note: these are not necessarily compulsory, and may qualify as donations for income tax purposes).

Peter says:

10:49am | 15/11/11

Sorry, Tim, if i’ve confused you with another Tim.  Lot’s of people posting under same names on this site.

Nevertheless, I think that you may have forgotten something very, very important in regards to this “fair go” business, and that is that every Australian child, rich or poor, has - right now - access to an education provided to them by the State-funded Public School system.  This is why we pay taxes.  To give them this “fair go” at life.  Now, the Private School kids can go to a Public School in their neighbourhood.  That is their right, like everybody else.  But you seem to think that, in addition to them having this right, they should also have the right to additional funding vis-a-vis a Private School of their choice and that, somehow, not giving them this extra privilege equates to not giving them their fair share?

Be honest, it is not about a “fair go” but, rather, you believe that wealth should be allowed to breed more wealth.  You believe in dynasties.  A class-based system.  An aristocracy.

RobJ says:

11:09am | 15/11/11

“How dare these super rich people expect anything in return the massive amount of income tax they pay..!!”

You think the super rich pay massive amounts of income tax? LOL - Where did you go to school?

Tim says:

12:01pm | 15/11/11

RobJ,
http://www.ato.gov.au/docs/flash/webready/100people.html

Top 9% of earners paid 49% of all net tax.

LOL, where did you go to school?

RobJ says:

12:57pm | 15/11/11

Since when were the top 9% super rich? Get back to me when you have the income tax rates paid by the super rich, try the top 1%.

I went to a state school in the UK. You?

Ben C says:

01:53pm | 15/11/11

@ RobJ

I would bet bottom dollar that the super rich would be paying 3 or 4 times your salary in tax.

RobJ says:

02:25pm | 15/11/11

“I would bet bottom dollar that the super rich would be paying 3 or 4 times your salary in tax.”

I’d take that bet, Kerry Packer was super rich, once he only paid $29 for the whole year!,I paid hundreds times more than him in income tax… We are talking specifically about the super rich and income tax.

Tator says:

08:22pm | 15/11/11

RobJ
ATO stats from 08/09 have the top 1% paying 18.5% of total income tax receipts, or in other words, more than the bottom 60% of income earners combined.

Economist says:

12:00pm | 15/11/11

Adam C I see it a little differently, for me it’s about results. If a school can demonstrate that it has added significantly to a child’s development and opportunities regardless of whether they are private or public they should receive funding. The funding should go to the student not the school, which effectively the SES funding model does. Donnelly I believe likes the SES model as it currently stands as Catholic schools, his primary interest, have benefited from the fact that when it was introduced no schools would receive less then previous funding provided under the Keating government. The fact is we’ve pretty much subsidised private school funding for 50 plus years, so getting rid of it altogether is a little disingenuous, but Howard took the subsidy to new highs. It’s pretty bad that as part of his culture wars we had funding to non-government primary and secondary schools higher than for university students who almost double the number of students in attendance of these non-government schools.

I’m in a fortunate situation, which in itself, Donnelly and the likes of Kings College principals have issues with.  I live in a good neighbourhood where the aspirational middle class make up the bulk of the suburb. As a result the local public schools perform well, they’re more than comparable with any private schools in the area. Why because parents take responsibility for educating their kids and work in collaboration with the school.

So equity plays a role in accessing quality. Just to hijack the issue a little bit further, the best solution for me would be to enact a Howard policy that Joe Hockey was responsible for but didn’t happen, that is an Australia card. The advantage of the Australia card is that accessing any government assistance could be better targeted, if you send you child to a private school your circumstances could be taken into account and appropriate funding allocated. Arbitrary cutoffs based on income don’t necessarily address disadvantage. If you have a child with a severe learning disability $150000 won’t go far if your required to pay for services yourself, not catered for publicly, compared with a middle low income persons who potentially receive free care or heavily subsidised. The advantage of such a card is also cutting down on welfare fraud etc. But this would be seen as nannyism etc when I see it as ensuring value from tax payer support.

Peter says:

12:26pm | 15/11/11

“Why because parents take responsibility for educating their kids and work in collaboration with the school.”

Spot on. Thanks for great (as usual) post, Economist.

AdamC says:

12:30pm | 15/11/11

Economist, you go over a few things in your comment. I guess what I was trying to say is that the public/private divide is a pointless ideological obsession. For example, I see no reason why private schools shouldn’t be able to access funding via the state systems. (You would need to limit the fees these schools charged, of course.) In other countries, there simply isn’t this fixation on government-run schools being somehow uniquely special.

And I don’t really agree with differential funding based on disadvantage, etc. It seems like micro-management to me. Why not give schools more control over their own spending and budget, and let them apply for special grants if needed?

Lastly, on the Australia card, I agree. I don’t believe genuine liberty can rely on buraurcratic inefficiency.

Jane2 says:

10:50am | 15/11/11

Having the best facilities and the latest equipment does not give kids a better chance, it all comes down to the teachers, the attitude of the school and the attitude of the parents.

I have come across some schools that are extremely well equiped but teaching is a daily battle and others who have nothing but produce high achieving students.

Although I would like to see more funding going to schools with kids from poorer backgrounds I think the funding needs to be directed at educating the parents about the importance of education, of making sure your kids attend school and of investing time in the school.

Mum is a brilliant example of a “poor background” parent who cared. She raised 3 kids on the single parents pension (Dad was VERY irregular in paying maintenance). She purposely chose the primary school and high school based on their record for academic achievemnt (vs sending us to the nearest) and encouraged us. Thanks to Mum there are now 3 university educated people earning “nice” money and paying taxes.

Parents make a bigger impact on the outcome than whether the school has 1 computer per kid or swimming pools etc. and unfortunately all the government funding in the world wont change that fact.

AdamC says:

10:29am | 15/11/11

You haven’t provided any argument in support of your view in this comment.

Kate says:

02:24pm | 15/11/11

Wow, generalise much?

Many private school students don’t come from super wealthy families. I went to a private school from Grade 2 to Year 8, my sister from Prep - Year 12. My parents don’t own a “2nd investment property”, they are still paying the mortgage on their house. We never went on holidays. They drive second hand cars. They did all this because they made financial sacrifices to send us to schools which provide a good education and varied opportunities in terms of sports and music.

If I had gone to the shitty public school in my local area, I can guarantee I would not have been accepted to university. Instead, I’ve finished a Bachelors degree and am now starting a Masters.

Tator says:

09:07pm | 15/11/11

PTom,
that is because funding Public education is a STATE responsibility and the State governments fund most of the Public Schools.  For example, my sons R-12 private school receives federal recurrent funding of $5803, state government recurrent funding of $2010 for a total government funding of $7803 with parents paying $4638 in fees.  The nearest state primary school receives federal recurrent funding of $1226 per student, State government recurrent funding of $6878 for a total of $8104 and parents fees paying $343.  Now these figures are recurrent funding only and excludes capital expenditure which mind you, for my son’s school, is mainly paid for by the parents via an capital programs levy on the fees unlike the public schools which is provided by the taxpayer.

amy says:

10:57am | 15/11/11

same here..

except..at least thease days they cant just say “no high school? sorry no education for you” if you cant afford boarding school

then again I knew there were slightly cheaper alterntivies…like the schools in smaller “regional” centres rather than the big private ones in the city (then again how much cheaper..if at all I have no Idea)

anyway it does make you wonder..if you cant afford boarding what do you?

Peter says:

11:46am | 15/11/11

“I’ve opted out of a failing pubilc system. Why penalise me?”

You are not being “penalised” at all.  Nor is the public system “failing”.  Even the description of your friends experience is irrelevant.  If a preschool child is experiencing learning difficulties there are plenty of options for the parents.  For example, one of my children has a speech development problem.  She gets assistance for that from the speech therapist which is paid for through medicare.  Kids with learning difficulties can get help if their parents take the time to research the options and take an active role in sorting it out.  Which begs the question: what were your friends doing that they didn’t notice their Grade 4 child couldn’t read?

xar says:

12:25am | 16/11/11

Peter - the public system can and does fail. You must remember that things vary a great deal from state to state and school to school. I’ve spent thousands of dollars and goodness knows how many hours on help for my special needs child but no amount of money could fix the attitude of exclusion inherant in nearly all state schools in my area. When a parent can’t find a school who will do the bare minimum necessary to be inclusive because they would all much rather not deal with special needs kids, they are most certainly penalised by a failed system. If your local schools are doing the right thing that is great - mine don’t.

Peter says:

01:59pm | 15/11/11

Colin, that is a good post.  But your argument is essentially the same as others here ie. that (a) the public school system is broken/inadequate therefore (b) you have no choice but to go private so should get funded in that decision.  Sorry, but no.  It is your conclusion that the public system is inadequate.  It is your decision based on that assumption, to go private.  It is not our (the Public’s) responsibility to help fund you to do that.  We have our own system which, apparently, needs the money.

fml says:

02:06pm | 15/11/11

You hate the attitude of the poor who think the world owes them a living, then say that you expect the government to support your decision to send your children to a private school.

Since when has the middle class become the new fashionable poor?

At least see the contradictory nature of your post and your beliefs and say, equal for all. But you deserve more than the poor because you are slightly better off.

PowPow says:

03:07pm | 15/11/11

The problem with this is that it’s exactly the kind of attitude conservative governments rely on. If they can rely on thinking, educated parents abandoning the public system because it’s ‘not good enough for my kids’, they have achieved exactly what they want: a two-tiered system. It’s privatisation by stealth. Do we really want a culture where public education is for the poor and everyone else feels ‘forced’ into the private? Parents need to stay in there and keep demanding that the government support the right of ALL kids to a high-quality education. After all, all of those kids make up the community we live in, and our future workforce.

Craig says:

03:08pm | 15/11/11

But you haven’t really “chosen” a private education Colin; you’ve been forced into it because of poor resourcing in the public sector. If there were more teachers, school counsellors and other resources to cope with the social problems that are often played out in our public schools then you wouldn’t have to spend thousands on the private school you have reluctantly enrolled your child in. This is the whole point. The government has allowed the state school system to flounder and left many people with little choice at all. The choice argument is a total furphy. So is the argument that no funding to private schools would lead to the economic chaos. It would actually achieve the opposite. We’d have a properly funded public system which catered for all students regardless of socio-economic status. Donnelly is a serial apologist for the private system and probably paid by the private school lobby to write these propaganda pieces. I wouldn’t believe a word he says.

Peter says:

03:15pm | 15/11/11

Cat - I think you may be arguing a seperate point.  A good one.  That is, that, in some exceptional instances, funding private schools makes sense. 

But in all other cases, it doesn’t.  Simply doesn’t.

Craig says:

03:00pm | 15/11/11

Actually Cat, you are completely wrong on this. State schools have by far the highest enrolment of disadvantaged and special needs students. The majority of private schools are selective about who they enrol. To suggest they take more special needs kids is pure garble.