Hey Julia, you built the halls, now fix the schools

acotrel says:

08:18am | 28/01/11

’ “Australian Government recurrent per student funding for non-government schools is based on a measure of need”.  Wealthier non-government schools only receive 13.7% of the federal funding figure, known as the Average Government School Recurrent Costs (AGSRC), with less privileged schools receiving 70%’

This is why Montessiore school in Beechworth is crying poor?

Matthew says:

08:06am | 28/01/11

Theres no money left Kev.

Nafe says:

08:51am | 28/01/11

Chongy mate, Just because your an Athiest does not make your religion fact over Catholicism or any other religion. According to you it is xenophobic to oppose an Islamic School (you do reallise Islam is a religion?) but you do the exact same to every other religious school be it catholic, anglican or baptist that are being discussed in the above atricle.

I’m saddened to see that hypocricy doesn’t just run rampant in the Labor party, it runs in its supporters aswell.

TChong says:

10:12am | 28/01/11

Nafe, very big chance that islam based schooling article was in a different context.
I not saying faith based schools ( of any faith) shouldnt exist, just the idea that a religous based anything could claim any high moral grounds based on ‘logic” is funny.
Logic ( and proof) negate faith, and without unquestioning faith, (from the faithful), most gods ( allah, jehovah, buddha,vishnu, and the fair haired blue eyed jesus/god , etc) find it a pretty hard slog.

Vaunted says:

10:49am | 28/01/11

Gee Chong, what are you smoking? Speaking of education and irrational belief systems, you seem only barely intelligible yourself this morning. Could that really be you?

Dinky Di! says:

12:06pm | 28/01/11

Chongie is the product of the school system that espouses the social divisiveness that the AEU shoves up everybody’s rear orifice.

The article did present ‘proof’ so if you didn’t like the truth as presented in the proof here then present so otherwise, if you can find any.

Oh I know ask ‘Jools’ !

BTW: Can I have what you are smoking as well? I need to wallow in your fantasy land for a bit whilst your beloved ‘ALP"s stuff this country up even more.

Varuni says:

02:24pm | 28/01/11

@Tchong Buddha isn’t a god.

acotrel says:

07:32am | 30/01/11

Nafe, it’s easy to see who educated you!  Spelling isn’t your strong point - ‘your’ should be you’re!  ‘hypocricy’ should be hypocrisy! - you probably spell that with a haiche?

Rev says:

08:59am | 28/01/11

TimB - generally, the amount of funding provided for a private school is far less than that required to run a public school.  If the private school didn’t exist, they’d have to increase funding for public schools etc etc etc.

The issue (for me anyway) is where exorbitant funding is being provided to certain schools in capital cities where the fees are $20k+.  I attended one of these lovely institutions and the amount of (useless) crap that they built with government money is staggering.  I’ve got no problem with funding being provided to private schools who will actually need the cash, but to give it to the rich ones is a bit of a joke.

I’d be interested to see a breakdown of cost per child at both public and private schools.  We might all be horrified.

rod sexton says:

09:03am | 28/01/11

You are right Tim, you don’t have “enormous amounts of knowledge on this issue”.

MarK says:

09:20am | 28/01/11

“Why does the government fund schools, that are by definition private?”

You sort of answered it. The parents paid taxes so have a call on the cash as well if you like.

Also the cost of a totally private education would be too high for all but the very elite. What this would do is push those kids that parents couldn’t afford it back onto the public system which of course couldn’t accommodate it or to put it another way would simply have to pay more per student that made the swap from private to public further stretching resources.

It really becomes that simple. If they don’t subsidise the private system then they would have provide more in the public which would in fact cost them more than the subsidy they provide. (worst sentence ever - you get my drift). Quite simply it is cheaper this way.

Even if parents got a tax break was provided for the private kids it still takes money out of the budget. Bit of a circular argument but you get the basic premise I am sure. Public costs the government more than private.

This of course leaves aside the other issues of choice in education which all governments have backed.

TimB says:

12:36pm | 28/01/11

Rod, thank you for your constructive comments. I look forward to more of your insightful thoughts in the future.

Rev, That was basically my take on it too. It seems (to me) that the goverment is shelling out cash to schools who are already swimming in cash from the exorbitant fees they charge. You mention though that there are private schools doing it tough who actually need the cash so that an interesting point.
I confess that it’s not something I’ve come across (again, probably because this isn’t an issue I’ve been involved much with) . And of course the imagery of the rich elite private school is pretty prevalent so any “poor” private schools probably don’t have much of a profile.

I take MarK’s point about the government’s policy appearing to be the cheapest way of alleviating pressure on the public system, and I agree it would be interesting to see the actual figures on this.

Again, I’m not privy to the details of exactly how the funding system works, but perhaps a more customised approach is in order.
The schools that are charging high fees and thus rolling in dosh, hardly need government funding to keep going IMO.
However as suggested there may be private schools which do require the help and who’s presence needs to be maintained in order to supplement the private system.
Perhaps funding levels for private schools should be calculated on a necessity basis.  I have no idea if in reality this option would be at all practical though.
What factors would go into deciding the funding levels? Could there be loopholes for schools to take advantage of? Or would it still lead to problems like MarK described anyway?

Private School Alumni says:

02:01pm | 28/01/11

The following link summarises a case study of what happened when a Catholic school wasn’t sufficiently funded; http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/09/1089000353535.html?from=storyrhs
The Goulburn Schools Strike in ‘62 resulted in the students of Goulburn not being able to receive a sufficient education, as the Government system couldn’t cope once the Private system failed.

Who says religous study and history don’t teach you anything?

acotrel says:

10:10am | 29/01/11

‘Instead I suggest a refinement. Kevin’s article suggests that for each student not schooled in the public system, a certain amount of money is saved by the government. This is the figure that should form the basis of the tax break. It accurately reflects the taxes that the parents are paying for the use of a public system they aren’t a part of.’

Can I also have tax breaks for all the services I subsidise, but never use? - Sounds good to me, like WIN-WIN!

mic says:

09:03am | 28/01/11

you sir are a buffoon!

MarK says:

09:27am | 28/01/11

“It’s disgraceful that we are giving taxpayer money to private schools.

They sholdn’t get any taxpayer money.”

So when all the kids come back form the too expensive private system because all government funding has been pulled does Gillard pop on a education levy?

How is this all paid for?

“Public schools went downhill under Howard”

Yawn. This is Labors 2nd term. Let go of the hate. How has the $16 billion “education revolution” gone? How many new teachers are there?

“The argument that all those kids would be dumped on the public system doesn’t hold water. “

Really. Please do elaborate. The fees for my kids are an incredible strain as it is. I certainly could not pay thousands more. Not all of us parents that send the kids to catholic schools and the like are either religious. catholic or after anything more than the best we can afford for our kids education wise. Nor are we super rich or wealthy on ant metric. We sacrifice and try out best.

Just stop with the class warfare crap. It doesn’t wash.

Jolanda says:

09:37am | 28/01/11

Tubesteak some parents send their kids to non government school not because of a Religious preference or a social preference but because they tried the public school system and it totally failed their kids – more than once.

Every child should be entitled to their share of the education dollar as we pay our taxes - regardless of which school should attend.

Until the Public System becomes a system in which every school is obligated to educate and protect all students to an appropriate HIGH LEVEL and standard then the Government cannot rightly take away a parents ability to move their kids to a non government school by removing funding to alternatives.

Education – Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

AdamC says:

10:06am | 28/01/11

Tubesteak, state schools are a state problem, by definition. Check the constitution if you don’t believe me.

And your premise is ridiculous. Why should the Feds only provide funding to schools run by the states? Imagine how appalling the state schools would be without any competition. Incidentally, many parents send their kids to private schools because they just don’t rate the state school alternative. In some cases, that may have to do with religious instruction, but I doubt that’s the case for the majority. Though I know the religion thing so riles up the atheist marxists in the state education bureaucracies and teachers unions.

What we actually need in this country are charter schools, not more state-sanctioned mediocrity.

Michael K says:

11:13am | 28/01/11

“Imagine how appalling the state schools would be without any competition.”

Not appalling at all. Education isn’t a business, despite what Donnelly, Rudd, Gillard, the Liberal Party and the Daily Telegraph will have you believe.

AdamC says:

11:36am | 28/01/11

“Not appalling at all. Education isn’t a business, despite what Donnelly, Rudd, Gillard, the Liberal Party and the Daily Telegraph will have you believe.”

Michael K, whether or not education is a ‘business’, people should have choice and providers should be open to competition. Why shouldn’t they? How can codled, monlithic monopolies promote excellence?

PS, loving you and Tubesteak’s snobby references to the Daily Telegraph. It’s nice when people conform to your prejudices.

Tubesteak says:

12:18pm | 28/01/11

Mic
Try using correct punctuation and grammar.

MarK
As I said, it is a furphy that all these kids will come back. You want a non-public education for your kids then you should pay for it. Either that, or stick with the public system. If you want the old school tie on your child’s resume or a religious indoctrination then it is up to you to pay for.

The state system has been hobbled after a decade of poor funding. To continue this is sheer folly. It’s up to society to create a decent public education system accessible to all regardless of parental wealth. This can only be done by directing public money into state schools.

Jolanda
The reason why the public school system failed your children was because of the mess it was left in after Howard. It will take a long time to unravel that mess. Every child is already entitled to the education dollar as long as they attend the public system. They shouldn’t get any money if they want to go to a school with 3 swimming pools and a rifle range.

The government provides you with the option of an education. If you don’t want that option then you should pay for any other option you wish out of your own pocket. Taking money out of the public school system just devalues that system and becomes a self-perpetuating cycle where money is goven to private schools.

AdamC
I can assure you that after doing Constitutional Law I have read and studied the Constitution. Maybe you should look up the Grants Power in it to realise what an idiotic mantra it is that “schools are a State issue”.

The Feds should only provide money to state schools because they are in the public domain, which is what Fed money is meant for. You wouldn’t want them giving money to private toll-roads whilst public roads go to ruin (oops, already happening). Parents don’t rate the state schools because it has been left to ruin by the government.

Coddled monolithic monopolies can provide quality services by benchmarking themselves against overseas institutions and employer-desired outcomes for educational requirements.

MarK says:

01:17pm | 28/01/11

Tube steak - repeating your bias over and over again doesn’t make the point valid. I know Julia thinks it does too but it really doesn’t.

AdamC says:

01:18pm | 28/01/11

Tubesteak, while I am not sure how a general power of the commonwealth to grant money to the states renders education a federal concern, I can certainly assure you that I am not repeating anything as a mantra. Indeed, if the federal government administered state education I would still argue for competition and choice, including government funding of non-government schools.

On the subject of mantras, what about yours: “The state system has been hobbled after a decade of poor funding.” Leaving aside that there are actually several state systems, not just one, what are you basing this notion of funding neglect on? Are you suggesting that funding has been cut to state schools?

And you are wrong about monolithic monopolies. While they can certainly benchmark their failures and mediocrities, as you suggest, that doesn’t mean performance will improve. People need to be able to shop their business elsewhere.

Economist says:

01:56pm | 28/01/11

MarK there’s no need for an education levy and I’ll explain why. Now as Dr Donnelly has indicated repetition is a good thing so I’ll repeat my previous arguments.

Currently we have around 1.9M and 1.4M Primary and Secondary school students respectively. Around 34% are taught by non-government schools, let’s assume this is equal in both sectors meaning 646,000 and 476,000 students respectively (it’s not as the percentage is higher in Secondary school). Now prior to SES funding we had 22% percentage point of total student numbers in non-government education. Therefore we can assume that 418,000 and 308,000 of students had parents willing to pay regardless of the subsidy (This is an important assumption. I’m using the figure of 22% as an indicator of willingness to pay regardless of subsidy, but it is only indicative).  Now if we were to assume that removing the subsidy would result in 12% points (34%-22%) of non-government schools going back to the public system (approximately 228,000 and 168,000 students respectively), and using the Average Government School Recurrent Costs approximately $9015 and $11552 respectively for each sector, then it can be argued that the cost of educating non-government school students back in public schools who may go back to the public system would be a total of $4B. Yet we pay the non-government sector sector $6.6B a year. The subsidy of choice costs the government $2.6B more than it should precisely because we are paying for people who were willing to pay for their kid’s private education regardless of the cost. 

Now Tubesteak’s point is not every parent would send their kid back to a public school.  In fact based on my figures it would require a drop in private school numbers back to 14% a reduction in of around 60%. That’s unlikely.

In addition, Howard when he introduced the scheme he ensured no school could be made worse off from the previous funding model. The result $800M more a year going to the sector. That’s $800M more than the supposed objective SES funding formula dictated.  Now as the scheme been going for approximately 10 years that’s $8B in waste. Gee that puts the BER funding waste in perspective doesn’t it? In fact is this the biggest waste of money to date by any government

I don’t agree with Tubesteak that we shouldn’t fund private education, nor do I agree with Dr Donnelly that the sector requires more money. What it requires is a better funding formula. That’s what Gonski’s potentially been tasked with, but it seems that Dr Donnelly is already unhappy with the outcome even though nothing’s been announced.

Economist says:

01:57pm | 28/01/11

Now why I accuse Dr Donnelly of been selective is that he’s using the 2007 PISA results where we were ‘high equity’ we are no longer high equity from the 2009 PISA results, it’s dropped. He’s using a 2002 study which is still possibly relevant for Australia, but more recent overseas studies show socio-economic status as still the key driver of success. This also shown in ABS figures where low income earners still have a significantly higher proportion in government schools compared with middle and high income earners. The SES funding scheme was middle class welfare to provide this group choice. The poor still don’t have choice. The class warfare you refer to is already in place, it’s the hatred of the poor.

Robin says:

02:20pm | 28/01/11

The taxpayers who send these kids to private schools pay a hell of a lot more in tax than the people who do not. Why is it not fair that some of the money they pay gets put into the schools their kids attend.

Tubesteak says:

04:11pm | 28/01/11

MarK
It’s not a mantra. Just a rational analysis of the facts.

AdamC
A general power of the Cth to grant money to certain areas (in this example, schools) means they have a significant impact on the outcome of funding and the quality of that outcome.

Having government funding go to non-government schools means that there is less of the pie for government schools. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle where as the population grows there is less iven to schools to cope with that growing population and thus the decay starts. Parents feel that their children won’t get a quality education for their kids because of this decay so they send their kids to private schools, which in turn suck up more money out of the public purse thus meaning less for public schools thus creating more decay in an overstretched system. The system repeats. Government money for private schools basically causes a systemic failure in our education system. Moreover, it’s not the absolute dollar terms that has been cut but the percentage of dollars and the resources necessary to sustain a bigger population on lower tax receipts (compare income tax rates now to 15 years ago in 1996).

You only need to look at the quality of education provided now as compared to 15 years ago to see the difference.

A well-funded public education system benchmarked to international standards will create competition in itself as private schools are required to lift their game to compete with the public system. This in turn will mean the public system is benchmarked to that also and it spirals upwards instead of the downward spiral we have now.

Robin
Look at the amount of tax paid by a typical family and you’ll realise that after payments and concessions that it’s not much.

You have a perfectly valid choice to send your kids to a public school but if you refuse that choice then you should pay for your choices yourself.

I don’t own a car so does that mean I shouldn’t have to pay for roads? If I choose to fly by plane does that mean that the government should subsidise this and help me with my choice? I don’t think so. I should pay for my own decisions if I refuse to use the public utility.

James1 says:

04:17pm | 28/01/11

Robin,

Likewise, I pay a lot more tax than do people on the dole - perhaps I should expect a dole payment too…

Kevin Donnelly says:

10:00am | 28/01/11

Hi Economist, as the saying goes, in public debate and policy, repetition is a good thing.  If the statistics are valid and prove the point, why not use them.  The AEU and critics published in the Fairfax Press have been repeating the same mantra for years.  I’d submit something to the Gonski review, but I’ve got a feeling that the committee has already arrived at its decisions.

kerry says:

10:04am | 28/01/11

Davido, Haileybury is not a Catholic School and, according to your www reference, Haileybury received a “yearly government contribution of $13.8 million (that) reflected a less-wealthy student cohort, which attracts more funding.”
Let me tell you about the “less-wealthy student cohort”: My niece, a brilliant, almost-child prodigy, educated in the state primary system, was awarded a scholarship by Haileybury for the whole of her secondary education - the scholarship covered everything, fees, uniform, extracurricular tuition/activities, even a year as an exchange student in Italy.
She has gone from win to win, picking up premiers awards, local government awards etc. As I said, she was/is brilliant.
Her two sisters and her brother are in the state system, two at a local underfunded secondary “college” and the youngest in year 6 at an underfunded primary school.
I believe my niece would have been brilliant anyway but, under the guise of helping the needy, private schools offer scholarships to the state-educated’s best and brightest purely to enhance their own reputation as suppliers of top-notch education.
This justifies their existence and their constant hand-out mentality.
Don’t know what can be done about it, though.

Davido says:

11:19am | 28/01/11

Yes it is a weird system. The public give money to private schools who then turn around and use that money to take the best students away from public schools. Thus raising the results of private schools and lowering the results at public schools.

Clever huh?

Davido says:

11:20am | 28/01/11

Yes it is a weird system. The public give money to private schools who then turn around and use that money to take the best students away from public schools. Thus raising the results of private schools and lowering the results at public schools.

Clever huh?

kerry says:

12:27pm | 28/01/11

I take heart that sometimes the last laugh is one the private sector.
Take last year’s top VCE student.
Despite being more academically brilliant than my niece, he didn’t receive an offer of a scholarship at the end of his state primary education - because of his autism.
Because of the deliberate discriminatory selection criteria - no one with behavioural problems please - they missed out on a major recruiting boost. And, ironically, his alma mater is now receiving record applications for Year 12 from the parents of kids at private schools who no longer wish to pay the exorbitant rates charged.

Mr GG says:

01:29pm | 28/01/11

what about selective High schools and the OC class Primary schools?
oh yeah the gov’t is trying to kill them since they consistently out preform private schools and actually create educated people that are not indoctrinated into a particular religion and aren’t born part of the wealth elite.

Jade says:

11:29am | 28/01/11

Government Selective Schools were originally intended to provide extension for those students who were identified as Gifted and Talented, as they have special needs that are as worthy of attention as any other. Just as some schools are selective in that they only take students with behavioural problems, and employ staff specifically trained in this area, so too are Selective Schools designed to meet the specific needs of G & T students. Unfortunately, the selection of these students is based far too heavily on standardised test results which as you point out carry a significant cultural and economic bias.

But a one-size-fits-all approach to government education is extremely damaging to all children. There needs to be a focus on developing government schools which address the individual needs of their students, including the very intelligent, and the completely disengaged.

I also take offence at your suggestion that it is only the very wealthy who perform academically well. I came from a middle-class family in a poor suburb of Brisbane and could have attended any school I chose, including both selective state schools and private schools who were courting me after high school. Government selective schools were originally designed for academically inclined students to have access to an education approaching that of private schools without the burden on families. This was because due to the fact that public schools are required to accept all enrolments except under very specific circumstances, the opportunity to study literature, or advanced mathematics or physics is more limited.

TimB says:

12:17pm | 28/01/11

@ Jolanda, Jade is right, a one-size fits all approach is ridiculous. Listen to some of the questions you’re asking.

“Why is it that our public schools are allowed to discriminate and only allow the student that they choose to access to the higher learning environments?”

Because what is the point of placing children who are less gifted academically in these environments? If they can’t cope with the work, then everyone is wasting their time.

“Surely public education should provide equal access to opportunity and education to all?” It does. ALL students are able to apply for Selective Schools. If you’re gifted enough, you make the cut, if you arent then you don’t. It’s very simple.

The rest of your post goes on about the backgrounds of students giving them advantages etc etc. Personally, I think that’s crap. My family is decidedly middle class, and lives in Sydney’s west. I went to the local public school. In year 6 I did the selective schools test (no coaching), same as many others in my year. And I did well enough to be accepted into my choice of selective high school.

Opportunities exist for those who wish to take advantage of them.

Jade says:

12:44pm | 28/01/11

Tim, I’m pleased you agree with me and understood my post!

The main difference I perceive between private schools and selective schools is as you said, anyone can apply to them. Furthermore, they don’t charge anything approaching the same level of fees, which makes them far more accessible for people from all walks of life.

It is, like trade and technical schools for the disengaged or practical-minded, simply an attempt to cater to the needs of a particular group of students.

Jolanda says:

02:12pm | 28/01/11

I never said anything about a one size fits all approach.  What I said was that they should cater for all in the local schools.  For every child who got into a Selective High School there are thousands who missed out by one point.  Why should they not be given the same opportunities?

I also never said that high achievement was only for the wealthy, what I said was that in this day and age smart disadvantaged students who are in disadvantaged schools will struggle to compete in academic competition for places in Selective Schools against other smart kids who are in optimal learning environments and who are trained, tutored and coached to compete for places in these schools.

TimB says:

02:50pm | 28/01/11

“I never said anything about a one size fits all approach.  What I said was that they should cater for all in the local schools. “

If you’re saying that they should all be catered for regardless then yes, it’s a one size fits all approach.

“For every child who got into a Selective High School there are thousands who missed out by one point.  Why should they not be given the same opportunities?”

Because, they missed out by a point! You need to draw the line somewhere.

“what I said was that in this day and age smart disadvantaged students who are in disadvantaged schools will struggle to compete in academic competition for places in Selective Schools against other smart kids who are in optimal learning environments and who are trained, tutored and coached to compete for places in these schools”

And what I said, is that you’re wrong. My own example states as much.
No coaching, normal public school. I made it in (incidently with flying colours according to my high school year advisor).

Anyone who is smart enough will make it in, IF they sit the test. The opportunity is open to all public school students regardless of “disadvantaged ” status.

Jade says:

02:56pm | 28/01/11

Jolanda, the reason that some children miss out by one or two points is the same reason that they miss out by one or two points on entering the university course of their choice. Unfortunately, there has to be a cutoff somewhere or ALL students would have to be considered eligible, which opens the door for students who would absolutely not benefit from the strategies employed at these schools being admitted to bolster the ego of their parents. I do disagree with the use of standardised tests in determining who should be entering these schools as I stated before.

The fact is that it is not those students who are heavily coached that are entering these schools. They are for the most part at private schools, since more often than not, these coaching services are aimed at grooming them for interview and the entrance examination that private schools use to weed out undesirable students.

Jolanda says:

03:59pm | 28/01/11

Sure Tim and you applied and got into Selective School recently.  Do you not understand that things have changed.  If places are ‘limited’ then how can ANYONE who is smart enough get in?

Catering for all students needs in one school does not mean one size fits all.  It means the you differentiate as every child is different and by doing that you cater for all.  That you cant get your head around this is a concern.

Jade University is different to school.  University is for a career choice. Schools should provide all children with access to all levels, if they believe that they are capable and are willing to put in the work, so that when they compete for University placement they have all had equal access and exposure to information.

It’s discrimination what the system does now.

AdamC says:

04:26pm | 28/01/11

Jolanda, I totally disagree. The best way to create excellent learning environments for high-achieving students is to group them together in the same school. Let’s face facts, the learning cultures of mainstream high schools don’t exactly encourage the smart kids to get too ahead of the pack. 

Selective entry high schools are the best investment governments can make to promote social mobility and equality of opportunity.

TimB says:

07:05pm | 28/01/11

@ Jolanda, it was 15 years ago granted, but I don’t think the system has changed that much. I’m still getting similar stories from my younger cousins.

If there’s enough kids smart enough to warrant more selevtive schools, they’d expand the program. Many schools are partly selective, it wouldn’t be a huge task to convert a few more.

Jolanda says:

11:07pm | 28/01/11

Really AdamC so you think that at the age of 10,11 or 12 is a fair age to select a student for access to better learning and career opportunities oin the basis of highest marks wins without any consideration to what is going on that that child’s life and/or the level of exposure that they have had to information.

I don’t agree, I think that it is cruel and unfair and that every single child should have access to the higher learning environment.  Over 13,000 kids apply for selective school placement and the Education system says it can only educate about 3,500 to the higher levels.  Why is that?  Why do they restrict the exposure?  The answer to that question will explain to you why so many parents opt for non-government schools when they financially can.

Kate says:

06:59pm | 29/01/11

Jolanda, I went to one of those selective schools. The majority of students in my year had come from state schools and came from families in the middle to low income bracket.

I was not coached for the entrance exam. My family couldn’t afford it and my parents didn’t believe in stressing me out with tutoring and tests at a young age. It didn’t matter anyway, a lot of people who did receive coaching didn’t get in.
Would you prefer that students who have been identified as gifted and talented miss out on educational opportunities because their teachers are too busy helping those who are less academically inclined? At both schools I attended before my selective school, the kids who sat quietly and did their work were virtually ignored. It was the troublemakers who got the attention. This meant that intelligent kids, rather than being challenged and encouraged to do extension work, were just left to sit at their desk twirling their pen.

You are absolutely correct that schools should provide children with access to all levels of education. However, this is not the reality. Teachers overwhelmed by large class sizes will naturally find their attention monopolized by the naughty kids and those who are struggling to keep up. Smart kids are not encouraged to succeed in this environment.

As for kids missing out - well, that’s just a fact of life. There are limited selective school places, just like there are limited university places, limited job places, limited spots on the Australian cricket team etc etc. You always have to draw the line somewhere, just because you’d like the opportunity doesn’t mean you meet the requirements for the position.

Jolanda says:

07:41pm | 30/01/11

Kate -  I ask you how long it has been since you sat the Selective High School test and how honestly you could you feel that way. 

Two of my kids went to Opportunity Class, two kids accelerated one year, and one went to a Selective HIgh school.  And they tell me that things are not fair. 

I believe them.

James1 says:

10:38am | 28/01/11

Surely no one believes that though, Adam.  It would be akin to saying that the Australian Dental Association cares about the dental health of Australians, or the Australian Medical Association cares about the health of Australians.  Unions are, much like employers, only interested in one thing - money, who gets it, and how much.

AdamC says:

11:32am | 28/01/11

James1, you are right, I suppose. Though, traditionally, professionals were supposed to have some concept of public service.

In any event, if teachers’ unions and the like are so narrowly self-interested, why does anyone listen to them? Education must be one of the few industries in Australia in which producer interests always take priority over consumer interests and the public interest.

Actually, maybe I am being naive there as well ...

Michael K says:

11:17am | 28/01/11

Kevin Donnelly is utterly irrelevant among those circles most informed about education; this article too, is utterly irrelevant. I would advise not to give it too much credence or time.

Robin says:

02:24pm | 28/01/11

The students in private schools are no brighter than the students in public schools. Just better teachers.

Amanda says:

02:40am | 29/01/11

Australia spends more money on private education and less on public education per capita that any other country in the OECD - why? Because it is cheaper for the government to subsidise a place at a private school at 50% of the public school rate. There is no incentive to build up the public system to be what it should be. Parents will take an extra job to pay for their kids’ education and the government knows it. It won’t cut the private school levy until the public system is percieved as dead. And labor where supposed to be about free education. Apparently only if you’re a muslim student in Indonesia. This is proof that the government could invest but chooses not to.

Davido says:

02:18pm | 28/01/11

Sorry but when you refer to the argument that “it costs less” it is misleading if not just plain wrong.

It costs more to educate a person privately than through the public system. This is a real fact often ignored.

Any government subsidy is inefficient and a burden to society; by interfering in the market a government creates inefficiency. From a public policy point of view it also transfers money from everyone to the few. Most people do not consider this fair.

The choice between a private or public education should be made in a free market - without subsidies or pork barrels.

BobM says:

09:30pm | 28/01/11

My sister in law worked for the Education Dept as a mediator. Some of the teachers she dealt with were vindictictive, crazy bullies - against each other. Total nutcases. They should never have been allowed near children. Glad my kids are way past being ‘educated’.  Of course the Union don’t want to give Principals the hire and fire option. Some of their precious members would never get a job.

Kevin says:

03:38pm | 28/01/11

I have no kids so I, too, am saving the government over $24,000 each year.  I’d like some of that money back to fund my lifestyle choices.

Kevin Donnelly says:

08:12pm | 28/01/11

How sad, when education is reduced to being a lifestyle choice.  Does anyone really believe that is what education can be reduced to?

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:57pm | 28/01/11

Private Education is a product. People make choices about products every day. Let the market decide whether the product is worth the true cost, not the subsidized cost. Otherwise it is a distorted market….

Richard says:

12:26am | 29/01/11

But Shane, without the private sector, the public education would quite possibly be over-whelmed and thus unable to provide a fully funded spot for everyone’s child after all.

We need to be pragmatic, and if some Australian parents are willing to contribute their own hard earned $$$ directly for the education of the next generation of young Australians (in addition to the tax they already pay arbitrarily), then I think that its a good thing and should be encouraged, don’t you agree?

Over it says:

01:42pm | 31/01/11

Shane, following that logic, having a child is a personal choice, why should I fund a baby bonus, family assistance, paid parental leave, school bonus payments, child care rebate, child care benefits, etc, etc.