Vitriolic claims that private schools are elitist ignore the fact that public schools can be even more exclusive.

Boater hats = total class. Picture supplied by Sony.

The Wheeler Centre, the Melbourne-based cultural body established to promote debate and literary dialogue, held a public debate last week on the topic ‘Public funding of private schools in unconscionable’.  I had the pleasure of being one of the speakers for the negative, along with the ex-Howard Government minister Amanda Vanstone and a Year 12 student from Scotch College, Andrew Elder.

During the debate the issues raised received a fair hearing and the standard of argument was balanced and objective.  There was one exception; the Australian crime novelist Shane Maloney who used the occasion, once again, to gratuitously vilify and stereotype Catholic and independent schools.

Maloney (both during the debate, in a comment piece in The Age, May 24 and in a speech posted on his website arising from a visit he made to Scotch College to talk to a Year 11 class) argues that non-government schools are elitist, over-resourced and exclusive and that only government schools are free and open to all.

Maloney’s adolescent spray to the Year 11 class at Scotch College is especially vitriolic and offensive.  After attacking the boys’ parents for enrolling their sons in the school, Maloney goes on to argue: “Right now, you are the victims. Later, of course, society will be your victim, and will suffer from the attitudes with which you are indoctrinated here”.

“But who knows? Just as prison does not always break the spirit of all who are incarcerated there, perhaps you will not turn out to be a burden to society.  Perhaps when you leave here, some of you will even manage to contribute to the wellbeing of this country”.

What critics like Maloney conveniently ignore is that many government schools are even more exclusive than many non-government schools and it is no longer the case that Catholic and independent schools simply represent the top end of town.

Entry to many of our capital city state schools is only open to parents wealthy enough to afford the real estate.  Take the example of Melbourne’s highly sought after eastern suburban government school, Balwyn High.  Instead of being open to all, enrolment is only available to those families who can afford million dollar-plus real estate in the school’s enrolment zone.

Every weekend during the auction season it’s common to hear as a selling point that the house in question is in a particular school’s catchment area and that the school is widely known for its academic excellence.

NSW has long led Australia with the number of selective secondary government schools only open to those students who can pass entrance tests.  In Victoria, government schools like Melbourne High, McRobertson Girls’ High and the more recently established Nossal High, Cory High and John Monash High School are all selective schools that discriminate by only enrolling students who pass stringent entrance requirements.

Such is the popularity of state selective schools that specialist coaching clinics and tutors have mushroomed to meet the demands of those parents who can afford to pay in an attempt to give their children an added advantage.

A second myth relates to the allegation that non-government schools only serve the top end of town and that they are awash with state and federal funding.  Again, the truth proves otherwise.

In relation to funding, the current socioeconomic status (SES) model is based on need.  Wealthy non-government schools only receive 13.5 per cent of what it costs to educate a student in a government school, what is known as the Annual Government School Recurrent Costs (AGSRC).

Quite rightly, it is government school students that receive the greatest amount of state and federal funding.  As noted by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Background Note (November 2010), on average, state school students receive $12,639, while non-government school students only receive $6,606.

Instead of being a drain on the taxpayer, the fact that approximately 34 per cent of students now attend Catholic and independent schools, with the figure rising to over 44 per cent at years 11 and 12, means that governments save billions each year as they do not have to meet the full cost of educating non-government school students.

While well-resourced and privileged non-government schools like Melbourne’s Scotch College, Xavier College and Sydney’s the King’s School are easy targets for critics, the reality is that many Catholic and independent schools serve similar communities and families to those of government schools.

Based on 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, one third of independent school parents are from families with less than average full-time earnings.  Many Catholic schools, especially parish primary schools, serve low SES, disadvantaged communities in metropolitan Melbourne and regional and country Victoria.

In relation to school funding and when she was education minister, Prime Minister Gillard argued there was no time for the old politics of sectarian division and class war.  On one occasion she stated, “… we have left the debates of public versus private behind us.  They are yesterday’s debates”.  On another occasion she argued, “I want to reiterate the government’s support for the full right of parents to choose the school that best meets the needs of their child”.

While critics like Shane Maloney mistakenly seek to feed the fires of acrimony and class envy, Julia Gillard’s advice is sound.  Parents’ rights to educate their children according to their beliefs are guaranteed by international conventions and given that non-government school parents pay taxes for a system they do not use, it’s only fair that they receive some government support.

Non-government schools also deserve support because they are so successful at achieving strong educational outcomes.  Studies by the Australian Council for Educational Research suggest, even after adjusting for socioeconomic background, that Catholic and independent schools achieve better literacy, numeracy, Year 12 results and participation rates.

When explaining the success of non-government schools, the research also suggests that it is because such schools have the autonomy and flexibility to manage their own affairs and to best reflect the needs and aspirations of their local communities.

There is no doubt that non-government schools are increasingly popular with parents, especially low fee paying schools in many of our cities growth corridors.  Their popularity explains why over the years 1998-2008 enrolments grew by approximately 22 per cent, while state schools flat lined at 1 per cent.

Instead of responding to the success and popularity of Catholic and independent schools with envy and arguing that funding should be withdrawn or cut, it would be better if critics examined more effective ways to strengthen and support government schools.

In the US, President Obama has called for more charter schools and the British Government’s White Paper on education signals a move to more City Academies and Free Schools. 

Such innovations are based on the premise that autonomy, diversity and choice are what is needed if schools are to succeed and that all schools, government and non-government, deserve to be properly funded.

Dr Kevin Donnelly is Director of Education Standards Institute and author of Australia’s Education Revolution (Connor Court Publishing).

101 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Super D says:

      07:26am | 02/06/11

      Cate Blanchett went to private school.

    • TChong says:

      07:52am | 02/06/11

      Now, now Soupy , you going all “Tall Poppy Syndrome ” just because someone with a high profile promotes something they believe in.?
      Very un liberal.

    • Super D says:

      09:44am | 02/06/11

      Just pointing out that not all private school alumni are as egalitarian as the author suggests….

      I’m all for our Cate to speak out on whatever issues float her boat but lets not pretend she’s not elitist and completely out of touch with ordinary Australians.

    • John says:

      10:36am | 02/06/11

      Super D so as soon as someone is wealthy they cannot possibly understand ‘ordinary’ people? do you know how arrogant you sound? all our politicians make far more money than your average punter, maybe they’re also so ‘elitist’ we should get rid of the lot of them and hire some coles checkout chicks.

    • martinX says:

      11:00am | 02/06/11

      Don’t blame (or praise) an adult for what name they have/what school they went to/where they lived as a kid. These are choices that are largely out of their control.

    • Pete says:

      11:24am | 02/06/11

      Debate fail. You’re argument on selectivity applies to only the very few over-the-top exclusive private schools in a few rich suburbs. The vast majority of public schools are not exclusive at all, and take all comers. Second fail: the criticism of private schools is aimed at the top-end of town, not the poorer private/Catholic schools you seek to use to bolster your argument. No-one seriously suggests overfunding of these poorer schools.
      So, in summary, you haven’t really provided any arguments to the hypothesis that rich private schools are exclusive enclaves, unavailable to the majority of people, and grossly overfunded.

    • DaisyDuke says:

      12:10pm | 02/06/11

      Actually Pete, re the “second fail” about people being critical of the top end of town being grossly over funded:

      “Wealthy non-government schools only receive 13.5 per cent of what it costs to educate a student in a government school, what is known as the Annual Government School Recurrent Costs (AGSRC)”

      Clearly this is not “grossly overfunded”
      Article read fail.

    • Pete says:

      12:29pm | 02/06/11

      @DaisyDuke
      ‘Grossly overfunded’ includes more than the 13.5% government money. I’m using the term in its proper sense ie. all sources of funding. I don’t care whether the government spends 1 cent on super-rich schools. They have a level of resources available to them that constitutes gross overfunding, albeit the parents pay alot for it. Education is both a public and a private good. Comment fail.

    • DaisyDuke says:

      12:52pm | 02/06/11

      Pete are you Chairman Rudd in disguise? Your true colours are starting to show through your indignation of the sheer arrogance of these people having more money than others.

    • Super D says:

      01:40pm | 02/06/11

      John, Our Cate’s lack of understanding of ordinary people doesn’t necessarily stem from her wealth.  There are plenty of elitists of only modest means.

    • stephen says:

      06:16pm | 02/06/11

      Is it not in some people’s interests that they continually point out the supposed unfairness of some others’ apparent talent, like Cate B’s, because it is in the accuser’s interests that standards are low, (as they are in this country) when they - the moderately stupid - can only function and sometimes shine ?
      So if you Super D(ope) cannot cope, you will have to settle for second best. And what’s wrong with that, heh ?

    • Stephy says:

      08:39am | 02/06/11

      I’m trying to find a good Christian (not Catholic) school with good education at good prices (ie below 10k/yr).

      I’m still looking.

    • acotrel says:

      08:56am | 02/06/11

      I wonder why schools like Melbourne High School and MacRobertson Girls High School have the top academic records in the state of Victoria?  Even though the kids that go there have to pass an entrance exam, and usually come from the families of workers, they easily surpass those from wealthy backgrounds and the spoon fed environments of private schools.  Perhaps we should have more public schools with entrance exams, to cater for the more conscientious students?

    • Rick says:

      09:01am | 02/06/11

      Where?

    • Chris says:

      09:58am | 02/06/11

      I agree it is a total indictment on Christian and Catholic schools that they are so expensive.  That is not compatible with the teachings of Christ.

      Congratulations churches, you have taken on the values of the world.  You have become bourgeois and irrelevant.  Get back to the values of your founder.

    • Jolanda says:

      10:14am | 02/06/11

      @acotrel.  I find it interesting that you do not regard wealthy people as ‘
      ‘workers’.  News flash - Money does not grow on trees!

      The children of the ‘workers’ and those about whom you speak who can afford to have their children tutored and coached outside of school in order for them to be academically competitive at the level required to ‘win’ a place in a Selective School are taking places that should be awarded to intellectually gifted public students who do not live in optimal learning environments and who cannot compete in academic competition at the level required by what is taught to them in the public school system.  The bright and gifted disadvantaged can never compete - its discrimination.

      The public system is selective and unfair and biased and even
      corrupted and I know that for a fact but here lies the problem in the Public School system - NOBODY CARES.

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

    • Phil says:

      11:04am | 02/06/11

      Stephy dont know where you live, but plenty of good schools in NSW.

      Just do a google search showing Christian Schools in ?

    • Tim says:

      11:42am | 02/06/11

      @Chris - you have obviously never had anything to do with running a school. The costs are astronomical. Good teachers cost good money, as do good facilities, and good administration. And since independent schools don’t get anywhere near as much funding as public schools, the money has to come from somewhere.

      The whole point is that parents are willing to spend the extra money in order to provide the kind of education they want for their children.

      Perhaps your complaint that church schools are too expensive is in fact a veiled suggestion that we need a resurgence in vocations to religious life? Nuns and brothers don’t need a paycheck like regular teachers do…

    • jf says:

      12:38pm | 02/06/11

      acotrel says:08:56am | 02/06/11

      The measure of an education does not stop at academic records acotrel.

    • KH says:

      01:44pm | 02/06/11

      Get them into a selective entry school for the education part, then send them to sunday school for the brainwashing - problem solved.

    • acotrel says:

      06:14pm | 02/06/11

      @jf
      ‘The measure of an education does not stop at academic records acotrel. ‘

      But it is a measurement of performance? What else are you suggesting which could rate the effectiveness of educational organisations?  When you have kids leaving secondary school barely literate, surely selective entry is a good option?  I.e.  remove peer group pressure from the idiots?

    • Kate says:

      06:25pm | 02/06/11

      @Jolanda - I went to Mac.Rob. I didn’t take one tutoring session or practice exam, as my parents thought it was unnecessary and couldn’t afford it. I just turned up on the day, sat the exam, and got in. Despite the fearmongering attitude of a lot of people who assume that 99% of Mac.Rob students have been tutored since age five, the majority of people I know didn’t have any coaching or tutoring at all.

    • acotrel says:

      09:30pm | 02/06/11

      @Kate My sister, her daughter, and my own daughter all went to MacRob.  and I went to Melbourne High.  What you say about tutoring is largely correct, except perhaps for some kids in year 12.  And the Jewish kids who have friends at Mount Scopus, amd have access to past exam papers, complete with answers.  I was a lazy student, and I couldn’t be bothered trying to get the Mount Scopus material from my friends.  But by and large, the kids excel of their own volition.  It’s largely due to ‘esprit de corps’, attitude towards work and learning, and absence of the negative influences present in other schools. The motto of Melbourne HIgh School is ‘Honour the Work’ , I wonder what that means?  I’ve remembered it all of my life!

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:03am | 02/06/11

      Some of your statements are simply unfounded.

      You provide no reason for why private schools should receive funding other than you think it’s “fair” because parents pay taxes. Sorry, no. The parents exercise a choice and in doing so forego their right to send their child to a public school in favour of a private school. Therefore, in making this conscious decision, they forego their right to having those tax dollars spent on them. I don’t expect the government to buy me shoes because I choose to walk to work instead of taking publicly funded transport options (trains, buses or roads).

      It’s not like they’ll stop making that choice if they don’t have tax dollars spent on their private school. They made the choice for reasons other than cost.

      Your figures also show that the funding is about half and an entirely disproportionate amount based on that choice.

      By all means, make any choice you want, but don’t ask for tax dollars to support that choice. The government provides one option and should remain exclusively focused on supporting that option. If you choose another option then you should be the one funding that option yourself.

      Providing funding to private schools was just another Howard vote-buyer for the selfish aspirational classes.

      The fact that some public schools are in richer areas is not an example of elitism. It’s just circumstances representative of the fact that wealtheir parents are typically better educated and focus more on their children’s education.

      Not that I’m against private schools. If you have any sense about you, you’ll know that the old school tie is important in securing the better jobs these days. Just take a look at the graduate intake for the big law firms and investment banks. Mostly, they’re from elite private schools and then USyd/UNSW

    • Peter says:

      09:56am | 02/06/11

      You do realise private schools actually save the Government money don’t you? On average the Government (Federal & State) spend $3 per public school student and $1 for every private school student. If the Government ever stopped funding private schools there would be a huge influx of students back to the already over crowded public school system. Assuming you work, your taxes would have to be increased to cover the additional cost. Would you be happy with that?

    • Tim says:

      10:07am | 02/06/11

      Youre absolutely right! And the government should forego their right to collect $14k a year in taxes from parents of private school kids. I mean, if the public shouldnt fund private schools, then you cant expect me to pay for your kids education either.

    • AdamC says:

      10:14am | 02/06/11

      Tubesteak, a better question is: why do state governments only fund their own schools? Why shouldn’t they facilitate choice rather than featherbed their own sclerotic, bloated education bureaucracies? As I understand it, some states still do not even facilitate parental within the public system. It is completely ridiculous.

      While other countries experiment with innovative funding and competition models, our prehistoric educational elite seems to think that the socialist objective and class warfare have a place in a modern, effective education system. They don’t.

    • Peter says:

      10:20am | 02/06/11

      Whoops just noticed a typo. That should read $2 per public school student not $3.

    • Muttley says:

      11:17am | 02/06/11

      No Tim, you dont get to choose which taxes you get to pay. If you choose private education then you are free to pay for it.

    • dovif says:

      11:18am | 02/06/11

      Tubesteak

      And why should Private school student not receive any funding from the Government? Their parent pays tax, they have to get an education, why should the government not pay for a smaller part of their eduction

      In fact, if you are arguing for fairness, why should the government not be paying the same for each kid’s education, not matter what choice their parents made.

    • Mel says:

      11:28am | 02/06/11

      I love it.  Just because a parent makes the chioce to put thier child in private school, somehow that child’s education is worthless to society.  What absolute BS.  Every child, regardless of where they are educated deserve to be treated as equal, not some outcast because they dare not to conform to ‘the state’.  In fact, I often find it quite wrong that private school kids are given less!  (That’s only in theory of course, in practice its clear why this needs to happen).  I am just aghast at the skewed sense of morals of people like Tubesteak (WTF?!?), where they feel free to treat someone as a lesser person solely because of their choices.

    • Duh says:

      11:33am | 02/06/11

      Logically, If they remove funding from private schools the fees charged to parents will increase by a directly proportional amount to maintain the same service.

      The Average the private school student recieves 6600 funding per year, and this extra school fee is probably beyond the 1/3rd of parents who are below the average full time earnings, as well as many others. These figures are per student as well, parents will often more than one child they will need to make the difference up of.

      So the parents who cannot afford extra cost of the private school now send their kids to the govt school which costs the govt $12000 p.a instead of what it was previously costing them $6000 p.a, the difference of which is passed on to the taxpayer.

      Providing funding to private schools reduces the overall burden to the taxpayer

    • Economist says:

      01:07pm | 02/06/11

      Tubesteak is being unfairly vilified here. He made it quite clear he has no issue with non-government education. He is also quite correct in that the savings argument as used here is potentiallyu bogus. Currently the government spends $6.7B per annum on funding for non-government schools. Using the $12,639 figure this would amount to over 530000 government places. Currently there are around 1,190,000 students in the non-government sector, so the issue is if the government dropped funding to non-government schools completely, would the drop out rate be greater than 530,000? If not, it would save the government money to do this.

      Even currently there are many parents who would like the choice of a private school who can’t afford it? So what level of funding is appropriate? This is the issue.

      While Tubesteak is correct in his assessment I personally disagree with it and support funding of private schools, but I’d like to see it done more efficiently and effectively.

      AdamC as for innovation, I’ll think you’ll find Australia is up there. A simple way to look at it is a rankings in the world in science, maths and english, where for the most part we’re in the top 10, yet our level of expenditure as a percentage of GDP is well below the average, where we are equal 58th, for such a large country geographically I think this is a great result, but yes improvements can be made by giving governmetn schools greater autonomy and reducing the level of bureaucracy.

    • Tubesteak says:

      01:36pm | 02/06/11

      Peter, AdamC, dovif, Mel, Duh
      That’s complete and utter BS. There won’t be a sudden migration of kids from Kings to the local high school just because the government stops subsidising Farquhar Smithington-Bodley’s education.

      The parents were given a perfectly viable choice to send their kids to a public school but they CHOSE to forego that in favour of a private school because they thought the kid would get a better education and better employment prospects (see my last para) by sending them to a private school.

      Tax dollars are not there to facilitate everyone’s lifestyle choices. They are there to provide the basics for society (public education, health, infrastructure). To think otherwise is the typically self-absorbed conceited thinking of the usual middle-class welfare recipients who expect everyone else to pay for their lifestyle choices (baby bonus, FTB, maternity leave etc). If you choose to forego that choice then don’t ask for the money to follow you. You’ve made your choice.

      While we’re giving money to private schools are public schools are consistently going down the gurgler and trying to do more with less. This is unacceptable.

      Tim
      You don’t choose where your taxes go. There are many things I don’t use that are funded by my tax dollars. I can’t tell you the last time I went to a local park or the beach but I’m paying for the upkeep.

    • dovif says:

      01:45pm | 02/06/11

      Economist

      I have 2 major issue with what you said.

      a. you seem to think that every extra kid in public school only costs $12,000, that is incorrect, that is the variable cost of an extra student, if 530,000 left the private sector and went back to the public sector, the purchase of land and building for 530 extra school is going to require a fix cost closer to $1 billion, and the $12,000 each student would be on top of the fixed school

      As for

      Even currently there are many parents who would like the choice of a private school who can’t afford it? So what level of funding is appropriate? This is the issue.

      So in order to give people choice, you would make school unaffordable for more people, I do not quite get your point.

      I also keep hearing fairness being mentioned in support of public school, however the fairness question should be why should certain kid not receive funding from the government, while other kids receive more, that is not a level playing field

    • AdamC says:

      01:51pm | 02/06/11

      Economist, your reasoning on cost is correct - I have never bought the money saving argument for funding private schools. And, indeed, this question is not really about money but about values. I believe that governments should promote choice and competition, not force families to choose a public education by starving competing providers of funds. Public schools are there to benefit students, their families and wider society, not the other way around. 

      And I agree that Australia generally performs well on global educational indicators. Of course, things could be improved, but improved from a position of strength, not failure. It is not the educators of this country that are the problem, but the slovenly, bureaucratic approach of the state education systems.

    • Matt says:

      02:04pm | 02/06/11

      Tubesteak, parents choosing private schools are in effect subsidising public schools by reducing the burden on government. Surely you can see that?

    • Mel says:

      02:04pm | 02/06/11

      Tubesteak:  Sorry to be picky, but that does not address my concerns in any way shape or form.  Possibly your only relevant comment is “Tax dollars are not there to facilitate everyone’s lifestyle choices. They are there to provide the basics for society ... If you choose to forego that choice then don’t ask for the money to follow you.”  Again: when was education in general not an essential good.  Just because they choose not to do so at a state funded organisation in no way diminshes the value of the education to the child, yet you believe it should.  So basically, education isn’t a basis - government-funded (not even governemnt endorsed, as even private curriculum has to go through government approval mechanisms) education is the only essential.  That is just bizarre and twisted.  You’re basically saying “if you don’t do it like me, then it has no value.” That is morally perverse.

    • dovif says:

      02:11pm | 02/06/11

      Tubersteak said

      Tax dollars are there to provide the basics for society.

      And that basic for society is that every kid receive healthcare, education etc.

      Why shouldn’t the money follow you? what is the difference between a kid in a private and a public school? Why should a kid in a private school be discriminated against? Did their parent not pay taxes? Were the kid born differently?

      And that is exactly the point you do not get

      You also seem to think that Private school parent can find an extra $6k a year for each child without any problem? Not only is it saving the government money, it is providing choice for parent, ie to pay more to receive a different education, If I want my kid to have a Catholic/Islamic/Buddhist education, why should the government not offer me the choice?

    • Tim says:

      02:44pm | 02/06/11

      Tubesteak, im not suggesting we can choose where our taxes go, you are. You want to not fund private schools, even though they provide the same service as a public school. Every child has the right to a government funded education. Whether or not that child’s parents are willing to chip in some additional funds should not deny them that right.

      Also remember, at 12grand a kid, there would be plenty of families out there who wouldnt even pay enough tax to fund their own kid’s education, let alone whinge about others.

      Finally, this whole argument is no different to saying ‘lets cut funding to private hospitals’. Should someone be entitled to a Medicare rebate on surgery conducted in a private hospital??

    • Anubis says:

      03:16pm | 02/06/11

      Private Schools are a Private Enterprise. As such they should not be receiving any funding from the Government coffers. It is a lifestyle choice to send your kids to Private School.

      On the basis of the arguments put forward by the Pro Government funding to Private Schools - If I chose to hire a limousine for my daily trips to and from work then the Government should subsidise the Limousine service because my using it takes the strain off the public transport options.

      Private Schools are Private Enterprises, it is a choice people. Private Enterprise should not be receiving Government funding to the detriment of the Government alternative.

    • Anubis says:

      03:19pm | 02/06/11

      @Tim - you said “Every child has the right to a government funded education. “

      Yes and every child has the option to go to a public school. Private School is a choice, it is a private enterprise and should not be subsidised to the detriment of the publicly provided alternative.

    • Economist says:

      04:15pm | 02/06/11

      Dovif, the $1B you quote would be an under-estimate, but regardless it’s not an issue as it would come from a different budget and would be deemed discretionary spending, a one’off. Regardless, you’ve missed the point, whether its 530000 or 450000 would you get that level of drop out?? i.e. well over a third?

      I was simply using it to demonstrate the savings argument could be invalid. It’s also semantics, because no government would do it (Ironically though it was the public sector that saved parents from ABC Childcare Centre closures) so be careful wishing for a private market, whose to say the Catholic sector couldn’t go broke?) .

      Subsidising private education is here to stay. The subsidisation of non-governments schools has been around for quite sometime, it’s just that Howard took it to new heights.

      That’s what my second point was regarding, not taking it away but making it more efficient. You talk about equality as though it’s a bad thing, yet the current system funds the schools based on their current student mix. There is no incentives for private schools to take on on the most disadvantaged or social destructive students. If they’re so great at educating why are they leaving these students in the public system?

      It is precisely this reason why Dr Donnelly doesn’t necessarily want to change the funding model. They want their cake without bearing the responsibilities.The sector he represents rarely offer solutions in their opinion pieces, just criticisms. Though to be fair I believe he advocates a flat rate voucher system which would not benefit this country unless rules were changed to prevent private schools from being exclusive and capping their other fees, as is done in Europe. Again something they’ll fight tooth and nail against.

    • Tubesteak says:

      04:50pm | 02/06/11

      Matt
      They are not “subsidising” by reducing demand if they are taking some of the tax money with them.

      Mel, dovif, Tim
      Education is an essential good. The government provides a perfectly viable choice in state schools. If you choose to forego that then you should not ask for the money to follow your choice. That is the view of the entitled middle class that we have destroying this country. By taking money away from the public system we reduce the quality of it. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle where less money means less quality which means more demand for private which means more money going to private and less money for public. I’m saying if you don’t want the public option then don’t ask for the money to go to private. Private is private and should remain that way.

    • Peter says:

      06:19pm | 02/06/11

      Tubesteak,

      “Tax dollars are not there to facilitate everyone’s lifestyle choices.”

      Do you apply that logic to aborogines who choose to live in remote communities or only to hardworking taxpayers who choose to have their children educated in the private system?

    • Peter says:

      07:44pm | 02/06/11

      Tubesteak,

      “They are not “subsidising” by reducing demand if they are taking some of the tax money with them.”

      If they were taking all of the tax money the Government would have spent had they gone to a public school you would be right but they are only taking 50% of it so they are most definitely “subsidising” each to the tune of approx $6k a year.

    • Brendan says:

      09:08am | 02/06/11

      I like a man who discribes himself as “is one of Australia’s leading education commentators”.  It gives some class to an article that would otherwise be an unvarnished defence of his obvious self interest.

    • Super D says:

      10:12am | 02/06/11

      I consider myself to be one of Australia’s leading commentators on all topics.

    • not so super says:

      12:13pm | 02/06/11

      Super D

      Unfortunitely for you, the rest of us don’t!!

    • Diogenes says:

      09:12am | 02/06/11

      The question is why are they better ? (really? NAPLAN results would suggest otherwise in many cases)  Could it the lessened bureaucracy? Can it be that private schools can choose their clientele? (Disclaimer I work as a public system teacher) Its funny how the local catholic & anglican schools seem to have no students in junior school diagnosed with learning difficulties - yet at the local high we have 10% of our juniors so diagnosed. And it is amazing how many of their seniors are magically diagnosed with LDs in year 12 so they get extra time in their exams.

      Could it be that private schools can more easily sweep problems under the carpet ?  I remember a case in the western suburbs of Brisbane a young lad was caught dealing drugs at his private school. Result father encouraged to withdraw his son and everything hushed up. Son duly enrolled at local state school, when caught selling drugs at sate school 2 weeks later full court press “Drugs rife at ..... Sate High”

    • Tim says:

      10:40am | 02/06/11

      No. Its because the performance of a school is linked to the socio-economic status of the parents of the students. For a public school that is not selective, thats the value of homes surrounding the school.
      Thats why the governments bonus for high performing teachers is flawed. Random Western Sydney High will always perform worse than Middle Class High regardless of how brilliant the teacher is.

    • Diogenes says:

      01:55pm | 02/06/11

      Amen to that.

      I wonder if would qualify for the bonus - I teach Info Technology & my load is yrs 10,11 & 12 only

    • persephone says:

      07:12pm | 02/06/11

      I used to work at a public school which was in an area serviced by four very exlusive private schools.

      I had students at the end of Year 10 saying to me that, because they’d done so well in their classes with me, their parents now felt it was worthwhile to spend the money to send them to a private school.

      On the other hand, we used to get students coming to us because the private school either wouldn’t have them or had advised them to go somewhere else because they weren’t getting high enough marks.

      Easy to perform well when you only accept students who are going to perform well, and actively discourage those who won’t.

      As a general rule, public school students who get to uni perform better than private school ones. The feedback is that they’re more independent and don’t sit around waiting for someone to tell them what to do.

    • Dean says:

      08:10pm | 02/06/11

      Diogenes,
      “its funny how the local catholic & anglican schools seem to have no students in junior school diagnosed with learning difficulties”

      Firstly how do you know how many students have learning difficulties? Do have some kind of super powers that you can identify such students on sight? 

      I work in a Catholic Secondary School in Sydney’s inner West. Our student body is poor and 96% are from LOTE homes. We have 13% of our student body diagnosed special needs. It would be higher,however because some parents won’t have their children assessed.We are left to battle on dealing with students problems without any funding. Despite this our students have one of the highest improvement rates in NAPLAN in Sydney. 

      I know it must feel nice to paint private schools are some sort of Nirvana where we don’t have to put up with naughty children, we have plenty of money ect, it is just not true, we have the same problems as Department schools. Beside the point it’s against the law to discriminate against such students.

      One further point which relates to the topic in my area where I live in South West Sydney there are five selective schools, one sports and four academic and they are all Department schools!

    • Gary Cox says:

      07:16am | 08/06/11

      Ahh, Persephone was a school teacher. It all makes sense now.

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:19am | 02/06/11

      The government should not fund any student placement in ANY school with religious tones.  It simply should not.

      I have no argument against private schools receiving some public funding - after all, we are all taxpayers - but the line is drawn when those private schools engage in religious indoctrination.

    • Chris says:

      09:51am | 02/06/11

      They had that argument back in the 50s, and the Catholic Church threatened to shut down all its schools if it did not get funding.  The government funded the schools.

    • Mahhrat says:

      10:34am | 02/06/11

      That it happened 60 years ago is not a predictor of what would happen now, Chris, and if they did I’d take part in a class action blackmail lawsuit against the church.

      Billy Connolly did it in jestful film 15 years ago, but I really do think the real thing is coming.

    • SBB says:

      11:00am | 02/06/11

      Wow Mahhrat your kids must/will be really sheltered. Just because you don’t beleive in religion doesn’t mean everyone should. Aren’t kids and teenagers smart enough to work out life for themselves without you deciding what they should or should not be exposed to?

    • Occam's Blunt Razor says:

      11:26am | 02/06/11

      So, Mahhrat - a huge number of NGO/Not-for-Profit/Charity type organisations should also lose funding - like the Salvation Army, World Vision, etc.

    • david says:

      11:54am | 02/06/11

      so a private school should have access to funding. When the funding is cut and the school closes - we sue them for closing. Makes sense to me.

    • Mahhrat says:

      12:41pm | 02/06/11

      Strawman, strawman, strawman, and strawman.

      Let’s try again:

      I have no problem with private schools receiving government funding, provided the topics taught are commensurate with the laws, ethics and constitution of this country.

      Relgious indoctrination via government funding is unconstitutional, not that it stops them even branching into public schools.

      And yes, any “school” that would threaten to close because their illegal behaviour was brought to light and stopped is using blackmail.

    • Mel says:

      12:54pm | 02/06/11

      Mahrat, isn’t it still the parent’s choice? You’re allowed to send your child to a religion free school, others don’t.  It really just depends on what is considered ‘indoctrination’.  Some parents would (wrongly IMO) say teaching sex-ed is a perversion.  That’s their choice.  Not yours, or the governments.  Otherwise, we end up in a situation where only the PC, government endorsed, socially acceptable ‘norm’ is even allowed into classrooms, and it doesn’t take a genius to work out that this highly detrimental to the breadth of thought and discussion in society.

    • Tim says:

      01:01pm | 02/06/11

      Mahhrat,
      all schools that receive government funding have to teach an approved curriculum so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • KH says:

      01:51pm | 02/06/11

      Mahrat - technically it isn’t ‘unconstitutional’ - if it was then we could get rid of the the chaplaincy/brainwashing program.  The constitution needs to be changed to separate state from church so we can have no relgiion taught in schools.  If people want their kids to be deluded with religion, they should do it on their own time - i.e. sunday schools and the like.  Ultimately I agree with you - it should be opt in, not opt out.

    • Mahhrat says:

      03:16pm | 02/06/11

      @KH, technically it is unconstitutional, it’s just that it takes years and years of very expensive legal arguments to get constitutional cases tried effectively before the High Court.

      As to “choice”, you’ve got Sunday Schools or, gee willies, you can teach religion in the home.

      For the record, I have no issue with schools teaching religion - but if they do so, they do so without access to government money.

    • Janey says:

      08:43am | 03/06/11

      Keep up with the times Mahrat - secular schools are employing chaplains.  Yes, those religious tones are in a state primary school near you.

    • Camo says:

      09:20am | 02/06/11

      A trice disingenuous, Dr Donelly… highlighting the four or five government schools in expensive suburbs as opposed to the thousands of government schools that aren’t.
      Compare with the fact that all private schools charge expensive fees, and that there are more of them in those suburbs (I wont list them) than so-called “exclusive” public options. In my suburb there are NO government schools, the choices for my kids range between very expensive private schools, and expensive private schools. Incidentally.. one is Catholic and the other Anglican.. and I’m an atheist.
      But I dont disagree with the basic concept that since everyone pays tax, everyone should get some educational benefit from their taxes regardless of the school they choose… I do still very much insist that provision of a quality education is a duty of all governments.. and that duty comes first to schools with no other funding options.

    • acotrel says:

      09:51am | 02/06/11

      @Camo It makes good sense to direct education funding towards wealthier schools.  The old Harvard test worked on the basis that the achievements of the father are a predictor of those of his kids.  Why waste money on the unappreciative, the wealth will trickle down anyway!

    • James In Footscray says:

      09:27am | 02/06/11

      That’s a false dilemma, Kevin! Showing that some government schools are elitist does not refute Maloney’s assertion that private schools are elitist. Points off the negative team!

    • Grant says:

      09:30am | 02/06/11

      I was thinking, why is this guy attacking the way pubilc schools.

      So I looked at his Bio, where the answer would lie.  Right at the end I found it.  “a commitment to Christian beliefs and values.”

      So, of course this guy is going to attack public schools and any call for defunding of private religious schools.

      * BAM * its all about an individuals agenda and their perspective.

      Silly religious people, always interfering.

    • Tails says:

      09:40am | 02/06/11

      I love it when people counter an argument and justify their position by saying “Well, these guys are worse than us so we must be ok.”

    • Bev says:

      09:54am | 02/06/11

      Introduce a voucher system to be spent at any school of the parents choice.
      Good schools win bad schools either pull up their socks or lose.

    • David C says:

      12:05pm | 02/06/11

      tick

    • Helen says:

      04:48pm | 02/06/11

      A voucher system will have the same effect as the First Homebuyers grant and negative gearing. Private organisations charge what the market will bear, so the private schools will simply up their fees by the same amount as the vouchers.
      also, the ppl who fondly think they can just about get into that popular private school in the eastern suburbs with the voucher system, think again. Besides the price rise effect above, there are only just so many of them. If, which I doubt, they did become more affordable, they’d just be even more oversubscribed, so then there would have to be a lottery system or similar (as with the Charter schools overseas) to determine which kids get in.

      A better and more cost effective solution is to spend the money to make public education closer to the privates in terms of resources and being a pleasant environment, also, improve teacher pay and conditions.

    • Vince says:

      05:02pm | 02/06/11

      Yes, ok, provided that the ONLY money you can spend is the voucher you’ve been provided.

      Tick.

    • Tim says:

      10:19am | 02/06/11

      a school is a school and should receive government funding. you can’t tax a parent to fund education, then refuse to fund certain schools because a small proportion of students come from wealthy families. the majority of parents actually struggle to pay the fees.
      my parents mortgaged their house to send me to a private school. my neighbour sent his kids to a public school and enjoyed a boat and regular holidays instead. if you cut funding to private schools, i would have been at a public school, draining the already stretched resources of the public system.

    • KH says:

      01:56pm | 02/06/11

      Why not?  I am taxed for all kinds of crap I will never use - maternity leave payments, baby bonuses, youth support services, gay support services, military operations in overseas countries we have no place being in, and so on.  No one should be struggling to pay fees - this is the chicken and egg argument - what came first, the recent increase in private schooling or the poor funding and lower standards of public schooling?

    • wolf says:

      10:28am | 02/06/11

      What?? Merit based selection?  You mean I cant BUY my children a place in schools like Melbourne or MacRobertson?

      Disgraceful.

      At least I can still buy them a place at University thanks to Howard.

    • jf says:

      01:32pm | 02/06/11

      Why is discrimination based on intellect, sporting ability or any other measure any better or worse than discrimination based on wealth? Are you saying only those fortunate enough to be born with those advantages deserve premium education?

    • Tchom says:

      10:54am | 02/06/11

      Are there any other countries that fund public schools with tax money?

      I went to a small(relative to the area) public school in Brisbane’s western suburbs, with many private schools in the same area. I remember a guy from my footy team who went to a privileged all-boys private school telling me that their school musical had been funded by corporate sponsors and the cast had arrived by rented luxury cars on opening night. That was five years ago. Recently, my old school, one suburb over from my team mate’s school, has had a scandal for having dangerous asbestos in its ceilings. My parents both worked hard in modest jobs, and probably could have put us in a private school at a stretch, but it would have been detrimental to our standard of living. I’m sure there are under resourced independent school and private schools, but surely exclusive schools don’t need public money?

    • monkeytypist says:

      11:04am | 02/06/11

      Kevin, I’m not sure if the point “private schools can’t be inequitable because some of our public schools reflect existing societal inequities in the same way” stands up to any kind of scrutiny

    • Luce says:

      11:26am | 02/06/11

      Chip on your shoulder, much, Shane Maloney?

    • Mayday says:

      12:21pm | 02/06/11

      There are many NSW State Schools in the eastern suburbs of Sydney that discriminate against children who do not reside in the area.
      Both my children went to Woollhara Public and I lied initially about where we lived.

      My eldest was sent to his local High School which was and still is basically babysitting students so both boys ended up in a local Catholic School. 

      As a single parent and atheist I found the school community very supportive of my children and religious lessons were basically discussions on social justice with lots of opportunity for debate.

      The money spent on fees was a good investment, both boys have full time jobs, pay tax and contribute to the community.  Alas some of my eldest sons public high school friends are now in Public Housing and on pensions due to drug addiction and crime.

      I honestly feel the support and care from school helped both boys develop their potential and a thirst for doing their best, can’t ask for much more.

    • J says:

      05:24pm | 02/06/11

      I had/have the same problem. I went to a public primary school and then a private high school, and was only one of three kids to enter the private system from my senior primary class. Now just about everyone from primary school who went on to public high school dropped out or has drug/alcohol/crime issues—or is dead. And that was a *decent* primary school.

    • Kika says:

      06:28pm | 02/06/11

      Are you crazy? I went to state schools and I am educated, have a degree, work a good job and am doing really well. However.. and this is a big however… I probably went to an elitist state school where we were completely driven by success and achievement. I started high school and a state school which the kids mostly came from public housing. I don’t know about all, because there are certainly a few who worked hard to succeed, but quite a few are still struggling.

      You can’t blame the school. Most teachers want kids to study and learn and even at the shitty state schools will reward those kids who actually do want to learn. In fact it was much easier for me to get better marks at this school than the elite one so if you work hard, you can get far.

    • ben says:

      01:05pm | 02/06/11

      I think it is very anti free market for governments to be distorting the education market by providing subsidies to private schools. However if we do accept that private education is important and does save the government money I think it would make much more policy sense for governments to provide incentives to parents rather than directly funding the private schools themselves. I think it looks far to much like the government is bailing out a unsustainable industry by funding private schools directly.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:28pm | 02/06/11

      Sigh. Private schools are a product. Why should the taxpayer be paying for someone for choosing to buy a product as opposed to anyone buying any other product. Subsidizing a private industry is market inefficient as the private school fees outstripping the CPI seem to indicate. This is true of the other industries that the government subsidizes such as housing through negative gearing and FHBG, private health insurance etc. Why governments insist on propping up these inefficient industries, I do not know.

    • Mel says:

      01:38pm | 02/06/11

      Err… because of the public utility? Nong.  And it’s obviously non ‘inefficient’ because their numbers are still growing.  You’re confusing inefficiency with demand induced price increases.  Go back to school.

    • Tim says:

      02:34pm | 02/06/11

      Private schools are growing because the government can’t do anything right. To paraphrase the simpsons, ‘when the government fumbles it falls on the private sector to scoop up the loose ball and run over the try line’

    • Shane from Melbourne says:

      02:54pm | 02/06/11

      @Mel- Rubbish. It is a price distortion caused by subsidies beyond the usual supply and demand feedback cycle. All subsidized industries are inefficient due to their market distortion. Go back to school and learn economics

    • KH says:

      02:16pm | 02/06/11

      In my opinion, the system is just wrong.  Public schools which take in students from a catchment area, will most often have a range of people - students who are academically inclined and have parents who encourage that, to students who are not academically inclined, and/or have parents who don’t care or haven’t any education themselves.  Teachers in these schools often end up spending the majority of their time with the non-academic kids and the troublesome kids - usually at the expense of the study-inclined kids, who don’t get the nurturing.  The curriculum is also dumbed down a bit to cater for this range.  That is where selective schools come in - they are academically focussed - there is nothing wrong with the state ensuring that all academically inclined kids are given the best possible education, regardless of how much money their parents have. 

      Maybe that is part of the solution - other countries do similar - there are schools that are academic focussed, and other schools which give a basic education and skills to get kids off to the best start possible.  Often there is a third kind of school - like the old technical schools we used to have in Victoria - more trade and apprenticeship oriented.  They are three different types of kids, and maybe trying to lump them all together is the problem, and is the reason why some state schools look like they aren’t performing well. This is feeding this private school mania - parents know their kids are not going to be pushed very hard, or left to their own devices as teachers spend their time elsewhere, and they hope that private schools will be more structured.  Not everyone is a scholar in waiting - what is wrong with acknowledging that?  Its not like we can get by without tradesmen, garbage collectors and so on - they are valuable jobs, they just don’t need a university education.

    • Mitch says:

      05:23pm | 02/06/11

      While I agree with your argument (private school do overall lessen the burden on the taxpayer and achieve the same or better results) your comparisons aren’t really fair at all.  There’s a huge difference between private schools being exclusive based on fees and wealth (Scotch, Xavier and the other APS schools) compared to public schools being exclusive based on student intelligence (Melbourne High, Mac Rob).

      Balwyn High, and for that matter Kew High 5 mins down the road, are rare exceptions rather then the “many” you claim and even then result wise they’re both on par with good but not elite private schools.

    • Kika says:

      06:24pm | 02/06/11

      No. If your school can survive quite well without government funding, I don’t believe you need it. There are many dilapidated state schools around the place and usually in places where the parents don’t have the cash to pay the optional school fees. These are the kids who need the resources, not the rich kids. It’s likely the rich kids would have received a good education whether or not they receive government funding or not.

    • bikinis on top says:

      08:40pm | 02/06/11

      Which is the best value for money ?
      Private Schools or Public Schools?
      University Education, TAFE College Education,  Tertiary Education, Work, The Tax Office,  and the Dole Office Centrelink sort the sheep from the goats regardless of the schools used .

    • Cat says:

      10:59pm | 02/06/11

      I’ll send my son to a state highschool in my area when they start being willing and able to provide a quality education to kids with his particular disability - it is a bit of a bitch really, he’s not elligible for special school because his IQ is well above average. A special school would address the facets of his disability far better than state schools can but would not give him the education that he will need to be an independant adult holding down a skilled job/profession - which he is quite capable of becoming. Yet, the state mainstream schools in our area who could meet his acedemic needs don’t provide a suitable educational placement as they wont meet the other needs of someone with his disability. Sorry to burst the bubble folks but from where we are sitting it doesn’t feel like we are being given real choices! I would absolutely love not to have to sacrifice everything to pay for school fees, we are going to be doing things tough to send him to the small, non-religious alternative private school we’ve found and I often find myself filled with an intense amount of anger that this is the only real option for us short of putting our son somewhere that his mental/physical safety is acutely at risk. But you all go on believing that anyone who picks private is just an elitist rich person who should have to pay for it all *snorts* I am sadly not alone in being in this possition and no, it isn’t a matter of just throwing more money at the problem becuase you could quadruple the funds overnight and those school still wouldn’t fit the bill for us. If it makes you feel better a heck of a lot of the private school failed too - after months of looking at everything available in this and widely surrounding areas I have just the one school which might work, and if not I’ll be forced to homeschool like so many others are. That would be most unfortunate because aparently the government thinks that if you are homeschooling your child with a disability you must be a qualified occupational therapist, speech therapist, special education teacher and advisory teacher because you get NOTHING in the way of special education supports…oh the wonder of choice, doesn’t it just make you want to puke?

    • Alan K says:

      08:45am | 03/06/11

      The big point that everyone seems to miss, is that every child deserves the best possible education available to cater for thier needs. Not every child will be a genius, some are not capable of being a top scholar, but they still deserve the best education they can get. I like Cat, have a child with a disability, we all know he will never be a brain surgeon, but he still deserves the best education possible to him. All children, no matter where they are from and what disabilities they have should have the right and deserve the right to the best possible education available. To do this ALL schools and learning centres need to be funded to the level that are required to meet these goals. Special needs children need a lot of extra help to learn, so therefore a school needs extra staffing levels to cater for them, so therefore need a higher budget to cover the extra costs. There is no way a single teacher can properly supervise and teach a class of special needs children without at least one, preferably two SSO’s to assist them. Some special needs children can have certain triggers that can set them off and one teacher on thier own would never be able to handle the situation. But the important thing to think of is, our children are our future, so they need the best possible education to suit thier needs and abilities.

    • Janey says:

      08:58am | 03/06/11

      I am with you all the way Cat.  I live in a low socioeconomic area in North Queensland.  My son has dyslexia.  The remedial teacher at a state school reckoned I should give him fish oil to fix it - no she is not a qualified doctor or paediatrician.  disgusted by the stupidity, I put him in a Catholic parish school and they gave him 10 weeks one on one learning after school.  Worked wonders and not a fish oil capsule in sight.  Not an exclusive school, it cost me $1600 a year.  Now he is at a Catholic high school, cost is about $4000 per year.  I have to work overtime to find this extra $4000 but I am not whinging, I want my kid to have teachers who actually give a rats about him.
      I am not rich, my kids school is not elitist (75% of the students are of a non English speaking background and are indigenous) but my son is able to ride on the back of the funding the Rudd government gave to his school.
      They received over 5 million dollars to fix up the school and educate indigenous people.
      Our local Catholic high school elitist?  Uh yeah ok,  if the commentators here say so.

    • Kaye says:

      04:30pm | 03/06/11

      In fairness just because you had an unpleasant experience at a public school doesn’t mean that teachers at public schools don’t give a crap about the kids.

      I went to a major public school in FNQ which had a full spectrum of students (wealth, race,disabilities etc) and the majority of teachers were the most incredible, caring and intelligent people I’ve ever met who did their best to spread their time out equally between the students. In year 12 our school recommended that everyone take part in the QCS exams regardless of whether they thought they wanted to go to university because it was the best way to truly determine the range of students in our school and where any problems that need addressing might be. Meanwhile one of the local private schools began advising students below the A mark to move to a public school in grade 9 and 10 and organised events (trips to the cinema etc) on the day of QCS for the student who had received a B- or below during the practice exams so they wouldn’t tarnish the school’s averages.

      In your situation a private school was the right option and your son’s enrolment there isn’t for any reason of elitism (nor is your private school elitist), but that doesn’t mean that all public schools are rubbish or that all private schools will necessarily do the best for their students.

    • Emily says:

      01:00am | 05/06/11

      Public schools are in such pathetic state is because the administrators (i.e. the state Labor governments) are useless.  Witness the BER, tax payer money are wasted and the buildings they get are just poor value for money.  So when you public school supporters get jealous, please blame your state Labor government who waste all that money.  Also I am sorry, in NSW only the top 4% can get into selective public school, however, most of those positions are taken by Asians.  Not because they are smarter, they are much harder working and taken up most of the places

    • Robert says:

      09:05pm | 20/05/12

      I’ve worked in two Catholic schools and one state; “non-government schools are elitist, over-resourced and exclusive”? Sorry apologists, this is a fact and always was. A few token exceptions doesn’t change the modern reality or the evident historical and ideological trend. It’s time the Right and the Rich stopped fooling themselves and just realised they’re living in luxury and privilege at the expense of others; at the expense of the majority. The sense of entitlement to wealth and privileged these capitalists operate from dwarfs all other claims of entitlement, legitimate or otherwise, in our society.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter