Gillard setting private schools up for a fall

acotrel says:

07:40am | 24/02/11

Melbourne High School, and MacRoberson Girls School are examples of what public schools should be, why are the rest so different? Taxpayers have the right to expect quality for their dollar!

Tubesteak says:

07:54am | 24/02/11

Every dollar taken away from public schools erodes the quality of education they can provide. Not every kid can have access to a private school because their parents can’t efford it. This unfairly and unreasonably disadvantages those children.

If you want a private education then the parents should pay 100% for it because they choose it. The rest of society should not have to pay for their choice. You had a valid choice open to you in the public system but you chose to eschew it. The dollars should not follow you.

KH says:

08:16am | 24/02/11

acotrel - they are ‘selective entry’ schools.  You have to pass an exam to get in, and only the brightest students will make it.  These also tend to be the ones are academically inclined, so obviously the outcome is going to be much better.

Macca says:

08:21am | 24/02/11

@Acotrel, “Taxpayers have the right to expect quality for their dollar”

And what exactly was the BER?

AdamC says:

08:33am | 24/02/11

Acotrel, those schools are selective entry and only take high-achieving students. There should be more schools like this in the public system (in Victoria and elsewhere) to nuture academic excellence.

Dissident says:

12:34pm | 24/02/11

Tubesteak, the parents of children at private schools pay tax too. Every child in Australia is entitled to a ‘free’ education. Funding private schools isn’t taking dollars from public schools to private ones, it is providing private schools with the same funding that they would have received if they were public - money that they are entitled to because they are performing the service of educating a child.

The fairest way to distribute education funding would be to simply get the total pool of money available for students, divide it by the number of students and give it to the schools on a per capita basis.

This example is really basic, but you get the idea.

Total funding pool = $10 Billion
Total Students = 1 Million
Funding per student = $10,000

Every school maintains a record of the students at the school and is funded on a students x $10,000 basis. That way every child gets exactly the same amount of funding.

A child going to a public school is not being discriminated against unless the private schools are getting a larger per student funding than the public ones.

I don’t know what the current comparison in funding per students are private and public schools is, but maybe one of the other punchers can send us a link so we can see whether we are getting some kind of equality?

Your post also says that children whose parents can’t afford to send them to a private school are discriminated against. I don’t want to second guess your thoughts on the matter, but I want to point out that parents of children at private schools are predominantly ordinary, middle income people who make the extra sacrifice.

I went to a public and a private school during my education and one of the orientation items at the private school was a father-son overnight stay in the boarders rooms. During the orientation my father and I met a gentleman (the father of another student) who had a business card identifying himself as the ‘executive director’ of his business. He then pointed out that impressive as the card was - we shouldn’t be fooled - he was up to his elbows in sh!t every day (and not the metaphorical kind). Likewise the gentleman who worked to pay the bills, and whose wife worked exclusively to pay the tuition fees at the school. We need to be mindful that reducing the funding to private schools would discriminate against these parents.

Sending your child to a private school should not see you forfeit the right to have your child educated for ‘free’ - the ‘free’ part being the government subsidies to the private school.

Salec says:

03:35pm | 24/02/11

Dissident, something like that does happen but not quite a perfectly equal split. It is a little bit complicated because currently public schools are mainly funded by state and territory governments, while non-government schools are predominately funded by the federal government. For example nationally state and territory governments contribute 91.4% of funds for government schools and the federal government 8.6%. Conversely the federal government supplies 72.1% of funding for non-government schools and the state and territory governments only 27.9%

Total funding though is split like this – government schools have 66% of the full-time equivalent (FTE) students and receive 79% of the funding. Non-government schools have 34% of the FTE students and receive only 21% of the funding. This essentially means that non-government schools receive on average 48% of the cost of funding a public school student. This decreases to around 25-30% for the wealthiest schools, and obviously increases for the less wealthy non-government schools.

This means that it is cheaper for the government to have students in non-government schools. Which means it has MORE money to spend on public school students. If you increase the funding of public schools at the expense of non-government schools, you will inevitably force some families to send their kids to a public school that would’ve otherwise gone to a private school. This will increase the burden on governments for funding this student, and lower the total amount of funds available per student in the public system. So actually the transfer of students to private schools allow the government to spend more money on public school students.

Dissident says:

06:33pm | 24/02/11

Salec, thanks for clearing that up.

The Private / Public rivalry tends to fall in a heap when you point out simple facts as we have done. Let’s hope Tubesteak bothered to read it!

Economist says:

08:04pm | 24/02/11

Dissendent ad Salec, there’s only one problem with your analysis. Your assuming that a parent wouldn’t send there child to a private school without a subsidy and therefore arguing that it’s cost effective for the government to subsidise. the subsidy is only efficient when it results in someone moving from the public sector to the private sector.

Trust me when I say non-government school advocates should not be using the argument that they save the tax payer, because they don’t. Stick to the argument that you pay taxes too and deserve the same equality.

As for a flat rate allocation it should never happen because the costs of education vary form area to area. .

Slim says:

06:42am | 24/02/11

With policy settings which transfer funding from poorer to richer we’re hardly dragging the top down nor dragging the bottom up.

Rosie says:

10:42am | 24/02/11

Persetelephone did you get out on the wrong side of the bed this fine morning. Fine morning but still shaken about our loved ones across the Tasman.
Sorry to tell you that in Adelaide all the top govt schools are located in the wealthy surburbs and are zoned which means only those that can afford ( $850K upwards ) homes are eligible to send their children there. The Independent Schools are also located in these areas and there seems to be no problems with the children that attend both the top Govt schools and the Independent schools. The only problem are, these top govt schools are faced with is they have to say “No” to the kids that do not live in the zoned areas. In some cases parents will pay high rental for a year just to get their children into these good govt schools. After a year they purchase a home they can afford elsewhere and leave their children there. 1 year’s address at the zoned areas entitles the child to remain at the school. Separated parents usually will try to get one parent renting in these zoned wealthy surburbs just to get their children into these good govt schools. I am sure this happens nationally.
I suggest the Govt get parents to pay school fees in these govt schools located in wealthy surburbs so it becomes “Independent” schools owned by the taxpayers. In that way there will be no discrimination and all govts will treat every Australian child the same and parents will have the choice of which school they want to send their children to.
Julia Gillard attended Unley High School in Adelaide, top govt school with an outstanding record scholastically. We all would like to get our children to attend Unley High. Unley is a wealthy surburb, homes $850K upwards and therefore should get parents to pay school fees. If they can affordd to buy these expensive homes they can afford to pay school fees.
Gillard’s passion is education, surely the woman will be trying to give every Australian child “good effective teaching” whether it would be in an Independent school or govt school. “Good effective teaching” in all Australian schools is the answer to the debate about why should Independent schools receive financial help from govts. It is crap we all pay taxes and it is our money they are giving away in the first place. Good effective teaching in all Australian schools is the way to go instead of wasting money building flashy school halls in the Independent schools eg BER in a Labor Govt’s exchange for votes. Good effective teaching in the poorer surburbs will not go astray, it will only allow the child to equal and compete later with the so called rich Independent school kids for a place at Uni and later in the workforce. The same curriculum is taught in all these schools so why are there good and bad schools. Could it be we have bad teachers trying to teach in certain schools making it a bad school?????????

AdamC says:

09:11am | 24/02/11

Sheesh, Pers, Donnelly’s obvious got you going, hasn’t he? Your comment seems pretty nit-picking to me.

Does anyone seriously deny that the AEU and elements of the ALP have a virulently anti-student, anti-choice education stance and want to rig the system in favour of government schools? Likewise, does anyone seriously deny that the AEU and other members of the educational establishment don’t see education as seving essentially political, not educational, aims?

If anyone does (Pers?) they are extremely naive. Especially, as Donnelly points out, they aren’t exactly making a secret of it.

persephone says:

09:23am | 24/02/11

AdamC

no, I’m not nit picking. I’m critiquing his article. Not my fault there’s so much to critique.

And yes. Why is it anti student - or indeed, anti choice - to say that someone who goes to a public school has the right to receive as good an education as someone who goes to a private school?

And yes, I’ll seriously deny that the AEU etc see education as serving essentially political goals. From my experience, their priortity is providing good outcomes for students.

If I’m naive, I’m sure you’ll be able to find actual evidence to show otherwise. Otherwise, you’re equally naively accepting a viewpoint.

My whole point with Donnelly is that virtually nothing he points out says what he says it does. If you have to misrepresent what was actually said to prove your point, then perhaps what you’re saying doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I repeat: what is wrong with the expectation that students, no matter where they are educated, receive the highest standard of education possible?

Economist says:

11:21am | 24/02/11

@Adam C, Pers is on money with his critique. My most significant issue with this article is why continue to refer to the 2007 PISA results instead of the 2009 PISA results? The 2009 PISA results showed three things. Firstly Australia has dropped from high equity to low equity. Secondly, Australia is still high performing, but dropped in reading and maths since 2000. The drop has been attributable to a drop off in higher performing students which has lowered the average. Thirdly for the first time PISA compared, government, Catholic and Independent schools and showed that adjusting for Socio-economic status performance is about the same across the three groups.

The Centre for Independent Studies, a right wing think tank, argued the recent focus on raising the performance at the bottom end hadn’t achieved its goal with this group remaining static and argued that this was at the expense of high performing students. Yet we still have selective schools and surely the drift to non-government schools, which are supposed better educators, would result in more high performing students? In fact one could argue that the fall in performance is attributable to the SES funding model which was introduced in 2001. But this wouldn’t be fair and is anecdotal without some modelling, but heh given the selective reporting and anecdotal assertions in this article, I’m justified in my assertion.

AS for the criticism of the AEU, well they are a lobby group, no different to the non-government sector, and Donnelly, lobbying for more funds. Arguing to shut them down is just nonsense.

Finally, Donnelly is pre-empting the final results of the review and dismissing them before they’ve even been announced. How about we wait for a policy announcement and then critique it.

Hamish says:

04:13pm | 24/02/11

Perse, blind freddy knows the AEU and their fellow travellers see education as an ideological battleground. You may say there’s not evidence of this, but with so many people opting out of the state system (and therefore essentially double-paying for their child’s education) there must be something wrong with it. 

I’m not sure if you’re from Victoria, but plenty of kids at the state primary school I went to hadn’t learnt to read effectively by year four. The AEU’s position: we’re not here to teach kids to read. Thank God my mother taught me to read herself.

But, you know, obviously education isn’t about teaching kids to read.

Economist says:

08:11pm | 24/02/11

“The AEU’s position: we’re not here to teach kids to read”.  Bull****. What your arguing against is the reading philosophy of the time and the methods used. If your assertion was correct, we’d be *****.  As for ideological battleground, what’s Dr Donnelly then!

AdamC says:

10:30am | 25/02/11

Economist, I am no great fan of the SES model, and there seems to be some validity to your position. However, your assumptions about high performing students seem problematic. Why would a drift to private schools within the mainstream affect high performing students especially?

In any event, I am not sure what any of that has to do with the anti-choice, anti-private education agenda of the AEU and the government.

“And yes. Why is it anti student - or indeed, anti choice - to say that someone who goes to a public school has the right to receive as good an education as someone who goes to a private school?”

Pers, there isn’t. But trying to sabotage and de-fund private education to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator seems a pretty crappy way of doing that.

Flexo says:

10:47am | 24/02/11

I agree. Schools (public or private) need to have goals and be pupil orientated. Money isn’t everything. Funding should be fair but in reality it is always going to be a pendulum swinging between trying to appease either the rich or the poor with the middle class left out as usual. The PM needs to create policy that looks at schools individually and cater to their specific needs. Not every handout has to be cash or building a bloody school hall. But to create complex policy like that involves time and effort. And as we all saw from the 8 hour ‘effort’ put into the health care policy, this PM and her government aren’t too keen to do the best for this country or its future.

Zoe says:

11:30am | 24/02/11

Its funny, my mum was a teacher in England many many years ago and she was just saying the other day that they - the teachers - would be given regular maths and english tests etc. If they didnt pass they would then have to give up their weekends (without extra pay) to complete extra study to keep them up to standard. The pass mark to get into a uni teachers course should be a lot higher too. A girl I knew - who was on holidays from uni - said anyone who just scraped into uni but is unsure what they wanted to do would go into teaching because its a low pass mark to get in. This made it harder for those who really wanted to teach to find employment. This was just her opinion. But raise the standard of teaching for a start.

James1 says:

03:00pm | 24/02/11

If you want to attract better teachers, you will need to pay them more so that it becomes something people want to do.  I could have become a teacher, and started on $50 000 a year.  Peanuts.  Naturally I decided not to.

If we increased funding and pay teachers more, we might get better teachers.

Economist says:

08:08pm | 24/02/11

Exactly James1, Funny how the likes of Adam C happily supports CEO being paid 10s of millions based on performance (though the majority still get there payouts when companies effectively fold), yet teachers are union scum.

AdamC says:

10:25am | 25/02/11

Economost, the old CEO salary chestnut again. Let’s move on, shall we?

James1, despite Economist’s assumptions, I am inclined to agree with you. Though I don’t think that it is the starting salaries ($50k is pretty good for a graduate out in real life land) that are the problem, more the system of advancement and development.

Zoe says:

12:09pm | 24/02/11

Move more unis to country areas too, where the cost of living is a lot less. My daughter tried to find student accomodation in the city and it was literally all full of international students. She had to rent privately and could barely afford to eat.

DocBud says:

09:35am | 24/02/11

Nobody gets funding from the government, they get funding from the taxpayer. Those of us who send our children to private schools are mostly taxpayers and often high rate taxpayers. If we didn’t send our children to private schools, the cost to the taxpayer would be higher.

This notion that the so-called advantaged (i.e. those who work their backsides off and achieve something while the indolent look on with envy and demand a “fair go”) are favoured is utter tosh. If the amount of tax and rates I pay is helping me, please stop, that kind of help I can do without.

T S Sebastien says:

09:48am | 24/02/11

They get funding because education is a service that the Government provides to all Australian children regardless of wealth or background. An “advantage” argument implicitly rejects this assumption and turns education services into another form of welfare (i.e a service the government only provides to children based on parents income levels). The end result would not neccessarily mean the end of private school funding but would mean that only students who’s parents incomes were below the means test would receive any Government support. Similarly public schools would only be available based upon means test or alternatively by levying an additional payment on those parents that are above the means test threshhold.

Clinton says:

01:31pm | 24/02/11

TS Sebastien I don’t see how what you’re saying makes any sense at all. Regardless of whether private schools get any government funding or not, rich or poor kids are still entitled to an education. There is no law/means test on whether a child can attend the local public school or not, and the choice is still there for a private school (the only difference being that it would be fully self funded/self sufficient).

Is it really such an issue to focus resources on the public system that everyone has access to as opposed to the private system? It’s really no different to hospitals. You can choose private or public, if you go private you (or your health insurance) pays, if you go public the government pays. And if resources were focused on the local public schools (both in wealthy and not so wealthy suburbs) and they were brought up to scratch, why would parents have an issue with sending them to the public school anyway? Note I use the word ‘resources’ as money is only one of the issues.

Grumpy says:

09:07am | 24/02/11

I think it depends on the child more than the school. I know people who went to one of the worst schools in the area who are now lawyers, accountants etc….and i know people who went to the best school in the state who are bums living off family money, because they can be life long students. Private schools are not as good as you think. I went to one.whats the point in a “good education” if your son becomes a sparky or builder. If they are going to be doctors they’ll tell you that from an early age, same for any profession. Its a myth that any high school offers a better education than another, except for Waldorf schools, which i would probably choose for my kids over any traditional curriculum….Doesnt matter what you do in school, its what you do in tertiary studies. this is Australia. no billionaire ever got their money from a good education. its a joke to think that it equates to any sort of opportunity that cant be found in other ways. But gotta keep up with the neighbours and it sounds better when you tell people where your kids are enrolled right?

Zoe says:

11:41am | 24/02/11

Now dont take this the wrong way, but my teenage son joked the other day that he wanted to go to private school because they can afford better drugs there. It took me back to my childhood when a friend of my sister - a mininsters daughter was sent to a private secondary school. She said back then that the only difference was they could all afford speed whereas the public students only had alcohol or pot. I dont honestly think this is always true but I believe a smart kid will still achieve what they want out of high school. And a spoiled brat will still be that no matter how much you spend on their education. Ive seen it happen so many times.

Helen says:

12:38pm | 24/02/11

Our local High school, to which my son goes and from which my daughter graduated with a TER in the 90s, regularly releases a cohort of brilliant and able VCEers into the universities each year. The kids who don’t want an academic career have very good technical courses on offer. The teachers work tirelessly with the kids to overcome the problems of the undermotivated and give the more gifted ones plenty to work with and I resent people who conduct these smear campaigns against them. They should be much, much better paid.

Grumpy says:

09:12am | 24/02/11

No its about putting children on a more even playing field. If you like the idea not having a middle class, move to south africa and see how you go.

Shivo says:

10:46am | 24/02/11

Please comrades, Ms Gillard will soon be legislating for us to all wear grey, be paid the same amount as each other and have us bow and scrape to the new ruling Communist Party….....

The difference between the USA and Canadian education systems is as follows; the USA poors billions into ensuring every student can achieve a very basic level whereas the Canadian system assists those students to be the best they can…....look at the results, the USA is a basket case.

Muttley says:

02:21pm | 24/02/11

Yeah Shivo, yet the US has a user pays medical system. And thats just working brilliantly for the less well off eh? US, just like you, is firmly against the “red menace”. That same tired argument is used to shout down health reform to scare the dim witted. Easy to spout that anti communist crap (what are you still living in the 50’s?) when you can afford to see a doctor or go to a good school. Your outlook would soon change if due to lack of funds you couldnt get medical treatment or a decent school.

acotrel says:

09:04am | 24/02/11

Somebody, or some organisation should hold the mirror up to the AEU!  The culture which exists in some public schools comes directly from teachers who have never had a real job! It’s not a funding problem, it’s a problem of leadership!

KH says:

09:34am | 24/02/11

acotrel - Er, teaching is a real job, you fool.

And there would be no ‘exodus to public schools’.  However, the private schools may not be able to afford the pool cleaning service any more.
The difference is in the facilities and the teaching staff.  The amount of fees they collect is in the millions per year, and many of them have surpluses so they can afford to relay the cricket pitch every year and other activities of that nature which really aren’t essential - they are luxuries.

Chewy says:

11:00am | 24/02/11

“And there would be no ‘exodus to public schools’.  However, the private schools may not be able to afford the pool cleaning service any more.”
And there is the perpetuated myth that private schools are some sort of cashed up elite institutions complete with pools! I would hazzard a guess that what you are reffering to is a minority of private schools.
But hey dont let me squash the image sandstone buildings, cricket pitches, rowing clubs and old boys….

DocBud says:

12:14am | 25/02/11

Any private school receiving taxpayer funding is a not for profit organisation.

Al says:

11:11am | 24/02/11

It’s tax payer funding. And why would a gay teacher want to work at a Catholic school if not to provoke discomfort among the Catholics?

Mike T says:

11:03am | 24/02/11

So those that contribute the highest amount of tax to the government coffers dont deserve any of it when schools are being allocated???

What sort of service do you think your local public school would provide if every private school child was pushed back into the public system?? do you think the current government spend on education would be enough to maintain the current standards??

PS. I dont have kids, so unlike many on this site, i am not swayed by personal agendas.

Chewy says:

11:42am | 24/02/11

Mike T- well said those who can afford private schools on balance probably pay more taxes than those who send their children to public schools but receive subsantially less tax payer dollars for their childs education. Because of this It could actually be argued parents of private school students actually subsidise public school students.
More students in private schools would cost the tax payer less and should be encouraged. Anyone who doesnt undestand this is blinded by their ideology.

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:57am | 24/02/11

Damn straight. Private schools are just another product on the marketplace. I don’t expect the government to fund any of my product purchases, why should it fund any of your product purchases? The state only has the responsibility to provide basic health and education. If you opt out of the system and purchase an alternative product, then you should fund the purchase entirely.

T S Sebastien says:

11:48am | 24/02/11

So presumably Shane you are also ideologically opposed against the Medicare system, have never gone to a GP (your choice to use a private provider of medical services) and presumably only get your medical treatment by a doctor in a public hospital (probably after a 6 hour wait). Under Medicare we get the choice of whatever service provider we would like to use and the choice of paying extra if we think it is worth the value. Can’t see why the same principal shouldn’t apply to education…

Zoe says:

11:51am | 24/02/11

Hate to break it to you but all tax payers pay for things they dont use. I pay for private health, but as a fit person rarely use either public or private. Single middle aged men pay for other people kids from birth right through childcare, maternity leave, tax benefit part a and b,  school , medical etc. So what? If I die before I get into aged care do I get a refund? What a joke.

James1 says:

03:58pm | 24/02/11

I think there is an argument for funding some schools, like the smaller Catholic ones.  However, Grammar schools are a different matter altogether.

The best way to solve this problem, but which I mean perceptions of unfairness, is to get private schools to open their books to public scrutiny.  After all, if they receive public funding, they should be accountable for what they do with that funding.  If a school like, say, Canberra Girls Grammar is turning a profit, then a good case could be made to reduce its public funding, if indeed it received any.  I think such a system would put an end to much of the bickering over funding.

I always wonder why private schools are so reticent to open their accounts to public scrutiny - surely that should be a condition of receiving public funding.

T S Sebastien says:

05:26pm | 24/02/11

Hi Helen.
I would love for the public education system to be improved however based on their performances to date I would have to say that the AEU is part of the problem and unlikely to be part of the solution. The AEU is a union that exists for its members (not for the students or parents). Nothing wrong with this of course however any pronouncements from them will bear a heavy political/lobyist slant protecting their own interests(similar to that you note from the “independent” school sector).
In supporting their members the AEU has consistently fought against education reform tooth and nail for the past 3 decades, most recently against the popular MySchool initiative. The one piece of reform the AEU does seem willing to support includes redistribution of funds from private schools back to their members (for higher wages) with the double benefit of essentially shafting private school teachers who are not members of the AEU. 
The simple facts are that if the public system improved through reforms to improve transparency, accountability, and behaviour then there would be little demand for the private system that would presumably whither against a high performing public system. This is the outcome I would rather focus upon rather than the destructive squabble that we currently have…

Helen says:

08:09am | 25/02/11

Well said! It shouldn’t even need to be said, but (repeating myself here) neoliberal dogma has over the years created Orwellian “truths”, such as “Private schools deserve to be government funded on top of their fees”.

MD says:

04:09pm | 24/02/11

All it takes is a charitable donation to your private school of choice and any expulsion troubles disappear, the things money can buy eh?

St. Michael says:

04:49pm | 24/02/11

@ MD: Whereas your example is without any real circumstances behind it, mine are demonstrable almost every week in public schools across Australia.

It’s why so many public school teachers are quitting the profession, on the surveys conducted.

Economist says:

08:20pm | 24/02/11

Equal funding is ridiculous because your assuming the cost of education is the same. As stated above, by me, its a myth that private education saves the tax payer, just as private health insurance doesn’t save the government money, but changes the way the money is used.

As for your son. The state school could provide the service if you were willing to pay more tax. What’s annoying me about this argument so far is that the focus is on private school funding, but if the government increased taxes to improve public schools all you right wingers would go nuts. The fact is with the limited amount of money budgeted the government needs to spend it efficiently and nobody as devised a decent model yet.

salec says:

10:49pm | 24/02/11

Not being an a**e economist, but can you please explain how private schools don’t save the government money, when the figures clearly show they spend less money on private school students? (see my post above)

Economist says:

11:51pm | 24/02/11

Salec

My answers in here http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/education-funding/ , but I agree with your assessment that there is an accounting saving, just not an economic saving.

As I say the reason for funding non-government education is basic decency and acknowledgement for paying taxes, diversity etc. but if the government stopped subsidising it would take a quite considerable fall in numbers before it would be worth re-considering a subsidy.

I’d argue also that education is quite price inelastic in that changes in price have a relatively small effect on the quantity of the good demanded. As demonstrated above by the many parents who make sacrifices.

Yet many more parents would send their kids to private schools who can’t afford it despite the current subsidies. Now think about it, if we kept increasing the subsidy for these parents until say parity with government school funding what are you going to end up with? Effectively a public school system run by the private/Catholic sectors i.e. the same students you try and avoid by sending your kid to non-government school can now afford your school. So it’s Same problems then?

No this wouldn’t happen because all it would take is one non-government school to charge higher fees to get exclusivity. It’s all about brand. And the whole vicious cycle starts over again.

So in conclusion an increase in the subsidy becomes nothing more than inflationary, like say the First Home Owners Grant. And it suits the governments because we all argue about fairness and access, and we don’t argue demand a world class education system that is tailored to an individual child’s need whether that’s selective schools, technical schools, behavioural schools etc, because deep down we just want to be better than the Joneses.

DocBud says:

12:31am | 25/02/11

“if the government increased taxes to improve public schools all you right wingers would go nuts.”

Abso-bloody-lutely, governments are hopeless at spending money, they’d take more money yet any improvement would be incidental to the ideological goals and not measurable. Better leave the money in our pockets to spend as we see fit. I’m happy to subsidise the kids of those who cannot afford to educate their kids, but we know what is best for our children far more than some left-wing idealogue and so would much rather retain our own money to spend as we consider appropriate.

I’d prefer that the government did not take our money to give back to us as they insist on doing, wastefully siphoning it through an inefficient bureaucracy such that they probably need to take $9000 to give us $6000 per child. I’d much prefer that they left the $9000 in our pockets so that we could give $6000 directly to the school.

Economist says:

07:06am | 25/02/11

St Michael, I’m not going to insult you, but your plan wouldn’t work as it would create an underclass.  Particularly this statement here “Morons or their parents who don’t want to go to school don’t have to”. So what if the child wants to go to school, has great potential but the parents are morons? In addition these schools would become enclaves for brain washing.

As for “We can no longer afford the dual principles that (a) everyone gets an education and (b) the education sector is paid on anything other than demonstrated performance” Um no. Education is one thing we can afford and provides a greater return on investment. We spend around $26 billion. Yet welfare is around $110 billion. So welfare agencies wouldn’t have a lot of money, because the $26 billion on education would be swallowed by the welfare sector.

There’s a lot of impracticalities in your suggestions, but good luck in getting your ideas accepted.

St. Michael says:

11:42am | 25/02/11

@ Economist: We already have an underclass.  Much of it is presently funded on that $110 billion spent on welfare.  All that completely privatising education will do is to remove that underclass from out of schools so the kids who aspire to nothing more than the dole will have their wishes granted that much sooner.  That underclass could perhaps then discover the benefits of an education for themselves in the real world.  They would also be a potent unskilled labour force to compete on wages with the foreign competition that currently is killing Australian manufacturing indistries.  And if Jubba Wubba decides he wants out of the poverty trap? Adult education isn’t prohibited, you know.

If the child wants to go to school, has great potential but the parents are morons: with $26 billion spare dollars, DCD would remove the kid from the parents quick smart.  Any parent who loves their kids wants them to have the best education possible.  And there are lots of private schools willing to throw money (i.e. complete scholarships) to kids who show a lot of academic potential.  If anything you would see that number of schools increase since there’d be fierce competition amongst schools to be able to say they teach bright kids.

“Enclaves for brain washing?”  Hardly.  Because the privatised education system would not be subject to free competition, it wouldn’t be the religious cartels alone that could teach their kids.  If anything the secular private schools would compete even harder to bring up successful students.

“Education is one thing we can afford and provides a greater return on investment. We spend around $26 billion. Yet welfare is around $110 billion. So welfare agencies wouldn’t have a lot of money, because the $26 billion on education would be swallowed by the welfare sector.”

So despite all of that 26 billion being spent on education, we still have nearly five times the welfare bill anyway.  I would like to see some figures showing what the return from that 26 billion actually is.  High literacy rates are not an answer.  I would guess most of it is spent on administrators, bureaucrats, and “toy job” teachers who are just waiting on retirement, rather than frontline staff or frontline programs.

I am not talking about removing education, merely that it should not be a government responsibility, because government screws things up.  Or screws things up more than the private sector, which means private is the better option.

Economist says:

02:43pm | 25/02/11

@ St Michael the return on investment is a $1 trillion dollar economy.

Your faith in the private sector while lovely, is misplaced. You’d simply replace part of a government bureacracy with a private one+ plus add your profit margin. I suggest you take a look at the childcare sector, the services are comparable with education. My experience is that the private providers provide a pathetic service that’s over priced with disaffected staff and as ABC showed it’s not financially viable. The non-profits are far superior in service. I could give you a multitude of examples from parents of the most appalling service.

St. Michael says:

11:45pm | 25/02/11

@ Economist: sounds like you and I might have some common experiences. You mentioned child care, which you suggest ihas services comparable to formal education.  Fortunately I have had some close experience with child care and child care employees alike.  Based on that experience I don’t think the child care industry is actually comparable to the education industry, though superficially the services look the same.

The most basic difference being: child care is ultimately a disposable service, because it’s child minding, nothing more.  You aren’t educating a kid two or three years old, you’re entertaining them for the most part.  And people if really pushed to it can find free alternatives to child care (like grandma) which work.  Education is not.  Can you imagine someone giving up their home to ensure their kid is in good child care? I doubt it.  A good education, though - that’s another matter.  That’s something parents (reasonable ones, anyway) will fight like hell to pay for even if they have to go hungry for it.

On a minor point, ABC isn’t the only child care chain in existence.  There are others.  And ABC’s collapse isn’t so much about financial viability as it is Eddy Groves behaving like Alan Bond: grabbing child care centres, using the equity to buy others, and hoping like hell the market doesn’t crash.  Which, of course, it did.  Let’s also remember that lots of “nonprofit” centres were pretty eager to go bust when Eddy waved cash at them.

On the other hand, I grant you there are a lot of greedy and stupid child care chain owners who think you can make an easy buck from it: employ 2 or 3 nosepicking teenagers, take ten kids, ???, profit! I saw and prosecuted several.  And I agree with you that the nonprofits generally do better ... mostly because they’re staffed by people who are in it for love rather than money, and who are in it for years.  That’s unlike 90% of the child care profession which is under 21, female, under cost pressures, and burning out in large numbers.

And child care workers aren’t qualified.  Well, unless you count a piddling six month TAFE certificate as a “qualification” in child care, which (at least in WA) they do.  That is a world away from a formal university degree and qualifications in actually teaching children.  The clientele is also different: the extent to which a child care centre is actually looking after your kids is pretty much unquantifiable, mostly because the kids can’t talk intelligibly and tell you the “Qualified” is putting rat pee in the milk and trying to cope with 20+ kids above child care regulations.  In school, they can.  They even have report cards.

Child care, I think, is a microcosm of what happens when someone in government thinks there “should be some rules about all this” and then instigates stupid regulations that are taken as the standard rather than the intended absolute barest margins of safety.  It’s also what happens when the Federal government (via DEEWR) doesn’t talk to the State child care regulatory bodies, with the result that crappy providers get away with horrible things for years.  In my last job it was almost a trifecta: guaranteed that if the centre was underpaying its workers, it was generally defrauding Federal child care benefit and breaking State child care regulations.  I saw this again and again.

Education is a long way from that, chiefly because it’s quantifiable and you can assess performance.  Which unions are deadset against, because their existence depends entirely on their workforce sticking to a mediocre norm, and the union being able to intimidate (via threat of strike) the school system into ever-increasing pay demands.  Seriously.  When was the last pay cut that an education union ever agreed to in the interests of preserving jobs?

Went a bit off track, and I’m probably over the character limit, but anyway…

Economist says:

10:03am | 26/02/11

@St Michael Thank you for the excellent summary and analysis. I agree totally with what you’ve said, but add although it’s a child minding service it is about emotional development. While it’s not a structured learning environment, like a school, those that a well organised are better at meeting the needs of a child. And as you’re probably aware, there’s not much profit to be made from the service.

In addition, choice in the sector, is simply mantra. Many parents don’t have a choice, because of poor planning by local governments in providing these facilities. I think family day care is an excellent option, but can be expensive for providers to deliver, because as you’ve stated. they do it for the love of it.

Passionate principal says:

07:09pm | 25/02/11

Following the general stream of the debate, as a long seving principal having 27 years in state schools (NSW) and 13 years in independent schools, I have seen and ‘sat on’ both sides of this fence.  I am currently sefving as principal of a low fee, open enrolment Christian school.  i see the need for a fair distribution of government funds - both state and commonwealth - to all schools.  So what if we have a ‘hybrid’ system of education providers in this country?  If it works then we should be seeing what we can do as a nation and supposedly united people to make the whole system better. 

The devisive nonsense I see and hear does nothing for the education of children.  The reality of state and non state education providers in this nation of ours is a reality which will endure.  Pity the crazy politicians who try to dismantle it!  Let’s cut the nonsense and ensure that all Australian kids get adequate and equitable funding and a chance to do the best they can.

You want a real debate?  Let’s poke a few politicians with the sharp and splintered stick of funding of students with special needs!  Or should we just emulate their inaction over the years and put these poor kids into the ‘too hard’ basket.  Let’s fire up this debate together…it is a national shame.