Treasurer Wayne Swan’s attacks on wealthy miners and his clarion call to mount the barricades is clearly a strategy to reenergise the party’s true believers in the face of impending electoral defeat.  And it’s not just mining, expect education to be added to the list.

Picture: Ray Strange

That the ALP government is embracing such a strategy, to convince rusted on voters and a sceptical electorate that it does believe in something more than simply holding on to power, spells trouble for non-government schools and an education system weighed down with cultural-left ideology and a statist approach to public policy.

The government’s response to the Gonski review of school funding is soon to be released with the education minister, Peter Garrett, promising legislation in this session of parliament. Modelling carried out by non-government education authorities shows that many Catholic and independent schools will lose funding.

That non-government schools will be discriminated against is proven by the fact that whereas wealthy government schools will be free to raise funds locally, such as school fees, without losing government funds, non-government schools will be financially penalised.

Unlike the current socioeconomic status model due to expire at the end of 2013, where the level of funding to non-government schools is set independently of funds raised by schools, the new model will be based on “parents’ capacity to pay” and all non-government schools, affluent or not, will be expected to contribute a minimum of 10 per cent from local funds.

In addition to losing financially, non-government schools are also facing increased government regulation and control that will compromise the autonomy and flexibility schools currently have and that help explain why such schools are so sought after and so successful.

Whether a national curriculum, national testing, national teacher certification and registration, new compliance regulations or linking funding to schools implementing government anti-discrimination polices in areas like staffing and enrolments, the reality is that all roads lead to Canberra.

Faith-based schools will be forced to teach a secular curricula in areas like history and English that view everything through a politically correct prism of indigenous, Asian and environmental perspectives and that undermine the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage and the debt owed to Western civilisation.

As a result of documents like the Melbourne Declaration, a road map for all school systems endorsed in December 2008 when ALP education ministers were in the majority, faith-based schools will no longer be able to discriminate based on religious beliefs when deciding who the enrol and who they employ.

Imposing quotas and positively discriminating in favour of so-called disadvantaged students for tertiary selection are other examples of the Gillard government’s drive to re-establish its cultural-left credentials.

Instead of merit and ability, and in an attempt to overcome the perceived advantage non-government schools have in relation to getting students into university, the intention is to pressure universities to
enrol greater numbers of at-risk students from disadvantaged schools who might otherwise miss out because of poor marks..

It shouldn’t surprise that the ALP government has identified education as a key battleground to prove it’s still the party of the working class.  It also shouldn’t surprise that Julia Gillard, as Prime Minister and education minister, is keen to prove her commitment to socialist ideals like equality of outcomes and equity for all.

In her maiden speech the newly elected member for Lalor identifies ex-Victorian premier and member of the socialist-left Joan Kirner and Aneurin Bevan, the Labor minister responsible for nationalising the British health system, as her mentors.

Gillard, after bemoaning the fact that students at “a very exclusive ladies college in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne” outperform students in her electorate in the western suburbs of Melbourne promises to “seriously tackle the inequality of opportunity that exists in our education system”.

Repeating the cultural-left mantra that success or otherwise at school is determined by socioeconomic background, and not ability, motivation, effort or in-school factors such as teacher quality, Gillard argues that the “students from my electorate are not any less intelligent than those from Higgins or Kooyong” and that overcoming inequality in education will be “one of my priorities in politics”.

Ignored is the Australian research that socioeconomic background only explains 30 per cent of the variance of between tertiary entry rates for government and non-government schools and that more important are factors like classroom discipline, school culture and having an education system based on competition, diversity and choice.

In an attempt to assuage the fears of non-government schools about the impact of the Gonski funding review Julia Gillard, as education minister and now Prime Minister, argues that no school will lose funding and that funding will be indexed.

Significant is that in a 2008 interview, while education minister and when pressed, Gillard admitted that such guarantees only applied to the existing SES model and not to what might take its place, post 2013, when she states, “No, no, our commitment (is) very, very clear.  It is for the next schools funding quadrennium, for the next four yearly agreement”.

Most commented

112 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:46am | 16/08/12

      So…what…the gravy train is stopping?  I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at.

      I see you mention a faith-based school will no longer be allowed to discriminate on the basis of their belief systems - yet fail to explain why that’s a bad thing.  I also see you mention requiring parents to opt into the education system if they want more than the government can provide.  Surely people right of the political centre aren’t complaining about a user-pays model?

      Education should be our nation’s #1 priority, I give you that, and many of the things I’ve seen as my daughter enters high school make me cringe too.  We should provide our children - all children, from all walks of life - exceptional and world’s best education systems.  I am not confident we are doing that.

      But this?  This is just a mess of things, and to me flies in the face of everything conservatives say they believe in.

    • emmy says:

      07:13am | 16/08/12

      @mahhrat   you want to discriminate on your faith-less and belief-less system yet you will not afford others the same privilege.

    • Little Joe says:

      07:18am | 16/08/12

      Gravy train???

      I take it that you haven’t gone through the Myschool Website and seen how much money private schools save Australian State Governments ...... State Governments receive a lot of money from the Federal coffers allowing them to do so.

    • wakeuppls says:

      07:29am | 16/08/12

      “I see you mention a faith-based school will no longer be allowed to discriminate on the basis of their belief systems - yet fail to explain why that’s a bad thing.”

      I would assume the whole lack of freedom of choice in private schooling becoming illegal would be common sense.

      “We should provide our children - all children, from all walks of life - exceptional and world’s best education systems.  I am not confident we are doing that.”

      Who is “we”? You’re responsible for your child’s education. Really, by “we”, you mean “everyone should be forced to pay into a scheme that they may disagree with and/or not take advantage of”. Do you still not see the moral argument for this falling flat on its face?

    • FlyOnTheWall says:

      07:34am | 16/08/12

      Given the private schools contributors’ pay the lion’s share of income tax relative to the public system, and that they already get way less funding per head than public schools, I’d say, leave it the %*$ alone!
      If you want a user pays system, then pull ALL school funding, not just schools you’re ideologically opposed to.

      In Victoria, somewhere around 50% (can’t recall the exact figure, but it’s incredibly high)of kids are in non-government schools.
      I went to government schools in NSW, one was OK, the other (Sydney’s inner west) was terrible.

      Nothing is surer, and more obvious, than the approaching war on private schools from this hateful, class war waging, rabble of a government.
      The “response to the gonski review” will be all about increasing funding for public schools, and because there’s no cash left, they’ll pull funding from private schools to pay for it. It’ll just be one more broken promise, added to the ever-growing list of things this lying pack of weasels have done to break trust with the voting public.

      An election cannot come soon enough, this place is going to the dogs, and will take 10+ years to get things straightened out, 50+ years to pay off the debt!

    • Big Jay says:

      07:42am | 16/08/12

      @Mahrat - I picked that up too.
      “faith-based schools will no longer be able to discriminate based on religious beliefs when deciding who the enrol and who they employ.”

      As a receiver of public money why should a faith based school be able to discrimate in these areas (I’m presuming he’s referring to things like religion, sexual preference, and marital status)???

    • gobsmack says:

      07:59am | 16/08/12

      “non-government schools are also facing increased government regulation and control that will compromise the autonomy and flexibility schools currently have and that help explain why such schools are so sought after and so successful”

      Fair enough.

      You want the government handouts then you tow the line.

      You want to operate independently, then don’t expect the government to pay.

      I would hate to see my taxes subsidising some nutters brainwashing children with “creation science” and other nonsense.

    • dovif says:

      08:51am | 16/08/12

      Mahhart

      Do you know what you are talking about?

      I think every child should be given the same level of funding by the government, no matter what school they go to. That is the fairest system of all.

      Why should a person be discriminated because their school is religious or their school is better performed then other school

      And this is the conservative model, give everyone the same oportunity and if some school are better performed, they will be able to charge a higher prices, which is the market system at work

      The progressive seem to have no clue and no idea, with the only capability is to stuff things up

    • andye says:

      09:19am | 16/08/12

      @dovif - “And this is the conservative model, give everyone the same oportunity and if some school are better performed, they will be able to charge a higher prices, which is the market system at work”

      there is a significant amount of socialism in your “conservative” model.

    • Joan says:

      09:29am | 16/08/12

      Gillard just pursuing her Maoist Stalinist philosophy for Australia, - muzzle press, ban brand and reduce everyone to lowest common demominator the Gillard bland level. The kids at State schools and Gillard electorate do as well as their parents expect of them - simple as that.

    • Mahhrat says:

      10:00am | 16/08/12

      @emmy:  Don’t put words in my mouth.  If you want public funding in a secular democracy, keep your faith out of it.  That includes fundamental atheism.

      @Little Joe:  I have no issue with private schools.  I don’t mind the idea of funding provided per student, with a “private” school offering “more” for extra expense.  My argument is that all schools should already be providing the “more” anyway.  There’s nothing more important than our kid’s futures.  Nothing.  Not health, not justice, not anything.  One of my criticisms of this government and this plan is they deliberately seek to limit our children’s education outcomes, because dumber people are more easily led.

      How is it possible that in our first-world country we have to import knowledge and skills?  We should be importing minds and training them here!  It’s exactly the sort of high-end, first-world services that a small country like Australia should provide the planet.

      @wakeupppls:  I have no issue with schools teaching extra-curricular activities, but they should not teach religion (except as a study of history) on government largesse, not while we are in a secular democracy.  If you want a faith-based education for your children, you pay for it, but it stays separate to the funded systems.  You can call it “Sunday School” if you like.

      As for the moral argument you’re failing to make, these kids will be the ones supporting us in our dotage.  We have a massive obligation to ALL children in our society, not just the ones we make ourselves.  There is no morality is pulling up the ladder because you’re safely on board.

      @FlyOnTheWall: I’m not ideologically opposed, I’m constitutionally opposed.  We are a secular democracy.  We are not a theocracy.  Your argument only has merit if you provide the same funding to any school, regardless of their religion, because how do we judge what religion is more valid than the next?

      There are too many religions.  You cannot fund them all.  Thus, you fund non (including fundamental atheism, as I’ve said above).

      @dovif:  If your idea had the outcome of providing the same opportunity, then I would agree with you.  The problem with that model is it assumes everything else in a child’s life is equal.

      I have been incredibly fortunate that I had quality parents who raised me well, if not wealthily.  There are rich parents who do nothing to raise their children but provide a nanny.  There are farmers who teach their children life skills at a young age, providing wisdom and competence far beyond their years, and then there are generational welfare cases, who cannot even look after themselves, let alone their kids.

      Each of those sets of children need different things and different funding if you’re going to provide “equality of opportunity” to them all.  That’s why different schools need different funding.

      You cannot simply give every child $100 at the fair and expect them all to have the same amount of fun.  Just because you and I are on the ladder, doesn’t mean everyone else can’t be - they just need a little more (or less!) help than we got.

    • Mahhrat says:

      10:00am | 16/08/12

      @emmy:  Don’t put words in my mouth.  If you want public funding in a secular democracy, keep your faith out of it.  That includes fundamental atheism.

      @Little Joe:  I have no issue with private schools.  I don’t mind the idea of funding provided per student, with a “private” school offering “more” for extra expense.  My argument is that all schools should already be providing the “more” anyway.  There’s nothing more important than our kid’s futures.  Nothing.  Not health, not justice, not anything.  One of my criticisms of this government and this plan is they deliberately seek to limit our children’s education outcomes, because dumber people are more easily led.

      How is it possible that in our first-world country we have to import knowledge and skills?  We should be importing minds and training them here!  It’s exactly the sort of high-end, first-world services that a small country like Australia should provide the planet.

      @wakeupppls:  I have no issue with schools teaching extra-curricular activities, but they should not teach religion (except as a study of history) on government largesse, not while we are in a secular democracy.  If you want a faith-based education for your children, you pay for it, but it stays separate to the funded systems.  You can call it “Sunday School” if you like.

      As for the moral argument you’re failing to make, these kids will be the ones supporting us in our dotage.  We have a massive obligation to ALL children in our society, not just the ones we make ourselves.  There is no morality is pulling up the ladder because you’re safely on board.

      @FlyOnTheWall: I’m not ideologically opposed, I’m constitutionally opposed.  We are a secular democracy.  We are not a theocracy.  Your argument only has merit if you provide the same funding to any school, regardless of their religion, because how do we judge what religion is more valid than the next?

      There are too many religions.  You cannot fund them all.  Thus, you fund non (including fundamental atheism, as I’ve said above).

      @dovif:  If your idea had the outcome of providing the same opportunity, then I would agree with you.  The problem with that model is it assumes everything else in a child’s life is equal.

      I have been incredibly fortunate that I had quality parents who raised me well, if not wealthily.  There are rich parents who do nothing to raise their children but provide a nanny.  There are farmers who teach their children life skills at a young age, providing wisdom and competence far beyond their years, and then there are generational welfare cases, who cannot even look after themselves, let alone their kids.

      Each of those sets of children need different things and different funding if you’re going to provide “equality of opportunity” to them all.  That’s why different schools need different funding.

      You cannot simply give every child $100 at the fair and expect them all to have the same amount of fun.  Just because you and I are on the ladder, doesn’t mean everyone else can’t be - they just need a little more (or less!) help than we got.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      10:04am | 16/08/12

      Ha ha I suffered terribly at the hands of an East London Council infected with the Loony Left.

      At Loony Left school no one failed.

      You could turn in any shit to teacher and she would give it a mark and wonderous words of encouragement. Of course it meant there was no pressure to learn, rewards were available for no effort too.

      We had ‘Non Racist Maths’ where we learned fractions and percentages, but the explanatory examples were always evil capitalist exploiters trying to rob us of ‘what percentage of cake?’

      We would have to wait until everyone understood the lesson. In the East End at that time, English was the second language.

      In games and physical education nobody lost and nobody won. If a team looked like beating another, the Leftie teachers stopped the game and broke up the teams until the score evened out. When we played football in an inter borough competition, our school got hammered by scores like 14 nil.

      Lucky for me my Mother intervened. She described the schools program as ‘Nonsense’ and explained how her child would be competing for jobs against children who had had a ‘proper’ education. The school was flabbergasted because in their dream world, black people were on their side and they were doing this for them. In reality, my Grandfather had come from the West Indies for a better life, one that offered opportunities based on ability and desire, not a shared collective of dummies dependent on leg ups. My mother shared my Grandfathers vision, She not only moved me out of school but we all moved from East to West.

      I went to University, those of my old school Buddies I still know live in high rise social housing and dig holes for road repairs, or ....

      Working class, Black and from a broken home, thanks to my Mothers ‘elitist views’ that led us out of Leftie boundage and into the land of competitive challenge, I have Post Graduate Qualifications, own my own home and have been self employed for 6 years. That would not have been possible had we stayed in East London and continued with the Loony Left.

      Aussie kids won’t be able to compete globally with a Loony Left approach to development.

      There, they reason for my profound distrust of Labor, it’s ‘what lies beneath’. And it sounds like it is ready to emerge should they succeed at the next election.

    • Mad One says:

      10:21am | 16/08/12

      @dovif.

      The problem with such a system is that the people with the means to pay for a better quality of education for their children will thus be able to do so, while those children with less wealthy parents will have to make do with less funding.

      This then starts off a perpetuating cycle where the wealthy will gain all the opportunities and will thus grow wealthier, while those without the means to achieve this level of education get increasingly shut out.

      Really this whole piece is someone crying about the government wanting to place restrictions on what non-government schools can do with government money, while at the same time also deciding that government schools should indeed get more funding to make up for the fact that their students invariably are from lower socio-economic backgrounds and are already disadvantaged.

    • wakeuppls says:

      10:31am | 16/08/12

      @Mahhrat

      The moral argument I failed to make was the one where it is morally wrong to expect someone to pay for your child. You compounded this disconnect from reality by admitting you also have no problem enslaving future generations to providing for you in your old age instead of relying on yourself, your friends and your family as any responsible adult is expected to do.

    • Little Joe says:

      10:47am | 16/08/12

      @ Mahhat

      Health is more .... you can’t teach a classroom full of children that have the mumps too much. But throwing money at children who live in environments that do not respect education will not change anything. (See my list below)

    • Stop the Labor Gravy Trains says:

      11:49am | 16/08/12

      Mahhrat,

      Lets get one thing straight, the only gravy train in education in Australia is in the government secondary selective schools and government based schools in well to do areas.  These parents are typically very well off and they get a government funded free ride on their childrens education.  This is not fair.  Who hasn’t spoken to a person who sends their children to one of these schools and they point out that because they don’t have school fees they can now afford to take their children on an overseas holiday every year or so.

    • Stan says:

      12:23pm | 16/08/12

      While you’re at it, why not means test and “belief” test access to taxpayer funded health care services and the courts.
      For pity’s sake, people make all kinds of spending decisions based on personal belief and preference in conjunction with concurrent taxpayer support.  It’s all about freedom of choice.
      Private schools charge fees over and above the taxpayer contribution and still there are not enough places. Why? Go figure!

    • Fiona says:

      06:38pm | 19/08/12

      Flyonthewall is exactly right. If all parents pull their kids out of private schools and shove them all into Government schools, two things will happen. One taxpayers will need to foot an even higher education bill and two, the Government school capacity will not cater for the influx of all these kids. Parents that send their kids private do everyone a favour. Time the lefties and the bitter-and-twisted stopped attacking them.

    • Super D says:

      06:55am | 16/08/12

      Fortunately it won’t take long to undo any of the last ever ALP governments actions.

    • Little Joe says:

      07:10am | 16/08/12

      So you think that we will be able to pay off the Government’s $500B worth of Total Liabilities in a short time?? I wish I was that confident!!!

    • Come on Elections says:

      10:01am | 16/08/12

      @ Little Joe,
      You’ve now ruined my day, I thought is was around $350B!!
      I hope you’re wrong but suspect you’re right….......

    • Thunderoad says:

      10:56am | 16/08/12

      What’s another $150 billion between conservative friends? Facts be damned.

    • Little Joe says:

      11:04am | 16/08/12

      @ Come on Elections

      Sorry…. but you know I am right!!!

      Refer
      2012-13 Budget
      Statement 9: Budget financial statements
      Table 2 (2015-16 Projections)

      http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst9-01.htm

      Too bad you won’t see any of these figures published in the media ..... I actually wrote a counterpunch story after the 2011 MYEFO .... stories like that simply do not get published in Australia.

      Sucks to be me!!! I live in Queensland also. After almost 20-years of Labor presiding over the largest mining boom and land boom in Queensland’s History, we have a debt running at $65B (that’s after selling $15B worth of assets) and looking down another $4B deficit this year.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      01:32pm | 16/08/12

      @Little Joe, I’m a little lost here, to me debt/credit means the money left over once you remove liabilities from income. Now looking at the revenue - liabilities from the tables you provided, the debt is actually $137.78b not the $500b you are stating. In fact you are stating the Government’s financial liabilities which is $487.17b, however if we then look at what portion of that is interest bearing borrowings: $280b. The remaining $207.17b is in fact what gets paid to Government workers, etc.

    • Little Joe says:

      02:49pm | 16/08/12

      @ PsychoHyena

      Look harder .... I did state Total Liabilities (2015-16 Projections).

      Net Debt is different ..... but please note that Labor’s Election Budget promised Net Debt of $90B by the end of 2011-12 ..... now Swan’s estimate is $142B!!!

    • Anne Voter says:

      03:53pm | 16/08/12

      Which you inflated to 500 billion.

      Cute.

    • Little Joe says:

      04:30am | 17/08/12

      @ Anne Voter

      $500 billion it is what it is!!! Just because you choose not to understand how a balance sheet works ...... nor understand a budget ......

    • M says:

      07:01am | 16/08/12

      “Instead of merit and ability, and in an attempt to overcome the perceived advantage non-government schools have in relation to getting students into university, the intention is to pressure universities to
      enrol greater numbers of at-risk students from disadvantaged schools who might otherwise miss out because of poor marks..”

      Derp.

    • Babylon in Canberra says:

      10:16am | 16/08/12

      In the Loony Left vision of development you take Usain Bolt and the Lalor Lard Arse and train them together. Bolt waits for Lard Arse to catch up.

      Competition is removed, those of ability are suppressed rather than pushed to excel in their obvious talents, or worse still, those with ability lose a place for someone who has only half the potential.

      In Leftie Loonieville, We never see Usain Bolt win the 100 and 200 twice in a row.

    • jade (the other one) says:

      11:01am | 16/08/12

      The intention is to pressure universities to examine students’ capability to succeed, not base it simply on marks.

      The reason for this is simple - while state school students are less likely to attain university entrance, they are OVERWHELMINGLY more likely to complete a degree. Privately educated students are more likely to attain a place at university, but are on a per capita basis, much less likely to complete their degrees.

      This shows that the current private school system is failing to prepare our students appropriately for their future. It’s only natural to expect universities to take those students who are actually going to finish the degree the government is subsidising. Anything else would be a waste of taxpayer dollars, wouldn’t you agree?

    • Timmy says:

      02:13pm | 16/08/12

      Jade,

      This is because most public high schools are “survival of the fittest”.

    • jade (the other one) says:

      02:42pm | 16/08/12

      @Timmy - regardless, statistically state school students far outstrip their private school counterparts in completing degrees - the far more meaningful measure of success in comparison to simple university entrance. Therefore, they are the more successful entity, statistically speaking, and private schools should be subject to investigation to find out why they are failing their students.

      Taxpayer dollars should go to the most successful system, in this case, statistically that would be the public system. Isn’t that what private school advocates claim in the face of NAPLAN and Year 12 results? Clearly they are just not looking far enough ahead for a measure of true success.

    • emmy says:

      07:05am | 16/08/12

      I don’t think it is a “private school” verse state school stoush, I think it is a “christian school” verse state school. This Govt is loaded with Emily listers and atheists.

    • Coal Train says:

      09:27am | 16/08/12

      As an Atheist, I have to point out, we don’t hate Christian schools, most Atheists I know went to a Christian/Catholic school, myself included. Just because it’s a school of one of the monotheistic faiths doesn’t mean they force the bible down your throat, they accept who you are and what you do or don’t believe and get on with giving you an education.

      Don’t bring us into an argument of Govt vs Christian schools, we have nothing to do with it

    • Sickemrex says:

      07:59pm | 16/08/12

      I went to a Catholic school, had an excellent education, learned about evolution, thoroughly enjoyed my Year 12 Systems of Meaning and Belief RE elective, and mass was often quite lovely. No-one seemed to mind that I hadn’t believed in god since I was 13.

      Ok, now I’m off to my secret socialist, feminist, atheist puppy eating meeting. Same sex marriage is tonight’s topic.

    • Little Joe says:

      07:07am | 16/08/12

      One day people are going to realise that it doesn’t matter how much money you throw at a child’s education. It will never help children who are raised in an environment where -

      1) Their peers celebrate grades of “C-”.
      2) Their school celebrates sporting achievement .... not academic achievement
      3) It’s OK to dump on teachers at school
      4) High academic achievers at their school are physically assaulted
      5) Anti-social behaviour is a major commitment in their life. And when caught stealing, assaulting or destroying peoples property the Left-winger rant that it is all society’s fault, which in turn is blazed across the media and reinforced by minimal court sentencing ..... all to be celebrated with their peers outside the courts.
      6) Their parents do not respect schooling and studying.
      7) Missing 50% of school days is apathetically condoned by their parents.
      8) The only education they get from their parents is how to get the most out of Centrelink.
      9) Drinking at the local park is their weekly social high point.
      10) When caught by the Police, the Police are threatened, sworn at and spat on!!!
      11) When driven home, their parents threaten the police, swear at the Police and spit on the Police, yelling “My child would never behave like that!!!
      12) Most family outings consist of going to a club, where their parents drink, smoke and play pokies.
      13) They go home and sit on facebook for hours.
      14) They spend more time playing sport than on homework.
      15) For much of their walking-life they hold a phone perpendicular to their hunched body with a wire feeding noise to their cerebral cortex.

    • Sickemrex says:

      06:00pm | 16/08/12

      You live near our local High School too?

    • Red says:

      07:11am | 16/08/12

      Good. While I’m a Liberal voter it disgusts me to see the government funding Catholic schools. I want greater separation of church and state. Especially when the Catholic church is one of the world’s richest institutions- a bit of a hide asking for money from taxpayers. If you want a private education use your private funds to pay for it. Watch “Class of” on Ch10 to see where government funding should be focused.

    • wakeuppls says:

      08:01am | 16/08/12

      Yeah, and get government regulation out of private schools as well. Then the private schools might actually be viable. Leave the students that will be left in the dust behind the endless red tape of public schools.

    • emmy says:

      08:08am | 16/08/12

      Good thinking Red…... and when all those god damned catholics take their children out of their system and put them in the Govt school system we will all be better off. Especially when our taxes rise to pay for the extra cost on the Govt system. As I said, Red you are a bloody genius

    • Fiddler says:

      08:41am | 16/08/12

      what is ignored is that yes, the Government does provide money to private schools, but it’s a hell of a lot less per student than public schools, (taking into account both State and Federal funding). The difference is made up by the parents.

      Attacks on private schools (I went to a public school) are idiotic attempts at class warfare.

    • PeterH says:

      08:41am | 16/08/12

      So you’d be happy to see your taxes rise to cover the additional costs the Government will incur when students currently attending Catholic schools (and receiving much less Government funding than public school students) flood back to the public system?

    • Dash says:

      09:10am | 16/08/12

      Or church of England Schools, or Jewish schools, or Muslim schools, or Mormon schools!!!

      Why pick purely on the Catholic schools?

      The fact of the matter is that the Government needs private schools because the state system can not cope without them. And the “richest” private schools in Sydney are not the Catholic ones. Your comment seems to be based on religious prejudice.

      A childs education is not worth more just because their parents don’t pay school fees!

      Perhaps we should close private schools and see how the public system copes?

      And you seem to forget that most of the Catholic teaching orders were formed to help the underpriveledge and the poor gain an education. Take a look at the founder of the DeLaSalle order and the work done for the poor by them for over a century. Many catholic schools also waive fees for families that are under financial stress.

      You cannot compare the Kings School or Barker (both non catholic) to DeLaSalle Revesby or St Patricks Marist Dundas.

    • Angie says:

      10:22am | 16/08/12

      Too right Red!!

      PETER H, over the past two years there has been a flood of ex Catholic school students to public schools due to their ‘open-classroom’ policy….our local primary school has seen over 80 new enrolments (excluding Kindergarden) due to these new intiatives. Funding comes in all guises and the tax exempt status of the church is one such funding initiative which is often overlooked.

    • Arthur says:

      07:21am | 16/08/12

      That’s where they’ve hidden Garrett. I’m looking forward to the show.

      Has it ever occurred to these left wing idiots that students in private schools aren’t using the public system therefore saving government money?

    • stephen says:

      07:34am | 16/08/12

      Just yesterday I read that teachers are being blamed for poor student attendances in classes because they do not know how to handle badly behaved kids, as if teachers should adapt themselves to the whims of malicious and troublesome students at the expense of the general conditions of a classroom.
      If Headmasters demand that teachers adapt to every type of classroom situation then standards are being dumbed down ; it is better for the role and the behaviour of a Teacher to be static, and that a student body conform to a norm which is good for everybody.
      Especially troublesome students may have to attend a special school that is a type of correctional centre ; not as punishement, though, but as a remedial position where a student, who is for whatever reason continually disruptive, can get the best education under circumstances which may favour him/herself more.

    • M says:

      08:00am | 16/08/12

      I really feel sorry for teachers these days.

    • M says:

      08:00am | 16/08/12

      I really feel sorry for teachers these days.

    • Ted says:

      07:47am | 16/08/12

      Yawn, the Catholic education system’s old warrior drivels on again.

      I want my child indoctrinated with my religion during school hours at taxpayer expense!

    • Tim says:

      11:31am | 16/08/12

      Hmmm,
      and you’ve replied with uninformed drivel of your own.
      Private schools have to teach to an approved curriculum to receive government funding. They don’t just get to teach whatever they want.

      The only indoctrination is teaching kids to have values and respect other people. Something you’re clearly lacking in.

    • Mark says:

      04:07pm | 16/08/12

      I’m an atheist and I would rather send my child to a catholic school over a public school any day. The quality of the education is far more important than the possibility that a child would be exposed to religious teachings (Shock horror).

    • Ian says:

      08:03am | 16/08/12

      I send my kid to what the media would call ‘an exclusive North Shore private school’ and have had it up to here with well-off parents whining about funding, pretty much all of these schools are rolling in public and private cash. Just check the real estate sales around each school, where the schools are snapping up property to use for offices and future expansion. Anyone who has the first clue about the business world would tell you that David Gonski is pretty much the smartest business guy in the country, with no ideological axes to grind, and it is shameful to see politicians who should know better bag him out to score cheap adversarial points.

    • Al says:

      08:16am | 16/08/12

      I think the Government may find that they will have a number of issues regarding “faith-based school will no longer be allowed to discriminate on the basis of their belief systems” in regards to employment and running the school.
      They will need to not only introduce new legislation but will also need to modify the Fair Work Act 2009, all of the Anti-Discrimination Acts (both state and Federal) and would still likely be able to be chan;llenged in the courts.
      This is because these legislations PERMIT a buisness that is run along the lines of a particular faith can disriminate on the basis that it would not be in line with the tennents and religous principles that the organisation is run under.
      If they do make these changes then guess what, a christian church can be taken to court for refusing to hire somone who has professed to hold a religous belief that ‘All Christians must die’ and be convicted of discrimination. Or for refusing to conduct a ceromony for a homosexual couple as homosexuality is against their beliefs.
      In other words it sounds good, but will not happen due to the long reaching effect of bringing in legislation and altering legislation to allow it.

    • dibatag says:

      08:27am | 16/08/12

      Well said Little Joe could not agree more

    • thatmosis says:

      08:32am | 16/08/12

      Once again this almost Government tries to gain the populous vote by attacking the presumed ‘wealthy” part of town. Ho Humm, more of the same old divide and conquer routine we have become used to by this struggling almost Government to whip the rusted ons into a frenzy of letter writing and protests.
        It really fun trying to work out the next failed strategy of this almost government and would make a great board game with the name something like “Policy Failures” or “Last ditch Attempts” or “Julia’s Folly’s” or “How to Lose Government after One Term”. Fun for all the family, take the part of the PM and put out failed policy after failed policy, be the first in the game to get the Get out of Jail free card to stop you being incarcerated because you were young and naive, or the Le to the People card which will allow you to lie directly to the people before an election but change your mid after to actually gain power, or Swann trying to convince the people that the Budget will be in Surplus whilst fiddling the books furiously and losing in the end, or Bowen telling us that the Labor Policy on Asylum Seekers is the right one but have a special committee shoot you down in flames and all with an unlimited credit account that others have to pay for as you lose billions daily.

    • fml says:

      08:37am | 16/08/12

      Kevin Connelly, are you saying that catholic schools should be able to discriminate, but not the government? So the government should be paying you for the privilege to discriminate?

      I say, if you want to get public funds then you adhere to public rules, otherwise raise all the funds you want and then do all the discrimination you want.

      All this reeks of manifest destiny. Why should the government prop up a failing ideology brimming to the rim with discrimination, inappropriate touching of kids (They should teach that history in school, since you dont like PC) and that is quickly falling by the way side.

    • Tim says:

      11:36am | 16/08/12

      Ah typical of FML to have no idea what he’s talking about.

      The schools only get funded on the amount of students they have so why should they have to accept everyone? And I’m guessing that you don’t apply the same rules to government selective schools. Oh woe, they discriminate against stupid people.

      To get public funding they have to teach to a government approved curriculum. They can decide who comes to their school based on their own values and they only get money for the amount of students they have. I don’t know what could possibly be wrong with that considering the amount of money they save the taxpayer.

    • wakeuppls says:

      11:43am | 16/08/12

      “All this reeks of manifest destiny. Why should the government prop up a failing ideology brimming to the rim with discrimination, inappropriate touching of kids (They should teach that history in school, since you dont like PC) and that is quickly falling by the way side.”

      You mean like leftist universities with a wealth of scholarships that exclude White male Australians? Too right!

    • fml says:

      11:51am | 16/08/12

      ummm

      “The schools only get funded on the amount of students they have so why should they have to accept everyone?” ummm, they dont have to accept everyone? They can be selective according to grades or area, but not faith. why should the government pay for them to discriminate?

      “Oh woe, they discriminate against stupid people.” That’s right, because schooling should only be for the clever. Charming.

      “And I’m guessing that you don’t apply the same rules to government selective schools” Government schools are selective on area, not religion. The author is calling for active discrimination, unlike you most of the world can figure out why it is irresponsible for the government to pay faith schools to be discriminating.

      “I don’t know what could possibly be wrong with that considering the amount of money they save the taxpayer. ” The tax payer is still paying for the discrimination. Do you get it? or do you still need me to explain?

      “To get public funding they have to teach to a government approved curriculum.” Exactly, so why is the author complaining about what they are able to teach or not, you cant have it both ways, get government funding and then complain that you are being forced to adhere to a curriculum.

      No Idea what I am talking about hey?

    • fml says:

      12:27pm | 16/08/12

      wakeuppls

      “You mean like leftist universities with a wealth of scholarships that exclude White male Australians? Too right!”

      What the hell are you on about? Sure there are some scholarships aimed at the poor demographics because, well they need it. But I can guarantee you NONE of them excluded the white australian male.

      Dont you guys every get tired of making shit up?

    • Tim says:

      12:32pm | 16/08/12

      FML,
      government selective schools are selective on grades hence my comment on “discriminating against stupid people” comment.

      Why is discriminating on intelligence OK for government schools but discriminating on faith not OK for private schools? They are trying to instill certain values in their students, people who don’t fit within those values should and can easily go somewhere else. The school only gets funded on the students they have so this shouldn’t affect anything.

      The taxpayer pays less for students who go to private schools. They save the taxpayer money.

      The author is talking about further controls to the curriculum. Other than the current base subjects and curriculum the government should allow all schools a measure of autonomy. The current model of regulation is the reason they are so successful. Why try to restrict the curriculum further?

    • Ando says:

      01:02pm | 16/08/12

      I think it has little to do with religion at the end of the day. I went to a catholic school and a large percentage of students and their families were simply pretending to be practising catholics. What they are paying for is to be separated from the percieved distractions in the public system which is responsible for educating most of the at risk students. I’m sure there a many practising catholics who cant afford private education. It is resonable that those choosing private education pay some of the cost for this privlege.
      I see it as similar to the private health care rebate. It must be acknowledged that there is a tipping point at which any saving from reducing private school funding would actually have a negative impact on the capacity of public schools to educate the masses.

    • fml says:

      02:06pm | 16/08/12

      Tim,

      “Why is discriminating on intelligence OK for government schools but discriminating on faith not OK for private schools?”

      Because they are getting public funds from a secular institution.

      Getting public funds comes with certain stipulations, you get centrelink you have to follow rules, this should be no different.

      “The current model of regulation is the reason they are so successful. Why try to restrict the curriculum further? ”

      Because the purpose of schooling is to get an education, the government is putting money into the system, so they have a right to expect a certain standard of student to be produced.

    • Tator says:

      03:47pm | 16/08/12

      My son attends a mid sized mid fees Catholic School.  His school does not discriminate against anyone as only about half his class is actually Catholic.  There is a mix of Middle Eastern Muslims, African Muslims, Asian Buddhists and Asian Hindus as well as non Catholic Australians.  I found this out when the school ran their Catholic First Reconciliation ceremony and less than half the class was involved.  So in other words, we have a Catholic school class where Catholics are actually the minority.  Go figure.

    • Pioneer Stock says:

      08:45am | 16/08/12

      Both my sons attended Catholic School my choice and a very good choice may I add, I paid their school fees and paid my taxes which mostly go to Govt. Schools, so are the Labor Govt going to reimburse me or the parents who know have their children in Private schools, of course not and we dont expect it. Please get off the Catholics back, I dont think anyone has the guts to knock Islamic schools, even when they rip off the system, too bloody gutless. If anything is mentioned about a minority group all the dogooders are up in arms but dont worry if their Christian its open slather. Cheers

    • andye says:

      09:29am | 16/08/12

      @Pioneer Stock - “If anything is mentioned about a minority group all the dogooders are up in arms but dont worry if their Christian its open slather. Cheers”

      Why do conservatives whine constantly even as they are exercising their right to free speech? Is your problem that there are a bunch of “dogooders” who have a different opinion that they are allowed to voice?

    • The Razor says:

      08:55am | 16/08/12

      When Rudd came to power Julia Gillard wanted the education portfolio, that was up until her B.E.R scam became such a rip off that she dropped it to distance herself from it. Gillards strong union connection, left wing ideologies, and her atheist views were perfect to target our school kids, a virtual breeding ground for future Labor voters. It’s a criminal disgrace the way Labor has destroyed our heritage and history, what they did not count on was that most of our kids, apart from the Greens sheep, think that the lefty teachers pushing Labor’s ideological crap, are a JOKE ! ..... The real question is, will Abbott show some intestinal fortitude and do something about it by bringing back our true heritage and history in the schools ?

    • Jayel says:

      05:10pm | 16/08/12

      @Razor. I can’t comment on the other attributes, but JG’s atheist views have been nowhere to be seen. She’s best mates with the Australian Christians Lobby’s Jim Wallace, agreeing to be the keynote speaker at that organisation’s national conference; has pumped more funding into the chaplaincy program (total amount spent since its inception on this program is approaching half a billion dollars - would this have been better spent on the actual education being provided in public schools?) and had legislation ready to go to ensure its continuation when the High Court ruled it unconstitutional. Not bad for an atheist…

    • andye says:

      09:07am | 16/08/12

      Article: “Faith-based schools will be forced to teach a secular curricula in areas like history and English that view everything through a politically correct prism of indigenous, Asian and environmental perspectives and that undermine the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage and the debt owed to Western civilisation.”

      OH NO! NOT A POLITICALLY CORRECT PRISM!

      What exactly should we teach about indigenous history? Perhaps a lesson on how the Tasmanian aboriginals are all actually OK, they just went to live on a farm somewhere with a nice family where they have lots of room to run around? Oh, and its too far to visit.

      What is the “politically correct” asian view? What is the view that is being suppressed?

    • Little Joe says:

      11:17am | 16/08/12

      Or are we going to teach people about canibalism, infanticide and genocide, and how Tasmanian Aboriginals sold their women to white men ..... and when the missionaries came to ‘save them’ the aboriginal women refused to leave because they knew how women were treated in their aboriginal society.

    • andye says:

      11:51am | 16/08/12

      @Little Joe - “how Tasmanian Aboriginals sold their women to white men ..... and when the missionaries came to ‘save them’ the aboriginal women refused to leave because they knew how women were treated in their aboriginal society.”

      If there is actual evidence that those things happened and they are significant to the history, then yeah.

      I am not sure your interpretation is correct, though. From what I have read, women and men were loaned out to teach the whites how to hunt in various deals. Later, some women were sold as hunters and others were sold into marriage. Some tribes attacked other tribes to get women to sell and other times they sold their own.

      The sealers also kidnapped women and killed men in doing so. The white sealers, along with their aboriginal women also attacked other whites. Some black women stayed because they wanted to, some were prisoners. There are stories of extreme brutality against the women by some of the white sealers and stories of previously willing women attacking the sealers in escape attempts.

      Your comment “the aboriginal women refused to leave because they knew how women were treated in their aboriginal society” is exactly the kind of historical revisionism you ostensibly say you are against. To say things are that simple is ridiculous and only serves to push your narrow point of view.

      In the end, though the Tasmanian Aboriginals are all gone. Extinct. That is also part of our history. Have you got any other stories about how they deserved it?

    • Little Joe says:

      02:30pm | 16/08/12

      @ andye

      Lets open our eyes for a moment .... there is a possibility that Tasmanian Aboriginals are not extinct!!!! But this is an argument that would be better provided by the Tasmanian Palawa Aboriginal Community.

      Yes there is no doubt of the effect of the War between the Indigenous Tribes and White Settlers, but at the time of settlement it was estimated that the total indigenous population was only 12,000. As soon as a settlement was established there would have been little hope that the indigenous population would have survived introduced diseases ..... similar to what happened in the Carribean Islands.

      Needless to say there were attempts to save the Tasmanian Aboriginal with settlements in the Bass Straight. All efforts were too late.

      But, as usual, you appear ignorant of other genocides ..... that were indigenous on indigenous ...... well documented accounts of how Aboriginal Police from one tribe “moved on” neighbouring tribes. Similarities can be drawn between the Ashantis who were complicit in the West African Slave Trade.

      But there is no better example, in my opinion, of planned, ruthless genocide than what occurred in 1863 when the Badulgal went to Moa Island (Torres Strait) under the guise of a peace treaty. When the Badulgal rolled out their mats they drew out their hidden swords. All but two Moans were murdered.

      As for evidence of infanticide and cannibalism .... if you haven’t read about the cultural acceptance of the practices in Australian Indigenous Cultures then you are reading the wrong books.

      The books ..... note books, not just one ..... that I read about these subjects are often over 100 years old. So there is no possibility of ‘re-writing’ history which is the norm for modern writers.

      I offer you one, if you are interested, for your reading.

      http://ia600407.us.archive.org/17/items/cu31924028645467/cu31924028645467.pdf.

      You will note the sarcasm of the author towards Governor Arthur’s attempt to corral the aboriginals. It is this style of writing in the 19th Century that provides the reader with confidence in what has been written. 

      Stay safe.

    • Coal Train says:

      09:56am | 16/08/12

      What’s with all the Atheist hate today? Last I read this was about school funding, not about the ‘Evil Atheists’ destroying everything even slightly religious so we can shift to a socialist society.

      I’m an Atheist and I support Catholic schooling, because, and especially where I’m from the kids who go to private and Catholic schools are almost always the ones who end up playing for 1st grade sporting teams, getting into uni with ridiculously high entry scores. Of course there are a few rotten apples, there is in every school but public schools here rarely see their students attend uni, tafe maybe, but not uni.

      I say this from observation, I got picked on more at a public school for being smart, athletic and Atheist then I did going to an ‘elitist Catholic school’

    • Emmy says:

      11:34am | 16/08/12

      Tell the Labor Govt

    • Red says:

      10:07am | 16/08/12

      That is a really frightening thought “.. bringing back our true heritage and history in the schools.” When was the last time you were in a school? And btw before you revise history the BER is an outstanding success! Every school I go to lauds what they got through the and it helped save us from the GFC. I’d better get these thoughts down before “true history” is promulgated.

    • stevem says:

      10:13am | 16/08/12

      “Gillard, after bemoaning the fact that students at “a very exclusive ladies college in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne” outperform students in her electorate in the western suburbs of Melbourne promises to “seriously tackle the inequality of opportunity that exists in our education system”.”

      That statement says it all. The word “outperform” is a disgraceful word to use. Gillard should lament the fact that the school in her electorate UNDERperforms. Complaining about over performance suggests that her solution will drag down the high achievers rather than boost the lower achievers.

    • Anne Voter says:

      10:26am | 16/08/12

      “Attacks on wealthy miners”  Nice bit of spin, that.

      In actual fact he didn’t attack their welath, as such.

      What he did was firmly rebuff their shrill bully-boy threats as they tried to buy influence for their self-interest.

      Good on him.

    • Margie says:

      10:29am | 16/08/12

      Should funding be cut to non government schools, close down all those schools immediately and then let the Government see what it costs them financially. For a start, they would have to spend billions in building new classrooms,  & have to employ thousands more teachers. Non Government & faith based schools save the Government BILLIONS in fees etc. every year.  Let’s get real here.

    • Margie says:

      10:30am | 16/08/12

      Should funding be cut to non government schools, close down all those schools immediately and then let the Government see what it costs them financially. For a start, they would have to spend billions in building new classrooms,  & have to employ thousands more teachers. Non Government & faith based schools save the Government BILLIONS in fees etc. every year.  Let’s get real here.

    • Margie says:

      10:29am | 16/08/12

      Should funding be cut to non government schools, close down all those schools immediately and then let the Government see what it costs them financially. For a start, they would have to spend billions in building new classrooms,  & have to employ thousands more teachers. Non Government & faith based schools save the Government BILLIONS in fees etc. every year.  Let’s get real here.

    • Jayel says:

      10:55am | 16/08/12

      Everyone should go to the MySchool website and do a little research into the funding of public and private schools. My simple search showed that the private school my child attends receives around $5000/child from the government (state and federal combined), while the state schools I checked ranged between around $12,000 - $15,000/child. The private system and the parents who are willing to fork out the required fees appear to save the government a lot of money. Should funding to these private schools be reduced with a subsequent significant increase in tuition fees you may see an outflow of students from the private schools into the public system which could possibly negate the extra funds pumped into that system anyway.

      Having said that, I have a problem with any government funding going to faith-based schools which are still allowed to discriminate in their employment practices, etc. As a non-religious family, this is a major reason (along with the opportunities provided by the school and the excellent academic record of the school) that we have dug very deep into our pockets to send our child to the only secular private school in our city, which also happens to be the most expensive.  If faith-based schools want to continue to receive public funds, they need to operate in a secular manner. Yeah, I know, pigs will fly first.

    • Angie says:

      12:54pm | 16/08/12

      That is heartwarming Jayel. Perhaps we could be privvy to all the other sources of funding your childs school receives. Maybe it is from returns on investments or property. What about the massive tax exemptions claimed by private education providers. Perhaps the tax benefits should be factored into your calculations….

    • Jayel says:

      01:27pm | 16/08/12

      Hi Angie, Glad you found it heart-warming, although I’m not sure why. If you can point me to a source that backs up your assertion about massive tax exemptions for *non-religious* private schools I’d be interested to see it and happy to factor it into my thinking. I’m aware that faith-based schools (and any other business that comes under a religious banner) get considerable tax exemptions (that’s probably one reason that my child’s secular private school fees are a lot higher than most, but not all, faith-based schools), and that is something, as a secularist, I am opposed to, especially given that they still remain exempt from anti-discrimination legislation. I’m not sure why you’d have a problem with non-religious private schools generating funds from property and other investments which they’ve managed to accumulate; are you saying generating funds to provide a good education is something to be prevented? It sounds like you’re saying the government shouldn’t fund them and they shouldn’t be allowed to find other ways to make up the shortfall, but I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve misunderstood you.

    • BruceS says:

      10:59am | 16/08/12

      Thank you Kevin for an informative article. It seems to me that the non-government schools are the only ones that give the governments, value for money. Without them you are left with an unaffordable and downward spiral in standards, as proven in the UK and US. Leftist Theorists should be banned, like cigarette packets.

    • Mainstream says:

      11:11am | 16/08/12

      “A very exclusive ladies college in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne”

      Can we stop calling Australian private schooling ‘exclusive’?

      30% of Australian children are privately educated. This is not exclusive. This is balls out, full on mainstream.

      If you want exclusive you have to go to the UK where only 7% of kids are privately educated.

    • Anne Voter says:

      11:53am | 16/08/12

      Mainstream? A “very exclusive ladies college” is mainstream? That’s just spin.

      The GPS schools and their ilk are a set apart from your suburban private school.  You know it. We know it.

      “Mainstream” Kings in NSW costs from $25,000 to $40,000 (for boarders)  a year. Many of us live on that.

      “Mainstream” PLC Melbourne? Up to $30,000 - tuition only.  Mainstream? For goodness sake.

      Tricked up Intellectual dishonesty, that is. Pah.

    • Richard M says:

      11:54am | 16/08/12

      Oh, please, give me a break.  Some private schools are “exclusive” in the sense that they charge very large fees that the vast majority of people can’t afford, like buying a large yacht, or a mansion in Vaucluse.  That means they are literally “exclusive” because they exclude people who can’t afford their massive fees, which is most people.  The fact that they might fund the odd scholarship doesn’t change that fundamental fact.

    • Mainstream says:

      01:17pm | 16/08/12

      Australian ‘private’ schools only exist in the mind of the payer. Paying for school here means you have to enter into monty pythonesque discussions about who paid what, where and how. You can’t out-run the Australian class system of the biggest dollar wins.

      How many tiers of private education do you want? Gold, silver and bronze?

      30% no matter which way you spin it’s still mainstream and appallingly third rate compared to the UK.

    • Anne Voter says:

      02:14pm | 16/08/12

      Spin and deceit.
      You made a false comparison. You have been found out.

      Now you want to shift your ground.

      Deceitful. Contemptible.

    • Richard M says:

      11:37am | 16/08/12

      I notice that the Punch is giving more and more space to more and more frantic attacks on the PM and the Government, like this load of utter biassed rubbish.  Just perhaps, the right-wing media such as this site are getting just a little bit concerned that, as the election gets closer, voters are, perhaps for the first time, actually starting to contemplate the real possibility, even probability, of Abbott becoming PM and not liking much what they see under closer scrutiny.  For example, perhaps quite a few voters might not like the prospect of people like Kevin Donnelly having a big say in education policy, the result of which would undoubtedly be a serious decline in the funding of our needy, all-inclusive public schools in favour of more for private schools, as under Howard, only worse (especially given Abbott’s religious affiliation).
      Am I detecting the first note of slight unease in the increasingly shrill tone of the plethora of anti-Government propaganda on this site?  Perhaps, an Abbott victory is not quite as absolutely guaranteed as had been previously thought - better step up the attacks!

    • Number Cruncher says:

      01:49pm | 16/08/12

      Wow @ Richard, clearly you do not check in every other day when we are assaulted with Mal Farr and Mark Kenny peddling their government propaganda!

      It is the Labor rusted ons becoming shrill as they realise it really is all over and they have been living in a land of deulsion for nigh on 4 years.

    • Richard M says:

      03:52pm | 16/08/12

      You cannot be serious, Number Cruncher!  Mark Kenny?!  You need treatment.  Does your brain hurt all the time, or just when you try to think about politics?

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      12:14pm | 16/08/12

      “…… wealthy government schools will be free to raise funds locally, such as school fees, without losing government funds, non-government schools will be financially penalised.”

      What a joke - there are no “wealthy Government schools” - they are all owned by state governments.  As the author well knows they are not separate entities that can ‘hold wealth”, any generated ‘profit’ (joke) moves to the state government).  This statement is obviously misleading.  No doubt the intention is to try to make public and private schools appear the same.  OBVIOUSLY this is not the case - as private schools are private businesses (that’s why they are called PRIVATE schools!) whereas public schools are a public service provided by the state.  Public schools cannot accumulate wealth - private schools can (either in their own right or for the ‘religious’ entities that own them - which brings up the whole idea of businesses receiving government funds and not paying tax, I’d love the government to pay my client’s fees while I don’t have to pay tax - I’d be rich then too!).

      “Ignored is the Australian research that socioeconomic background only explains 30 per cent of the variance of between tertiary entry rates for government and non-government schools and that more important are factors like classroom discipline, school culture and having an education system based on competition, diversity and choice.”

      Another misrepresentation - the author purposefully omits levels of funding or access to funds by the school (as opposed to parents) - which OBVIOUSLY has repercussions on levels of discipline, school culture etc (try to implement something without the funds to do so!!!).

      “….Faith-based schools will be forced to teach a secular curricula….”

      So the author wants the government to dole out huge amounts of cash so that “faith based” schools can do what hey want with it - without accountability?  And they say the ‘home insulation” fiasco was a waste of money??  It’s peanuts compared to this!  If the government is paying a private business to provide an education - it has every right (indeed it is obligated) to guarantee an education is given by that private business!

      This is also tantamount to gifting ‘religious’ organisations monies to spread their doctrines - oh wait, that’s what the “chaplaincy program” is for …….

      All in all, yet another exercise in dribble from a perspective of self interest by this author.  Heavy on unsubstantiated ‘conclusion’ and supposed premise.

      By the way, we all hear the phrase “catholic and independent schools”.  Could someone name an ‘independent’ school that does not have a link to a ‘religious’ entity?  I put it that the term itself is deceptive.

    • P. Darvio says:

      12:27pm | 16/08/12

      Quote from Author: “Faith-based schools will be forced to teach a secular curricula in areas like history and English that view everything through a politically correct prism of indigenous, Asian and environmental perspectives and that undermine the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage and the debt owed to Western civilisation”


      Shock horror – teaching children the truth - that would be a change – meanwhile Abrahamic Faith based schools are teaching Children about Dinosaur Ark Theory, at tax payers expense, and costing the tax payer $30 Billion+ a year and these militant religionists are trying to force upon out secular children this militant religious con job at our under funded secular democratic schools with the illegally funded “Chaplaincy Program” – which is nothing more than an attempt by militant religionists to shove down the throats of our children even more Dinosaur Ark Theory.

      Some Christians are stupid enough to call Australia a “Christian Country” based on this nonsense of “Jedeo-Christian heritage” – what a load of crap. One only has to look at the most Christian State on earth to see what Australia would be like if it actually was a so-called “Christian Country”

      There is a horrific example of what Australia would look like if we were a “Christian Country” in that:

      1. Women are not allowed to Vote
      2. Women cannot be elected as the Dear Leader
      3. Women are forced to wear a Christian headdress
      3. No Democratic Elections are held within the State to elect its “Dear Leader”
      4. The “Dear Leader” is elected by a small select group of Men, who wear funny robes, in a Communist Polit Bureau Style of selection, and they send up smoke signals to announce the selection of its Dear Leader.
      14. No Sex is allowed
      15. All citizens of the State must be Virgins
      16. No Children are allowed to be citizens of the State
      17. The sole purpose of citizens of the State is to worship the “Great and Dear Leaders”
      18. The State doesn’t pay any tax – so other Governments are forced to prop up this regime.
      19. Mass rallies are regularly held where its Citizens of the State and followers worship the “Great Leader” and “Dear Leader” using banners, bits of timber and lambs.
      20. During these mass rallies the “Dear Leader” looks down upon his citizens and followers.
      21. The State doesn’t accept refugees – NONE !
      22. The defence forces of State are from another Country

      I mean look also what this “Christian State” is doing to that “Vatileaks” Hero in the Christian Vatican State – he was arrested and then put in a Vatican Dungeon for a couple of months and is to be tried under BIBLE LAW by Vatican Inquisitors.

      http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/08/13/i-saw-evil-and-corruption-popes-butler-says-he-leaked-papers-in-bid-to-get-church-back-on-track/

      What a joke. The Prime Minister and others in the Human Rights community should be screaming about this, not funding Dinosaur Ark Theory Schools.

    • P. Darvio says:

      01:52pm | 16/08/12

      I should also add if Australia was a so-called “Christian Country” we wouldn’t have an Olympic team because the most theocratic Christian State on Earth doesn’t have an Olympic team, nor does it have a World Cup Soccer Team either – so forget about Gold Medals or World Records – Australians would just have to watch Christian Vatican TV all day – it would be like North Korea.

    • Dash says:

      12:45pm | 16/08/12

      Yet another exercise in wealth redistribution from the sections of our community creating it and paying taxes, to that section of our community destroying it and contributing little if anything.

      If you work hard and are successful, the ALP has a massive target on your back. Yet if you are as dumb as dogshit and pay little if any tax - here have some money!

      More lefty socialist bullshit from this government!

    • andye says:

      02:06pm | 16/08/12

      @Dash - “Yet another exercise in wealth redistribution from the sections of our community creating it and paying taxes, to that section of our community destroying it and contributing little if anything.”

      So public school students are worthless and contribute nothing?

      What was that about class warfare again?

      Hypocrite.

    • Big Jay says:

      02:07pm | 16/08/12

      @Dash - I’m not sure why wealthy people would be particularly worried about efforts to increase funding to public education (even if it some of it is at their expense). I can understand complaints about cash handouts to people to spend on whatever they like (eg. pokies) and cash to union-heavy industries like automotive mfg, but surely education for all is worthwhile?

    • PsychoHyena says:

      04:40pm | 16/08/12

      @Dash you’re right… those bloody wealthy people who run the multi-national companies pumping pollution into our air and water and soils. Those wealthy people who grow stronger off the backs of gamblers, smokers, drinkers. Those wealthy people who try to sack and pay their workers less in order to get big financial bonuses at the end of the financial year.

      The wealthy are the people destroying our communities while contributing little while the poor are the ones giving something back to the community by doing volunteer work with neighbourhood houses and community centres.

      The day I see James Packer in a St Vinnie’s donating his time to provide customer service to those his casinos feed off, will be the day the world ends.

    • willie says:

      12:57pm | 16/08/12

      “a very exclusive ladies college in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne” outperform students in her electorate in the western suburbs of Melbourne
      “students from my electorate are not any less intelligent than those from Higgins or Kooyong”
      Is gillard sure. I assume the eastern suburbs of Melbourne are a rich area. This would suggest only children with rich parents live there. Now there has to some kind of correlation between intelligence a wealth doesn’t there. I know most smart kids have smart parents.

    • dick j says:

      03:54pm | 16/08/12

      The problem with private schools generally doing better than public is genetic.

      Smart parents pass on their smart genes to their children along with height , body type, eye and hair colour etc.

      Smart parents generally tend to have better jobs and earn more and can afford to send smart child to private school.

      Really smart parents with really smart children have a choice private or state selective.

      Is is fair that a billionaire to send his or her child to a government school for free?

    • Matt says:

      04:12pm | 16/08/12

      Catholic schools should receive 0 funding. This is on account of being discriminating, and also teaching disgusting perversions of science, logic and reason in the classroom.

      How can you reasonably teach children about evolution, or even economics, when you believe people can walk on water and a man came back from the dead?

    • vox says:

      09:42pm | 16/08/12

      Thank you Matt.
      It’s about time reason came into being. These idiots, like Abbott, who believes in the sky-fairies really worry me.
      Could someone of importance please advise me why a bloke wanting to be P.M. believing in the advice of a non-existent person should be the deciding influence in the economy of our Nation?
      Come back with your explanation, it would be appreciated.

    • vox says:

      10:04pm | 16/08/12

      Matt,you are so right. This miserable excuse for a journo is pushing his own religous bike. There is no such thing as education as it is preached, (yes, preached), in a Catholic School,
      It is not education, it is brainwashing, given to we young children as an order to obey. Thankfully I was well advised to not listen to the suggestion that virgins could give birth, and that someone could come back to life after being dead for three days or that anyone could live, after death for a few thousand years.
      Seems a bit silly, doesn’t it?

    • John says:

      12:32am | 17/08/12

      Religion is truth, Aliens created humanity, they came down from the heavens. Mary was taken up on spaceship and seeded with the almighty god’s DNA. Jesus DNA is like the administrator account of a computer. But the entire universe is his dominion. This is why he rose from the dead and walked on water, he is creator of all atoms and controls every single one of them. Technically Jesus could wipe out everything if he pleases, the roman empire could of easily been wiped off the face of the earth if willed it. Caesar was a mere cockroach and Pilate had no idea who he was dealing with. Water to wine was easy as. Almighty GOD didn’t decide to be all powerful, but a humble man walking the streets, helping the poor, the rich and his detractors.

    • John T says:

      06:51pm | 16/08/12

      “part of the socialist struggle for equality, participation and social change, rather than an instrument of the capitalist system”. Joan Kirner.

      “The Communist Manifesto stands in a class by itself in Socialist literature. No indictment of the social order ever written can rival it. The largeness of its conception, its profound philosophy and its sure grasp of history, its aphorisms and its satire, all these make it a classic of literature, while the note of passionate revolt which pulses through it!”
      Aneurin Bevan

    • Craig says:

      05:04am | 17/08/12

      Fund children equally as a base, then modify for funding from other sources and disadvantage, based on the children & families at the school, not the socio-economic characteristics of the local suburbs..

      Any dollars paid as a fee to schools reduce the amount a school gets on a 1:1 basis, just as people earning while on pensions get benefits reduced when working.

      And legislate to prevent schools from overcharging for ‘excursions’, school uniforms and supplies that disguises fees paid to schools.

      What’s hard or unfair about that model? We simply have to decide on the level of payments based on disadvantage, so schools can balance the difficulties some students bring to the classroom.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter