It would be funny if it wasn’t so predictable. The original opponents of My School - the Greens, State teachers unions, public education spruikers and the like - who at first campaigned against publishing schools performance data claiming it would lead to the stigmatisation of selected schools, have now done a complete reversal.

For the record, those eight digits on the sign are the phone number, not what this school costs the taxpayer each year. Pic: Renee Nowytarger.

Now, their line is that My School confirms what they have said all along - that private schools are overfunded, and that federal funding of independent schools is grossly unfair. From being condemned at first, My School has morphed into a Trojan Horse for tired old positions on independent school privilege and State school disadvantage.

Typically though, what the State education spruikers conveniently ignore is that My School offers as many insights about the fairness of public funding of State owned schools as it does about the traditional public versus private debate.

Simply said, My School bells the cat on how the States have skewed their own funding arrangements - towards their preferred top end selective schools and after that, to the special needs schools at the lower end.

With this mix, it is the local comprehensive school that singularly misses out. Pity those children in State schooling who are not in a selective school or a school with special needs assistance.

The public school lobby would have you believe that schools policy is merely a private versus public construct. As one trick ponies their solution is simple - cut funding to private schools and redistribute it to public schools. But this ignores that the structure of schooling is multi-tiered. We know for example that in the independent schooling is either independent low fee, independent high fee or Catholic systemic. But what of the public sector?

The advent and enlargement of the selective school sector has altered the fabric of public schooling fundamentally. The top selective schools are private school equivalents – their difference being that they are free to users because they are paid by the taxpayer.

Selective schools are promoted because they are the best in class. That much is known. But what is not known is that the State educationalists practice adverse selection of their own - not by price but by supply. By taking the best and brightest students out the system and concentrating them in given selective schools they advance their cause. The remaining schools become residual.

State bureaucracies would like us to believe that public schooling is one and the same, when in fact, the best students are creamed off into selective schools.

It is little wonder that places at selective State schools are so highly sought. A place in a selective school is the equivalent of gaining a top class education without charge - not dissimilar to gaining a prestige university place without paying HECS.

It is little wonder that the system has spawned a cottage industry in private tutoring prior to selective admissions exams. In tutoring their children for entry into a selective school, parents are acting rationally - paying private tutoring fees early in the child’s development to gain a taxpayer funded selective place later. And because the public school spruikers need the selectives as their Trojan Horse, they see no problem with parents coughing up expensive tutoring fees early on - as opposed to paying for them later with private school fees.

Of course, there would be no problem with this approach if the State educationalists funded scarce selective school places on a needs basis, just like they demand from the Federal Government in their funding of independent schools. But they don’t.

Take for example North Sydney Boys High School, which has school socio economic index almost identical to that of Newington College and has 70% of its student population in the top 25% of household incomes. While North Sydney Boys enjoys State government recurrent funding of $8,313 per student, Macquarie Fields High School, in Sydney’s South West,  receives funding of only $7,438 per student.

Similarly, NSW’s top ranking State school, James Ruse Agricultural High School with 66% of its students in the top income bracket, enjoys funding of $8,490 per student while Cabramatta High School, again in Sydney’s South West, receives the lesser amount of $7,861 per student. It is possible to go on. Fort Street selective school in Sydney’s inner west, the alma matter of so many left leaning politicians and members of the legal fraternity, receives the same as Cecil Hills High School in Sydney’s outer suburbs.

Contrary to what the public school spruikers will tell you, My School confirms that education can only ever be seen as a private, public partnership. There is no conceptual difference between a parent aiming for a publicly funded selective school place with expensive private tuition or a parent that chooses to support an independent school directly via school fees and contributions.

Both value private education in some form. And given that State educationalists are not about to put the selective genie back into the comprehensive school bottle, the only way to ensure equity in public funding is to have student centred funding and to allow the market to set public school fees just like what occurs in the independent sector.

There can be no fairness in allowing well-to-do families free ride the selective public school sector at the expense of those less advantaged or the taxpayer. By providing a fixed educational entitlement covering each and every year of a student’s school life, families, irrespective of their income, are in the position to decide the educational mix that best suits their needs.

In a market based approach, public schools would see their price of service reflect their offer to students. Administrators in the high demand selective schools would set a price based on their scarcity and their value add, much like an independent school.

Given their expected added cost of service, student families exercising their entitlement to attend such schools would need to fund the gap from private means. There can be no free ride for those able to afford it.

On the other hand, for students in the residual schools, the price of service can be expected to be lower. Accordingly, any losses of educational value from attendance at these schools could be topped up by families using their entitlements to support intensive private tuition. The combination of student centred funding and public school pricing, improves fairness by ensuring that privileged families in selective schools pay their fair share and those families in the residual schools have access to additional support outside the school.

What is needed in schooling is more market and less ideology. One can only hope that the Federal review of school funding demands as much from the public school sector as the critics demand from the independents.

Alex Sanchez is a long standing ALP member, former Chairman of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils and former Advisor to Mark Latham. He has two children in independent Catholic schools.

Most commented

30 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Nora R Ferguson says:

      06:04am | 14/03/11

      Bob and our party have been saying this for ages.  Why do we need to have private schools anyway?.  Private schools only breed snobbery.  What is wrong with having everyone at an equal footing.  Perhaps if all private schools were closed down and all the money gone into state schools we might be better off.

      As far as ignorant comments that our party is history you are so wrong.  We just say a mass rally held in Melbourne in support of the pollution tax while the other side didnt even rate a mention.  Well like Ive said before   after July you will start to see real change.

      For those who think we are trolls,  then have the guts to come down to our local branch meeting (Fitzroy).  You might learn something

    • Patrick Kelly says:

      06:51am | 14/03/11

      is this comment on the right page? Is the writer on the right page?
      Is the writer even on the right planet?

    • Philthy says:

      07:16am | 14/03/11

      and maybe comrade, we could all wear the same uniforms each day, live in plain concrete dormitories and read only those books allowed by our superiors…...get real

    • L. says:

      08:49am | 14/03/11

      “What is wrong with having everyone at an equal footing. “

      Oh, like communism..??

      Yeah, that has work well for the nations that tried it.

    • Rosie says:

      10:05am | 14/03/11

      Nora we live in a democracy! We all pay taxes therefore all Australian children are entitled to the same amount of money from the Govt. Whether we chose to send them to a Private school and pay fees or State school and pay no fees is you and all our choices.

      While in living in Adelaide I paid big money to live in the wealthy surburb of Glenunga so I could get my children into the Glenunga High School, a state school, scholastically is equivilant to the top Independent schools in some cases better. Look it up on the website!

      Nora, why shouldn’t we as Australian taxpayers who can afford to buy a house in wealthy Glenunga so as to be in the zone of the Glenunga State High School send our children there and pay no school fees?????????? In Adelaide you need to have an address in the zoned areas to all the State schools and live there for at least 12 months to be eligiable.

    • Zac de Spudnut says:

      11:22am | 14/03/11

      Tell me this Nora why do we need to have public schools? Private schools breed snobbery? and your proof is? What is wrong with having everyone at an equal footing.>> did you know parents in Sydney south west are leaving public schools in droves, in spite of government pumping millions of dollars to stem the flow? This is the sort of equal footing and brainwashing in public schools we can live with out. Mind you parents who enroll kids in private and Christian school pay taxes on top of the schools fees. So we will decide where and how we will educate our kids. In the meantime go and hug some tree.

    • John A Neve says:

      04:21pm | 14/03/11

      L,
      Please tell what nation has ever tried giving “every one an equal footing”?

      But back to schools; I don’t care if we have private schools, public schools or the current mix. What I do want to see is FREE education, a basic education that costs parents nothing.
      We talk of rights, but do we really mean what we say?
      Every Australian child should receive an education that enables it to have a quality of life an input to our community and it should be FREE.

    • acotrel says:

      06:24am | 14/03/11

      ’ My School confirms that education can only ever be seen as a private, public partnership.’
      We must keep our snouts in the trough at all costs?  John Howard had the well being of EVERYONE in the community in mind - YEAH SURE!  He would never have started anything as divisive as MySchool . - What you don’t know can’t hurt you?

    • Roddy Sexton says:

      06:42am | 14/03/11

      I hope Nora R doesn’t teach grammar.

    • Zbcustom says:

      06:48am | 14/03/11

      I don’t know the formulae that are used to arrive at the monies being disbursed to individual schools but there looks like a bit of cherry picking going on here. I’ve picked out my local comprehensive and local selective and picked on of the more sought after selectives in the inner suburbs.
      My local comprehensive gets recurrent funding totalling $16,234 per student. A local selective gets $9,981 and another one of the more sought after selectives $9,119.
      The total gross income figures for the three schools are :
      Local Comprehensive :  $17,054
      Local Selective:          $10,846
      Highly ranked Selective:        $11,407

      The highly ranked selective school charges more than double the parent contribution paid by parents at the other two schools.  This is what brings the income up over the local selective.

      It would seem that the ideology may well be a contributing factor but in the opposite direction to that which you perceive. Certainly it would seem that parents are already contributing to the “market based” result that you recommend should be put in place.
      Perhaps a deeper analysis is required to draw the conclusions that you arrive at. I suspect an underlying antipathy to the selective system. Ideological perhaps?

    • persephone says:

      07:07am | 14/03/11

      Firstly, another article which judges the whole of the education system through the prism of NSW.

      ‘Selective’ schools are (to my knowledge, and hey, I am definitely open to correction on this one!) largely a NSW phenomena.

      In Victoria, we have (at most) a handful. There are some schools which offer special streams within the mainstream curriculum for more academic students (the SEAL program) but I don’t think we have ‘sports’ schools, for example.

      Your ‘solution’ seems to be a voucher system. You don’t explain how that will prevent the inherent inequity between a student who’s parent can’t afford the textbooks and the one who can hire private tutors, which (according to your article) is the problem.

      With a voucher system, the parent who has more money to start with will be able to send their child to an even more exclusive school than they were able to before, and the parent who was only able to send their kid to the local will still only be able to send their kid to the local.

      Private schools didn’t build their reputations, after all, by letting any old riffraff in. Charging money gives them the right to exclusivity and they’ll exercise it.

      So they’re not suddenly going to start taking the child who has learning difficulties, or whose mother is strugglng along on the single pension and can’t afford the uniform.

      Such a system would simply lead to making public schools ghettos, inhabited largely by ‘the fish John West rejects’, without the leavening of ‘good’ students.

      Imagine, on the other hand, how public schools could be transformed if parents, instead of spending $10 k a year on private education or individual tutoring, instead donated that money to their local school.

      Vouchers won’t fix the inequity problems you identify, because there will always be parents with more money than others who (quite rightly) want to spend this getting their kids the best education they can.

      And, given that at present private school students receive less government funding per head than public school ones, the vouchers would have to be of less value per head than public schools receive at the moment, which would simply make public schools poorer.

    • Julie Morgan King says:

      07:22am | 14/03/11

      The selective system in NSW is the elephant in the corner in this long winded discussion about equity in schools. Many selectives are in areas where the incomes of families are on average higher than elsewhere. Many of these families spend a fortune getting kids coached to enter the the selective schools, and to stay afloat in them once they are there. Selective schools were Bob Carr’s brainchild, back in the days when NSW state schools were becoming academically substandard, relative to other states. Victoria and other states don’t rely on them to the extent we do, in order to promote results or compete academically with the private sector. Having put three children through the Catholic/private system and watching with rising bile every time the results come out and the public system is heralded as the epicentre of brilliance, why doesn’t anyone point out the bleeding obvious? If the “best and brightest” are leeched out of the comprehensives and further coached to withing an inch of their pocket bursting abilities, why wouldn’t the state system be over represented in the high achievers list? My last child was dux of her school - a non selective private. No coaching, no scholarship, several dodgy teachers and a slack attitude about learning for the best part of the year. Bright kids will make it almost anywhere except perhaps in underfunded, marginalised, forgotten comprehensives (actually some clever kids will even make it there). They are lucky. It’s the other kids we need to worry about. The selective system should never have been allowed. It takes the fairness out of what should be a fabulous public education sector. I should add my decision to educate my kids privately wasn’t about getting the best ATAR score.

    • zbcustom says:

      10:53am | 14/03/11

      Well, if you’ve got some destructive criticism to offer, never let some facts stand in the way. I believe Carr became premier in 1995. He didn’t enter parliament until 1983.
      Perhaps he had some other clandestine influence over the education department prior to that.  But no. Investigation tells us he worked as a reporter for The Bulletin from 1978-83.

      The current system of selective schools was introduced in 1982 but it had its antecedents.
      I don’t believe that there was ever a time when entry to Sydney High School could be gained without passing an entrance test. My father is in his eighties and he always spoke of Fort St as a selective.

    • Nick says:

      11:11am | 14/03/11

      Bob Carr did not invent selective schools. In NSW there have always been some schools based on academic selectivity: Fort Street, Sydney Boys and sydney Girls, North Sydney Boys and North Sydney Girls. The idea of academically selective schools to fulfil a particular role in public education belongs to Terry Metherell and the Greiner Liberal government. They expanded the number of selectives and made admission a state-wide selection process. The aim was to provide learning opportunity for those whose future pathway would take them to further academic study and the professions.

      I presume that those who complain about grouping the best with the best take the same stance in relation to sport or other endeavours. Should all AIS athletes return to their local clubs with their volunteer coaches? Or should they be allowed to continue to learn and achieve amongst others of similar ability?

    • Julie Morgan King says:

      12:25pm | 14/03/11

      The selective system was extended during Carr’s time (1980’s onwards) so that there are now about 30 in NSW and all but a few of those are in Sydney. City kids are advantaged when it comes to these institutions. There has always been several well known selectives: Sydney High Schools, Fort Street etc. My point was to provide context: selectivity in NSW is a hot political issue whereas in other states, Victoria for example, there are only a couple of selective schools, all with long histories like Fort Street. So as an earlier comment attests, this issue is not as hot as in NSW. Here the Education Department hangs its hat on superior academic results from the public sector but omits to acknowledge its extensive and unique selective system as a factor. By the way, re Bob Carr, he is also the reason why we have extension history as an HSC subject. He was a history nut, but obviously didn’t think geography was so important! Yes our politicians make decisions about education, just because they can.

    • zbcustom says:

      01:31pm | 14/03/11

      Excuse me Julie but you said

      Selective schools were Bob Carr’s brainchild

      As regards Bob’s contribution to the promotion of history studies, good on him. The geography curriculum is an absolute disgrace, hijacked as it is, by green, enviro-ideology.
      13 or 14 schools outside the Sydney metro are selective or offer selective streams. 46 schools are listed for the state altogether.
      If you wish to “provide context,” including a sprinkling of the truth would be a useful starting point.

    • acotrel says:

      02:40pm | 14/03/11

      Better to get your kids into a selective school and pay coaching fees for them to keep up, than to have them spoon fed in a private school?  The results speak for themselves!

    • David C says:

      03:35pm | 14/03/11

      please tell me which private school spoon feeds the kids?

    • NSW Catholic Student says:

      07:46am | 14/03/11

      I went to a private Catholic school in NSW .  We accepted non- Catholic students, those with disabilities, learning difficulties and those unable to fully pay fees.  We had also had a ‘sports scool’ just over the border in QLD too.  I’d be interested to see what MySchool says about the price of my education, the quality of my teachers and commentary on the sociology-economic status of my area.

    • Dave-o says:

      08:42am | 14/03/11

      More market based approach? Just like electricity and water? Yep, that’s just what we need, another basic service that we all need turned into a neat asset for the government to throw out into the market to fund some pointless pork-barrelling in a marginal seat.

    • VickiPS says:

      10:25am | 14/03/11

      This single-minded ramble might be valid for NSW, but who cares?  Queensland has one selective high school.  I’m not terribly worried about the curve being skewed.

    • stephen says:

      10:44am | 14/03/11

      At North Sydney Boys High, 70% of students are from families at the top 25% of incomes, at James Ruse High, 66% of students are from the top income bracket.
      If intelligence is supposed to asset our moral code,(which is what educators tell us, and is the premise to this whole argument), then why don’t these families pay for their own education ?

    • Rev says:

      12:23pm | 14/03/11

      @stephen

      Heard of taxes mate?  They’re already paying for it, and paying a premium.

    • Captain Lightbeer says:

      12:32pm | 14/03/11

      If intelligence is supposed to asset our moral code,(which is what educators tell us, and is the premise to this whole argument), then why don’t these families pay for their own education ?

      I’m not actually sure what this means so, presumably you had to pay for your own education. Whatever your point is, it doesn’t sound any where near the premise “to this whole argument.” If you are arguing for the abolition of selective schools, why not say so and put up a case? Quoting socio economic details of a school’s parents proves one thing and one thing only. That parents from those groupings tend to value and foster education more than others.

    • stephen says:

      04:10pm | 14/03/11

      I, for the life of me, can’t think of why Education should be free if we as a Society are more willing to listen to the rich and powerful, and let them influence unduly social and public policy, than the smart and personally involved, e.g. just witness the the outcry from vested business interests to the proposed Carbon Tax.
      If the purpose of Education is to make a smart society, then value ‘smartness’, so that we have in our grasp this Ideal :
      That it is in the interest of all make make Education free and of the highest standards.

      (This is only a valid option, of course, if the extra money the rich will have is not spent only on overseas holidays, and the extra money the poor will get as a lessened tax burden, on more beer and cigarettes.)

      But practically, the argument should not really be about the concept of private education, but one of degree : some private schools simply get too much of Government funds. (And the experiment of private wealth verses public ‘commerce’ is certainly, at times, humorous.)

    • Chris says:

      11:11am | 14/03/11

      South Australia has virtually no special needs schools. I was told privately that this was because they were “too expensive” and that it is “cheaper to mainstream because parents can take on the additional responsibilities for therapy and extra tuition or they can send their kids into the private system”. Need I say more?

    • Mumofmany says:

      02:33pm | 14/03/11

      To throw another spanner into the mix, what about the one education sector that is basically unfunded? Home education.  We save the state and federal governments thousands of dollars for each child we educate at home.  Other countries, like New Zealand, do provide some nominal funding to assist with home education costs.  This helps to cover not just the obvious costs like text books, consumable resources and excursions, but the increased costs of electricity and water (the kids are flushing my toilet and not the school’s!).

      Most home educators are not out there lobbying for money. It is our choice for our families, and we are too busy teaching our kids to get political!  But to follow the argument that usually comes up - we are taxpayers too!

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      07:03pm | 14/03/11

      Just extend the HECS system to secondary schooling (both public and private). Problem solved.

    • Lachlan says:

      08:36pm | 15/03/11

      The teachers unions were never outright opposed to the idea of a schools website, only the first version of it that was flawed.

      The AEU’s submission to the federal government actually recommended all the changes that the government is now doing. You could have found this out within 5 minutes if you’d don something as basic as dig around the AEU website.

    • kil says:

      12:58am | 16/03/11

      Public education in NSW is too focused on the selective system, really? I did not notice .... Also, all the of the selective schools in Sydney are in the better parts of the city so for any working class student, theres a long commute to be had.

      I went to one of the middling schools - one of the better ones with sizable annual contributions, and many students opting for after hours coaching. Anyhow,  no need for MySchools, everyone in Sydney already knows which schools in their region are crap.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

RT @HeatherSmithAU: Can living in another country change your life for the better? by @lucyjk on @newscomau f. moi http://t.co/E5Ma3kBut2

David Penberthy

@mooks83 sophisticated response. Think the kids parents saw it differently

David Penberthy

More class from 9's footy show, lampooning a baby that allegedly looks like Sterlo with a pic swiped from Facebook http://t.co/BGoYP6Pn68

Lucy Kippist

A story that's close to my heart - can living overseas change your life for the better? With thanks, @Alisa_reduxhttp://t.co/n6tksJstqs

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