Smashing the myths about private school funding

Phil says:

09:27am | 02/08/10

Rosie

Completely agree. I send my daughters to a private christian school in Sydney. It is probably not the best school in Sydney, but on the basis of location close to home, the values and teaching I am more than happy.

What all the jealous labor voters dont realise is that if parents who currently sent their children to private schools decided to stop and send them to the state system that system would collapse and the financial burden would be massive to the government probably 10 billion dollars extra per year. They will counter that with all the extra money they can afford better facilities, not the school we send our kids to, yes Kings, Newington etc but not ours. However most with the narrow minded view dont think that to pay $25,000 plus a year per student for a top school, the parent is saving the country money, plus paying a great amount of tax on that money. As I say jealousy will consume you.

That Mr Abbott has realised our contribution and is giving a tax deduction for some of the expenses is welcomed, but would not change my decisions on what school I send my children to based on this or another policy. Given the popultion growth and anticipated growth, not many new state schools are being built.

My wife and I make sacrifices to send our children and have done since pre school to great institutions, cause I believe that its not so much a better education, but a set of morals, benefits, discipline and in my case a better chance that drugs in the playground will be minimal in later years. I will do the drug education stuff with my daughters, and having worked in establishments (nightclubs) where they were rife, I have a pretty good knowledge to impart in this area.

Economist says:

10:08am | 02/08/10

Phil your figures are wrong. The subsidy actually costs the tax payer $2.6 billion. You’re assuming that the government actually bans private education and choose to ignore the fact that there are parents willing to pay regardless of the cost.

Like you protecting my children from becoming drug addicts is a key as I too have seen their destrcutive affects. However you are deluding youself if you think that private schools don’t have drug problems or problems with crime etc. Just hope your kids hang out with decent peers.

Basically what you are paying for is an increased probability of your children being safe from bulling as there is more accountability as the private education sector can expel students and send them to the public system.

However, Dr Donnelly is not arguing accountability and ways to improve education, he’s arguing funding by creating his own myths about the savings. Dr Donnelly bascially want the Catholic education system to receive more funding.

acotrel says:

10:32am | 02/08/10

Private school fees should be tax deductible.  Private schools generate citizens who support everybody else in the community, and if they get wealthy doing it, the wealth tickles down to the dole bludgers.

Muttley says:

11:23am | 02/08/10

Tax deductable Acotrel? Ridiculous. You want a private education, then you pay for it. Although nice of you to allow some of the wealth to “trickle down”. Very generous M’lord

Baal says:

12:16pm | 02/08/10

I have had alot of fun as a kid,I survived. I had fun with drugs and saw the downsides. It is my own personal experience that will allow me to help my children make an informed choice. That is what you all fear, that your children will make choices that you will not like, so you try to control them rather than make them strong. My children, my kind are the future of this race, and once you children are free of your controlling grasp they are welcome to join us.

Gregg says:

12:39pm | 02/08/10

In the context of the article and post you have replied to Economist, your post is just so weird and you certainly better find yourself a more descriptive name, perhaps Scatterbrain I could suggest ot just Scattermatter.
I only ever attended public schools btw as did two daughters who both got reasonable enough educations to see them through tertiary studies and in to professional careers.

Economist says:

01:05pm | 02/08/10

Gregg, what’s the point you are trying to make or do you just like being derogatory? Clearly the public education system failed you and not so much me.

Phils points were without private education it would cost the tax payer some 10B more and that private education is better because of the values and his kids are less likely to be exposed to drugs. 

My point was, as demonstrated further down, that subsidising private education costs the tax payer ($2.6B) as we are subsidising people who would make the choice regardless of the subsidy. It called demand. My second point was sending your child to a private school does not guarantee your child will not be exposed to drugs, but is likely to reducing bullying because they have the ability to expel. All pretty straight forward really so what’s your point?

Peter says:

02:46pm | 02/08/10

Every student’s parents should be given an education voucher that they can spend at any school. That voucher entitles you to a 100% government funded school or can be used as a contribution to go to a private school. At least parents can have a choice…

Georginorx says:

03:14pm | 02/08/10

Peter! Yes! That is the best, BEST idea I’ve ever heard in this whole debate. I am embarrassed that I didn’t think of that before.
The voucher comes to the full value of each year of a child’s education in the public system, and it is the parent’s choice whether they put that voucher in to public or private schooling.
Too bad a lot of private schools with a lot of political influence don’t agree with an even distribution of public funding.
Peter, we need to start a petition or something for that system.

Peter says:

03:25pm | 02/08/10

@ Georginox, i would have thought the voucher system would be a windfall for private schools, so im not sure why they would object.

With public schools at least they can then really start competing for students through best practises, rather than having a captive audience due to where a child lives…

Im not sure if you taking the piss or not because i don’t get praised for good ideas on The Punch, but i have been advocating that one for years. It just makes sense to me..

Georginorx says:

04:14pm | 02/08/10

@Peter
I was worried it would sound a bit sarcastic, but it was meant to come off as enthused. I am enthused about this idea!
I can’t find any consistent statistics for how much public funding a private or public school receives per student, but you know I can’t think why anyone would be opposed to this system.
It is reasonable to expect education to a certain standard would be publicly funded (for various economic reasons) - we might need to put a lot more public funding in for this system. It is reasonable to expect that the level of funding would not discriminate against any child.
Country schools might suffer because they can’t reach metropolitan economies of scale so we would need some extra regional education funding I think..
Private schools that receive the voucher would have to meet at least the same curriculum and grade requirements of the public system I suppose.
And I’m sad that people don’t suport each other’s good ideas more often. It makes for such a mean spirited debate. Good ideas tend to be ignored in favour of picking out weaknesses in other people’s arguments, and thanks to the internet there will always be a tonne of bad arguments and flawed logic. I’m glad that we’re talking about it though!

Richard says:

07:43pm | 02/08/10

Peter and Georginox~ I’ve also advocated that voucher system for a long time now. It was devised by the economist Paul Zane Pilzner in 1989 and, once fully implemented, would allow free market forces to introduce innovation into the education industry organically in a demand-driven manner.

However, one crucial aspect of the scheme must be mentioned. In Pilzner’s example, each pupil is entitled to a $5000 tuition voucher. The voucher is valid for use in any accredited public or private school selected by their parents. The school would then redeem the voucher from the government for an amount between $2500 and $7500, depending on how much the student learned that year relative to the average learned by all students in the system (the total cost to the state would still average $5000 per student per year).

He also goes on to make caveats for students with disabilities and from lower socio-economic demographics (eg. Aboriginal children) by proposing that the value of the vouchers issued to these kids should be much higher in value to provide an economic incentive to get the best result in these difficult cases.

I highly recommend anyone who realises that the free market is not evil, merely a tool that can also be used for good purposes, and is the only way to organise resources in an efficient and effective manner that leads to increases in productivity and innovation and decreases in cost, to read chapter 9 of the book ‘Unlimited Wealth’ by the aforementioned economist.

Charles Kelly says:

07:56pm | 02/08/10

Peter, I’ve been promoting the idea of a “flat rate per student” voucher system for quite a few years now (since Mark Latham’s attack on private school funding), and not surprisingly, all opposition comes from the whingeing left. I’ve even suggested that the system could be means tested, but that’s still not good enough for some. As far as some people are concerned, they want everything their way, and they want “the rich” to pay for it.

Rich says:

12:00am | 03/08/10

@economist

Sorry mate, you’re dead wrong.

To suggest that parents who send their children to a non-govt school could afford to cover an additional $2.6B in fees if the ‘subsidy’ were removed defies logic.

Price elasticity of demand actually means that as prices rise the demand falls. Or in other words, that there are many parents who make significant sacrifices to send their kids to these school. These working families don’t have the capability to pay more.

Or are you so blind that you think that everyone who wants to send their kids to no-govt schools can afford to do so?

Georginorx says:

12:44pm | 03/08/10

@Richard
Thanks for the info, it’s the research I haven’t been bothered to do #’.’#
But now I can reference a proposed system that accounts for all the potential flaws etc. I’ll have have a read of it sometime.

Fiona says:

03:39pm | 06/08/10

This is one of my pet peeves - so much so that I emailed the review of school funding committee recently to add my voice to the argument. My daughter gets sent to a private school. It costs us a lot. We have to go without so that she can go there so we ain’t rich. It’s a choice we have made because the local state school has disastrous academic performance. Below average on NAPLAN across pretty much everything. Petitions signed by parents to get rid of the principal. You name it, it’s happening at the local school. So we’re zoned for that - to go elsewhere means we must go private. Now, the parents at the local school, they get to go to Europe for holidays and drive European 4WD cars. That’s because they spend $400 per year (thereabouts), thanks to the taxpayer. So, I don’t bleed the system (you don’t want to know how many thousands it costs me), and somehow these unionists think that I should be penalised further? How much more can the take? They need to get a grip on reality.

Geoffrey Tobin says:

04:31pm | 06/08/10

I like Peter’s voucher idea.  It’s been floating around Canberra for decades, but never implemented.

One concern, though:  will parents accept responsibility for choosing the school?  Or will the government be blamed for “wasting billions” on the voucher scheme because some parents chose badly?

iansand says:

08:22am | 02/08/10

This epitomises the argument against funding for private schools.  It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Sally M says:

08:23am | 02/08/10

So some parents choose to spend their hard earned dollars on their kids education. They choose to do more than the state provides.

And you think that this is a bad thing?

Private school kids are getting more, because of the sacrifices of their parents, in the order of thousands of dollars. And before somebody delivers a huge diatribe on how rich all the private school children are, consider the huge sacrifices many parents make to allow themselves the choice of school. Also consider that rich parents send their kids to public schools too.

Your alternative is a race to the bottom.

KH says:

09:27am | 02/08/10

I love hearing the bleating about how hard you are doing it - but I don’t think you can claim to be that poor when you can afford to have the choice, even if it is ‘hard’ and requires ‘sacrifice’ - I assume you aren’t living in a cardboard box, or not eating.  For many, there is no choice - even if they wanted to, they simply don’t have the means to pay for private education - they can barely afford to live.  Their dollars are no less hard earned than yours, and in many cases, harder - they just can’t stretch it that far.  That doesn’t mean their children should be treated with contempt, which is the only conclusion I can draw looking at some of the schools around Melbourne.

My argument here is with the simplistic view of funding mentioned in this article - it isn’t just the government spending.  Churches are largely tax exempt,  rake in millions from the people who are members of them, and have accumulated property over the last 200 years in prime locations,  not to mention their army of ‘volunteers’ they don’t have to pay; private schools have hefty private donations and the revenue from fees.  None of this was mentioned here, implying that the poor private schools are scrounging away on far less, which is nonsense.

David C says:

09:34am | 02/08/10

as is so typical with Labor/unions its all about the polictics of envy as opposed to the politics of aspiration.

Steely Dan says:

09:55am | 02/08/10

@ Sally M

Of course parents are entitled to spend what they want on their children’s education.  And parents of children in state schools frequently do the same thing - private tutors are not uncommon.

The state should be ensuring all children receive an adequate education.  The state should also ensure everyone has enough money to eat.  I don’t protest when those unable to work are given welfare payments and I’m not.  I can provide for myself, so the state shouldn’t (and doesn’t) top up my salary.

The same rule (should) apply to education.  Those who need it should receive funding (through their educational institution) and those who don’t need it shouldn’t be using state funding to put a heli-pad on top of the new boat shed.

Brendan says:

09:57am | 02/08/10

I am aware of several private schools fees in Brisbane, both primary and secondary. They are nowhere near the bloated 15-20K you mention; less with sibling discounts! My son’s school fees including camps, music tution are around 8k per year (he was previously at a school whose fees were less that 6k!). A total funding level only marginally more than the total funding for public schools. The facilities are significantly better that most public schools - and they have maximised the benefit of BER funds due to long term planning already in place! Perhaps the real discourse shoule be about how much of the 12K expenditure in public schools is getting to the child and how much is consumed by state departments and think tanks? In other works why can private schools deliver so much more than public schools for very little extra cost?????

Tim says:

09:58am | 02/08/10

So KH thinks because some people are willing to dip into their own pockets and do volunteer work at their school they should be punished.
The state system provides the basic guaranteed level of education for every child. It is the no frills option.
Want more? Pay for it.

Macca says:

10:01am | 02/08/10

@KH, not every non-government School is Xavier College or The Kings School. There are hundreds of Catholic / Christian / Muslim schools that do not receive the excessive donations you refer to.

Furthermore, I do not think the article at all suggests that Private Schools are scrounging, it is merely pointing out that Government funding for Non-Government Schools is less than that of Public Schools, and subsequently provides figures backing up this point.

Muttley says:

10:07am | 02/08/10

Absolute garbage David C. Its not about jealousy at all.  Your attitude is just so typical of the supporters of this argument. “Oh those horrible labour supporters are just jealous of what we can give junior”. Crap.

Kevin Donnelly says:

10:09am | 02/08/10

KH - Did you read the article?  The current SES funding model is needs based.  Wealthier non-government schools only get 13.7% of the cost to government of funding a state school student.  Also, parents should not be penalised because they have the incentive to raise private funds locally.

Steely Dan says:

10:17am | 02/08/10

@ David C

Have you been reading to the comments you’re responding to?  Chalking up opposition to middle and upper-class welfare as being ‘jealousy’ is name-calling that adds nothing to the debate.

David C says:

11:44am | 02/08/10

what am I missing here (honest question) .. the state funds a kid in a private school approx $6,000 and a kid in a state school $12,000.
Why is that termed middle class welfare??????? Are you advocating means testing education?
If I send my kid to a private school I am picking up the tab for the difference?? This frees up funds for the state to fund the state schools? Souns like a good system and it strikes me as any objection to this is the politics of envy not aspiration.

Steely Dan says:

12:23pm | 02/08/10

@ David C

Guaranteeing anybody any money that they don’t need is middle class welfare (or a stimulus package!). 

“This frees up funds for the state to fund the state schools”
Good on you.  You also fund welfare programs you don’t receive any money from.  Where’s the issue?

Helen says:

12:44pm | 02/08/10

Sally R: The only alternative is a race to the bottom”? Que? What about the alternative of a much, much better funded and properly functioning public system which caters to all social classes so that people aren’t panicked into fleeing into the private system?
If we think of our public system as a safety net for “the others”, of course it’ll have problems.
See “The Stupid Country: How Australia is dismantling public education” by Chris Bonnor & Jane Caro

David C says:

01:08pm | 02/08/10

so Steely to clarify, in your world there would be no private school funding, all education funding would go to state schools only?

Steely Dan says:

01:22pm | 02/08/10

@ David C

“so Steely to clarify, in your world there would be no private school funding, all education funding would go to state schools only?”
Yep.
With some caveats.  Private schools could seek short-term assistance funding from the government on a needs basis, over the long term if a private school business is failing funding should be pulled, with the government providing an alternative option for the school’s children if the area needs it.  And any school receiving funding would lose the right to discriminate against staff or students on the basis of religious belief.

Charles Kelly says:

10:45pm | 02/08/10

KH and Steely Dan present us with an argument all too typical of the whingeing left - “We want what they have, but we want them to pay for it”! Bloody pathetic.

Steely Dan says:

08:52am | 03/08/10

@ Charles

“KH and Steely Dan present us with an argument all too typical of the whingeing left - “We want what they have, but we want them to pay for it”! Bloody pathetic.”
Well done, Charles!  You got it perfectly backwards!  I’m arguing that people shouldn’t be given MY tax dollars for something THEY don’t need.  Or is that a ‘whingeing left’ thing now?

cj says:

01:06pm | 03/08/10

Charles Kelly: “We want what they have, but we want them to pay for it”

Gold.

So you want all the people who don’t send their kids to private schools to fund the private schools, but that’s OK? Remember this comment next time you use any public facility that you didn’t personally pay to use - a road or hospital, for example.

I do agree with a comment someone made, about investigating why the private schools seem so much more efficient with the money they do have, as opposed to the public system. I’m sure there’s a lot of wasteful bureaucracy that could be cut from the public systems to channel more money directly into schools.

Sam G says:

11:26am | 06/08/10

I agree with Steely Dan, why should taxpayers have to pay for private school students at all?  If you think that you deserve extra money just for reducing the burden on the state school system by one student, then parents of Year 11 & 12 dropouts should receive thousands of dollars!  Millionaires flying helicopters to work should be paid for not using roads!

Also, the people posting earlier about the ability to expel making private schools less prone to bullying are living in fairy land.  Public schools can also expel students, and the bullying stories I have seen and heard about Brisbane’s private high schools blow anything I saw at my public high school out of the water.

Fiona says:

03:53pm | 06/08/10

So KH would you send your children to the local state school when (a) their academic results are significantly below average across pretty much every category and every tested year level and (b) the parents there that DO actually care about the quality of their child’s education are desperately trying to get their kids out into nearby private schools so they get some semblance of a decent education? We’re zoned to a school like this. It forced us private. We make huge sacrifices. We don’t pay a few hundred dollars a year, we pay many thousands of dollars. We don’t have overseas holidays. I don’t drive a Mercedes Benz. I can’t afford it. What is missed in all this hot air about private schooling is that some families have no choice but private if they want their kids to get a decent start. For them, it is hard to make ends meet but that’s what they try to do for their kids. There are no genuine grounds for them to be penalised any further for it.

Tim says:

09:22am | 02/08/10

If education is a fundamental human right belonging to children, then the funding should be directly linked to the child.
A specific amount of money should be linked to every child. The parents would then be able to send their child to any school they wish as long as it meets basic educational requirements. Anything beyond that would be the responsibility of the parent.

Macca says:

09:31am | 02/08/10

@Tim Chapman, “As a taxpayer, I shouldn’t have to fund anyone else’s private choices”.

Well, your not really. In fact, Parents who pay to send their children to Private Schools are subsidising the public system. The more children in Private schools, the more money is freed up to be spent on Public Schools.

So, in fact, by sending their children to Private Schools, parents are not spending your taxes on their choices, they are freeing up taxes to be spent on the public system

fairsfair says:

09:43am | 02/08/10

As a childless tax payer also, couldn’t agree more. Equality, not equity. All children deserve a standard level of education supplied by the state school system. If you can’t make it work for your child and yourself, well the burden of increased education costs is on the family. I am a product of the public school system, as will my children be.

Kevin Donnelly says:

10:11am | 02/08/10

One estimate puts the saving to governments at $7 billion a year - as a result of students going to non-government schools.

Steely Dan says:

10:11am | 02/08/10

@ Macca

“Parents who pay to send their children to Private Schools are subsidising the public system.”
Good on them.  Just as I’m subsidising the welfare system by not being on the dole.  But I’m not asking to receive welfare on top of my salary.

Macca says:

10:34am | 02/08/10

@Steely Dan, its not a right for you to be on the dole, it is a right for children to have an education. Comparing the Dole to Education is a silly sensationalist argument

Economist says:

10:48am | 02/08/10

Kevin Donnelly the savings of $7B is based on the assumption that all non-government students would go back to the public system. this is clearly not the case. Secondly SES is only pseudo needs based. Its based on where you live not the resources available to you. A voucher system of Federal funding would be more equaitable and needs based. 

I think its important ot bust some other myths here. Firstly as a country we spend less than the OECD average on education yet we achieve outcomes above the OECD average. This demonstrates a number of things. That clearly teacher, parents and the community punch above their weight. Sure there are still improvements to be made in public education, but not all public school teachers are bludgers and commies.

Secondly, a survey, I can’t recall the details, found that 46% of parents would send their children to private schools if money ws not an issue. What this shows is that the debate should be about values. Clearly parents want an education system that primarily protects their children as this is the main premium for private education, accountability in that school bullies will be dealt with.

Yury says:

10:52am | 02/08/10

to Tim Chapman and fairsfair - stop this “childless taxpayer’ argument, because it is wrong, you are not subsidising anybody.

Look at it this way - you’ve been educated at public expense yourselves and now paying back into the system.

No need to count other folks’ children, the argument is about personal right of a child (regardless of social status) for a similar public contribution into their education.

And if someone’s parents are willing and able to pay extra - good on them

Steely Dan says:

11:21am | 02/08/10

@ Macca

“its not a right for you to be on the dole, it is a right for children to have an education.”
Agreed - I don’t have a right to be on the dole, because I have an income already.  But if I didn’t have an income, the state should help me.  And if a child wasn’t receiving an education, the state should help them.

How is that ‘silly’ or ‘sensationalist’?

Steely Dan says:

11:48am | 02/08/10

@ Yury

“No need to count other folks’ children, the argument is about personal right of a child (regardless of social status) for a similar public contribution into their education.”
Here’s where you’ve gone wrong, Yury - governments are supposed to ensure that every child is receiving an adequate education, not that every child receives a similar public contribution to their education. 

What does gifting money to those who don’t need it achieve?

Helen says:

12:17pm | 02/08/10

“One estimate puts the saving to governments at $7 billion a year - as a result of students going to non-government schools.”

Source?

fairsfair says:

01:02pm | 02/08/10

Yury, if you actually read what we had said - we agree with the subsidisation (and accept and agree that our tax dollars fund that even though we don’t have children of our own) because that is what we got, and it is the right thing to do, irrespective of the fact that we don’t have kids. I wholeheartedly support,  as Tim said “a basic level of quality, secular public education”.  But what you most WANT for their child grossly differs from what the child NEEDS.

Sally M says:

05:28pm | 02/08/10

Tim says:

  09:22am | 02/08/10

  If education is a fundamental human right belonging to children, then the funding should be directly linked to the child.
  A specific amount of money should be linked to every child. The parents would then be able to send their child to any school they wish as long as it meets basic educational requirements. Anything beyond that would be the responsibility of the parent.”

Hear Hear!

Denis Q says:

08:56am | 02/08/10

If Jolanda had to try 8 public schools and was still notsatisfied, I would suggest there was something wrong with her and her children rather than the schools. 
It never ceases to amaze me that parents expect more for their children than they are intellectually capable of learning.
A larger proportion of irst year drop outs from university come from those students who have come from private education where they have been spoon fed.

fairsfair says:

09:50am | 02/08/10

“Parents with children in non-government schools pay more taxes overall than those from government schools and they pay school fees.”

What a crock. I don’t have kids and I would pay more in tax than the average aussie. What do I get for my tax dollars? Nothing. I accept this - it is my choice not to have children - just like it is your choice to have them. They are a lifelong commitment and costs of their education should be thought about when you make the decision to bring a baby into this selfish “I want I want, what about me?” world. 

Besides, Govt schools are hardly free - when I finished ten years ago fees and levvies were being introduced - so I can only imagine where it is at now. Just like you have to have the latest IPod, most people have to have their kids in the trendiest schools and will pay for it for the prestige - even though the old prepaid Nokia will do the job just fine…

Denis Q has hit the nail on the head - if your little darlings can’t find a fit after 8 schools - maybe it is you guys who have the issue. Stop demanding more from the Government, when you get enough as it is.

Jolanda says:

03:31pm | 02/08/10

Denis when a school is incapable or unwilling to cater for the identified and obvious needs of students then they are failing in their duty of care.  The only problem with my children was that they understood and they were so far from the norm that the curriculum was totally inappropriate.  If you would be happy to force your child to sit in a school were the curriculum presented to them was so far below their ability that they became depressed then all I can say is that I would feel for your children.

Fairsfair - By overall I meant as a whole - not individually.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:22am | 02/08/10

Heck, just trying to find what taxpayer dollars are spent on in private schools is impossible. They want our taxpayer dollars but we can’t audit their books.

Tim says:

10:03am | 02/08/10

Shane says:
“You don’t subsidize my lifestyle choices, why the hell should I subsidize yours?”

Um you don’t. As mentioned in the article, children going to private schools receive less funding. So parents who send their children to private schools are saving you money.

Brendan says:

10:13am | 02/08/10

Shane,
If we take your logic through, then if one sends kids to private schools they should receive a tax break for doing so equivalent to thier share of public school funding for one child!

Kevin Donnelly says:

10:14am | 02/08/10

Hi Shane, if you really believe that a child’s education is a lifestyle choice then you have a very superficial understanding of the importance of education and the moral and legal right parents’ have when it comes to school choice.

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:50am | 02/08/10

The state only has the obligation to fund a child’s position in a public school system. It has no obligation to fund a parent’s decision not to avail themselves of that position. If the parent wishes to avail themselves of a private service or product, then they should bear the full market cost of that service or product. Private schools are businesses and the government should not be subsidizing businesses. It is called the free market.

AdamC says:

11:40am | 02/08/10

Shane, that is all very well, but what about educational quality? The more you shield public schools from competition by privileging them in terms of funding, the less need they will have to compete with private schools. Public schools already offer a service that is free to the recipient families. The fact that so many parents lose a large proportion of their subsidy and pay through the nose to get their kids out of government education shows how abysmal the system is.

Rather than trying to prevent people from leaving, why don’t governments try to improve educational quality in the public system so people will keep their kids in it? The education unions promote a Berlin Wall approach to force students to stay in public schools by starving private schools of funding. That is amazingly anti-student - they don’t even seem to deny it.

Steely Dan says:

12:41pm | 02/08/10

@ Tim

“As mentioned in the article, children going to private schools receive less funding.”
Which still means that they’re being subsidised, Tim.

“So parents who send their children to private schools are saving you money.”
And I thank them, regardless of whether them easing the tax burden was a motive or not.  And they should thank those of us who currently have no kids but pay for other children’s education.  We should both thank anybody who makes more money than we do and contributes more in tax dollars.  We should especially thank all those who volunteer at schools.

Now the thanking’s done, should people who can afford to send their kids to private school get any of my money to do it?  Not a chance.

Tim says:

02:47pm | 02/08/10

Steely Dan,
By your logic we’re both subsidising public schooling as well.
Education is a right of every child and the state should provide a basic level of funding for every student. The funding should go to the child not the school.
Parents would then be free to send their child to any school (public or private) that meets basic curriculum standards.
What you’re saying is that you are willing to fund education for a child as long as parents don’t choose to enhance that child’s education by paying for part of it. Sorry I just don’t get it.

Steely Dan says:

04:09pm | 02/08/10

@ Tim

“By your logic we’re both subsidising public schooling as well.”
And I’m fine with that.

“Education is a right of every child and the state should provide a basic level of funding for every student.”
This is probably where our disagreement stems from.  The state should ensure that children have an education, but that doesn’t mean that the state necessarily needs to give money out for every child’s education.  The state should be providing education to those who wouldn’t receive it otherwise. 

I believe (and you probably agree) that the state should ensure that its citizens have more than just an education.  It should also ensure that every Australian has enough money for food, water and housing.  But we don’t do that by simply by giving money to every Australian, we do it by giving it to those who don’t already have it.  I don’t need the dole - I already have a job, a home and food.  Have a look at Bobster’s police analogy below, it’s a good one.

“Parents would then be free to send their child to any school (public or private) that meets basic curriculum standards.”
They’re free to do that now, provided they can afford the tuition fees set by any private school they might wish to put their kids into.

“What you’re saying is that you are willing to fund education for a child as long as parents don’t choose to enhance that child’s education by paying for part of it. Sorry I just don’t get it.”
But I do support their right to do that.  I have no problems with private tutors or after-school programs etc. 

I also object to government money being spent on schools that discriminate on religious grounds (as many religious schools do).  And even as someone who is quite left of centre economically, I have an issue with subsidising businesses that don’t seem to need government support.

Tim says:

10:09am | 02/08/10

“Yes so you can see with my wild assumptions that this is actually costing the government money.”

Can you provide evidence that shows that the 12% are directly linked to the SES funding? Evidence that the 22% would remain steady if the funding was removed?

You do know what they say about assuming don’t you?

Economist says:

10:37am | 02/08/10

Tim totally agree, it is an assumption, but what is the level 22%, 15%, 10%? As an estimate, to acheive funding parity would require a drop to 14% i.e. 34%-20%. If 20 percentage points or about 60% of students in private schools went back to the public system then it would cost the government around $6.6 billion to educate them publicly.  I doubt it would go that low, but happy to have that argument.

Sally M says:

05:36pm | 02/08/10

Sally,
Most of the schools we are talking about are not businesses. They are schools.
They are not-for-profit organisations.

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:29am | 02/08/10

Based on your argument, corporations pay more tax than the parents of private school kids or the parents of state school kids. Would you like fries with that corporate logo on the school uniform? Thank you for playing…...

Macca says:

11:22am | 02/08/10

@Drew, firstly, you are wrong, Sydney Grammar, PLC and Abbotsleigh are always in the top 10 schools in NSW. They are Private. The highest performing Non-Selective Government School is traditionally Cheltenham Girls, which regularly comes in between 20 and 25.

Secondly, and this may come as a suprise to you, but the HSC is one of the least important factors in choosing a Children’s school. Things such as sport, music, dance, drama and other co-curricular activities are just as important as the actual education children recieve. Many of thse are more readily available (I’m not saying they are better, just available) at Private Schools and this is a motivator for parents when selecting their child’s school.

Many Private Schools don’t aim to differentiate themselves simply by academics, that is what selective schools are for.

Tom says:

11:54am | 02/08/10

This is completely wrong. By percentage of distinguished achievers (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/maralynparker/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/top_100_schools_in_hsc_and_comment), Ascham, Reddam House, Kambala and Sydney Grammar were all in the top 10. All the public schools in the top 10 were selective schools. It is unsurprising that schools which take an intelligent cohort of students end up with good HSC results.

papachango says:

12:29pm | 02/08/10

‘albeit selective state schools” is a rather big caveat. These schools only take really smart kids (95th percentile and above IQ), therefore it would be pretty staggering if they weren’t in the top 10. Private schools will, with some limits, take anyone who can afford to pay. BTW the unions hate selective state schools almost as much as private schools, calling them elitist. I’d argue the exact opposite - it provides a way for smart kids to excel even if their parents can’t afford to send them to a private school.

You’re right that it would make more sense to send your kid to a selective state school rather than an expensive private school, but for 95% of people that’s not an option. For everyone else they have to take pot luck with their local state school.

Contrary to your assertion, most of them are terrible compared to private schools. There are a few good ones, but you have to live in the neighbourhood, and the market factors that in to real estate prices e.g. I know a few people who have deliberately moved to Balwyn VIC because the local state school has an excellent reputation.

As far as religion goes, in most private schools it’s there but in a pretty mild form (some Catholic schools are an exception, but the market factors this in as fees are cheaper, and they only take Catholics anyway). I went to an Anglican school, but they were happy to have Jews, Muslims, Hindus or whatever as long as their parents could afford the bills. It’s not as if they teach creationism as fact or anything like that - even in the most strict Catholic schools you learn evolutionary biology. Also, have you considered that there are still some religious people in Australia, or even agnostics like myself who respect the values that a moderately religious school instills in students. State schools struggle with values.

KH says:

12:49pm | 02/08/10

I have to agree with Tom - its the same in Victoria - MacRobertson Girls and Melbourne boys are nearly always on top - but they are selective.  I went to MacRob - it had houses, orchestra, drama club, choir, music lessons, sports comps etc - in fact, it was ostensibly a private school funded by the state, that only chooses the students who top the entry exam.  These kinds of schools are not indicative of the state system.

Steely Dan says:

01:02pm | 02/08/10

@ papchango

“Also, have you considered that there are still some religious people in Australia, or even agnostics like myself who respect the values that a moderately religious school instills in students. State schools struggle with values.”
State schools aren’t supposed to provide religious values education.  That’s up to parents.

Steely Dan says:

01:14pm | 02/08/10

@ Macca

“The highest performing Non-Selective Government School is traditionally Cheltenham Girls, which regularly comes in between 20 and 25.”
Why are you comparing non-selective public schools against selective private schools?

Lisa says:

01:31pm | 02/08/10

Both myself and my husband are recipients of our local country public high school… and we are sending our children to the local Catholic school, which is the only private school that we can afford.

We wanted a more family oriented school.
It is all very well to say parents should instill values, but the majority of the child’s waking hours are actually at school. As a student, I remember setting very little store by my parents, as marginalised as they were in the few hours that we had with them each day.

I do notice that our school IS very family oriented, and that children tend to be well-loved (heaps of stay-at-home mums) and there is a high level of volunteering from parents.

Funding-wise, the fact that should be examined here is that many private schools are actually so much more efficient than public schools. As shown with the recent debacle over school hall funding, the costs are more carefully managed at private schools.

The Catholic system, far from running a heady profit, actually makes do with far less money per student than the public system.
At my own school, our facilities are not the newest, and the class sizes are larger.

So much of the discussion in this topic seems to rely on the emotional (and rather fantastical) politics of envy, and the diminution of choice.  As a taxpayer, perhaps I should be writing angry letters about the sheer waste and poor management of public schools.

papachango says:

01:36pm | 02/08/10

@ Steely Dan ‘State schools aren’t supposed to provide religious values education.  That’s up to parents.’

I said values, not specifically religious values. Other than that I couldn’t agree more, but it would be nice to have a school that doesn’t actively undermine the values you try to instill in your children. As an agnostic I’ve got a choice between my kids being taught postmodernist left wing propaganda, or religious indoctrination, both of which I’m against.

For me the best compromise is a moderately religious school that emphasises the good points of religion, but not at the expense of science, and without the fundamentalism.

Steely Dan says:

02:09pm | 02/08/10

@ papachango

“I said values, not specifically religious values.”
I don’t think they should really be providing moral values at all.

“it would be nice to have a school that doesn’t actively undermine the values you try to instill in your children.”
If a public school has done that, you need to make some complaints to the state’s education authority.

“As an agnostic I’ve got a choice between my kids being taught postmodernist left wing propaganda”
What state school is teaching that?  I went to a state school and never received any ‘postmodernist left wing propaganda’.  If values ever came up (they inevitably do), the teachers (with two exceptions) kept a neutral stance - not an ‘every answer is correct’ stance.  I only saw two notable propaganda outbursts from teachers, one was very right-wing, the other very religious.

papachango says:

03:01pm | 02/08/10

@Steely Dan - If you can’t see any left wing propaganda it’s probably because your ideological bias doesn’t permit you (e.g. your comment about ‘selective private schools’ - name me one private school that only admits students with IQ’s in the top 5% ?)

Just look at the dumbed-down ‘every child is equal’ report cards you used to get in state schools, the ridiculous psycho-babble by the Teacher’s Union about a ‘sense of wonder’ being more important than academic results, or their frank admission that education is a vital tool for pushing their agenda of ‘social justice’ and ‘equity’ - i.e. indoctrinate the kids into socialist ideology early on.

How is that any different from the Jesuits’ ‘give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man’?

At least religious schools don’t try to teach creationism as anything other than a myth, whereas the teachers union and a bunch of sympathetic academics tried to get Aboriginal creation legends taught in SCIENCE classes. Thankfully common sense prevailed, but at the time they claimed that Western science and Dreamtime mythology were ‘equally valid cultural explanations’ of the the same phenomena.

Pardon me but that’s bollocks and I don’t want my kids taught that.

Steely Dan says:

04:32pm | 02/08/10

@ papachango

“If you can’t see any left wing propaganda it’s probably because your ideological bias doesn’t permit you”
Could it be that you saw left-wing bias in neutrality because of your right-wing bias?  That was rhetorical, btw.  Your comment wasn’t really helpful because its an untestable allegation.

“(e.g. your comment about ‘selective private schools’ - name me one private school that only admits students with IQ’s in the top 5% ?)’
I don’t know of any, but then again I don’t personally know of any public schools that do that either.  My comment had nothing to do with a specific IQ standard, my comment was based on the fact that many private institutions (all those in the area I grew up in, in my experience) have academic standards for entry.  My point was that Macca was likely comparing apples and oranges by excluding selective public institutions to rank against all (selective and non-selective) private institutions.

“Just look at the dumbed-down ‘every child is equal’ report cards you used to get in state schools’
I keep hearing about these sort of report cards but never see them. I had the A to E (or equivalent 5 to 1) system throughout my public schooling, so did my younger siblings (the youngest of which graduated a couple of years ago.  My early-primary-aged relatives are on the same system.

“or their frank admission that education is a vital tool for pushing their agenda of ‘social justice’ and ‘equity’ - i.e. indoctrinate the kids into socialist ideology early on.’
I didn’t know these were socialist notions.  But even then I never saw anything that reinforced those outside of studying our laws and legal systems, and punishing those who discriminated against others for religious or racial reasons.

“At least religious schools don’t try to teach creationism as anything other than a myth”
That’s definitely false.  My aunt has had many disagreements with her children’s science teachers over their promotion of creationism at a religious school.  I’m not saying creationist teaching is common, but it does happen.

“whereas the teachers union and a bunch of sympathetic academics tried to get Aboriginal creation legends taught in SCIENCE classes.”
Never heard about that. Got a source for that one?

Tim says:

09:53am | 03/08/10

Steely Dan,
i went to a private Catholic school.
We were never taught creationism as anything other than a myth.
The same goes for every mainstream private Christian school. It simply doesn’t happen.
Where was this school that you think was teaching it?

In regards to Dreamtime, I think Papachango might have been talking about this:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/dreamtime-spiritual-so-off-science-courses/story-e6frg6nf-1225836724718

Steely Dan says:

11:08am | 03/08/10

@ Tim

“i went to a private Catholic school. We were never taught creationism as anything other than a myth.”
My father went to a Catholic School and had the same experience.  As I said, I don’t think that it’s common, in any denomination’s schools.  I just said that it happens.  And I wouldn’t expect Catholic schools to have that issue - the Vatican formally backs evolution and tends to stay clear of intelligent design.

“Where was this school that you think was teaching it?”
Gold Coast.  It’s a Baptist school.  I don’t know if it was one teacher or more pushing it.

That article talks about the National Curriculum head (an academic presumably) and the union-backed Gillard opposing the teaching of indigenous creationism (and other creationism) in science classes.  Where’s something suppporting papchango’s claim that the teacher’s union and some academics were behind it?  For all I know this stuff was being taught by one teacher in one school - it wouldn’t be the first time a teacher (in a private or public setting) had deviated from the curriculum to push an agenda.

Tim says:

11:34am | 03/08/10

Steely Dan,
i wasn’t saying Papachango was right, i was just saying that was where he was probably getting his information.
The article was talking about the National science course in the curriculum, which included teaching the dreamtime in science class.
It was removed.
I don’t think it was really a big deal.

Macca says:

11:57am | 02/08/10

@Economist, whilst you make some interesting points, I don’t think anyone ever received a good education at Kings. They might have learnt to play rugby and row, but education… not so much

Kevin Donnelly says:

11:03am | 02/08/10

Julia Gillard is a strong advocate of left-wing causes and when younger was a member of the Fabian society.  She makes no secret of her desire to reshape education to positively discriminate in favour of so-called disadvantaged groups by enforcing equality of outcomes (see her university entrance policy).  If elected, a Gillard Government will cut funding to Catholic and independent schools, enforce a secular curriculum and deny religious schools the right to enrol and employ those committed to the faith.

Steely Dan says:

11:28am | 02/08/10

@ Kevin

“If elected, a Gillard Government will cut funding to Catholic and independent schools, enforce a secular curriculum and deny religious schools the right to enrol and employ those committed to the faith.”
Quite a claim, Kevin.

Can you back it with evidence?

Bobster says:

11:41am | 02/08/10

@ Kevin Donnelly, God forbid a level playing field - it would stop those of good breeding get the positions of power they deserve.
If you can’t see the problem with relegating children from poorer backgrounds to a life of disadvantage because their parents were unable to fund a high class education then you’re a lost cause.
Anyone could come and enrol in my high school and their skill and determination would determine how well they performed - isn’t that what conservative philosophy is all about? Oh, I forgot, that only counts if you’re born with a few hundred thousand behind you.
I got where I am because of hard work - not because my parents bought me (a tax payer subsidised) advantage.

Denis Q says:

11:49am | 02/08/10

I went to a Catholic School, and so did my two children.

However, having read the pathetic comments by Donnelly I am all in favour of taking religion out of politics.

Kevin Donnelly says:

12:01pm | 02/08/10

The argument that you can take religion out of politics is one of the myths perpetuated by those running a secular agenda.  Australia’s political and legal systems are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values - that is one reason why parliament begins with the Lord’s Prayer.

Chris says:

12:03pm | 02/08/10

If that is the case Kevin then she will be denying others choice. Choice is often seen as a basic right in a democracy. What is more she will be imposing her views on the rest of the community - despite saying that she respects the views of other people and respects religion.
There are further difficulties. Australia is a very big country. Some children live in isolated or semi-isolated places. In order to obtain the best possible education their parents will do what mine did - pay for us to get the education we need. 
Yet another point, if we are going to have a country with a diverse, creative and forward looking population then we need as much variety in education as possible. We do not need a narrow national curriculum only available in the public sector and designed to make everyone a clone who will keep the Party in power.  This is what Gillard wants. It is what the AEU wants. This is not about the future of Australia. It is about the future of the ALP and the union movement.  It is time parents were informed - but they won’t be will they?

iansand says:

12:15pm | 02/08/10

Bobster - Yours is a “drag achievers down” approach, instead of a “drag non-achievers up” scheme.  It is the fundamental problem with socialism.

Bobster says:

12:41pm | 02/08/10

@iansand

The children are not under-achievers. They are simply born to parents who, for a variety of reasons (yes, including down-right laziness) do not have the means to provide their children with top notch education.

I fail to see how that is the child’s fault. What you are advocating is an uneven starting line which benefits the rich over the poor.

I believe whoever works the hardest should get the farthest, however, a user-pays education system denies an even starting line for children who had no say whatsoever into the situations they were born into.

If we didn’t waste so much money on ensuring the top private schools had indoor swimming pools, rifle ranges and multiple rugby fields, perhaps we’d be closer to achieving that.

And, (let’s take the right wing perspective here) if the capitalist model is correct, removing all public funding from private schools should stimulate competition, push down prices and allow wider access to top flight schooling - it’s your socialistic demand for taxpayers money that’s creating the two-tiered system by stifling the need for competition.

Steely Dan says:

12:53pm | 02/08/10

@ Kevin Donnelly

“The argument that you can take religion out of politics is one of the myths perpetuated by those running a secular agenda.”
You need an education, Kevin.  What does Section 116 of the Constitution say?  We are a secular nation, Kevin.  The government cannot oppress religious belief (as you claim Julia Gillard will), nor can it support one religious belief over another.

“Australia’s political and legal systems are based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values - that is one reason why parliament begins with the Lord’s Prayer.”
Another reason why we should dump the prayer from parliament.  I know it doesn’t harm anyone, but it makes the uneducated think that Australia is a Christian nation.

Wait - is this the same Kevin Donnelly that wrote the piece, or somebody using his name to make him look like he’s ignorant?

Baal, actually says:

01:36pm | 02/08/10

Hey Kevin, we can take religion out of society and hopefully the church out of children, sorry I mean church workers out of children.

iansand says:

02:11pm | 02/08/10

Bobster - So you even up the starting line by dragging people back to it.  I don’t think so.

You might also inquire into where the funding for the “indoor swimming pools, rifle ranges and multiple rugby fields” comes from.  I think you may find that they run building funds, and that even some of their alumni donate or leave money in their wills.

Bobster says:

03:11pm | 02/08/10

@ iansands

No one’s getting dragged back to the starting line. We just don’t want to create a situation in which children, who have no control whatever over their start in life, have the opportunity to work hard and do well.

You seem to be arguing that the children of richer parents have the right to start further ahead and the parents of poorer children have to pay taxes for that right. Fair enough. Can’t argue with the reality of the situation. This is indeed the case.

There’s nothing that can be done about that and parents have the right to do whatever is within their means to guarantee the best possible future for their children - my argument is they can pay for it by themselves.

Taxpayers have provided you with the opportunity to school your children for free and everyone has access to those opportunities. If you want more, you should pay for it yourself because Kings School will never be letting in kids from impoverished backgrounds en masse out of a commitment to help as many as possible.

If they get to choose who comes to their school based on income they should forego the right to state funding.

As I’ve said before, capitalism will then ensure competitiion between the private schools, lower prices and greater access. This funding they are receiving is simply increasing inflation and making it harder for ordinary Australians to access these institutions. Or is that not how competition works? I though you agreed with this system?

And if, as you say, these schools have rowing courses, swimming pools and 15 rugby fields because of their own business savvy, then why in the world would they be wasting their time jockeying for the (comparative) pittance paid out by state and federal governments. Sounds to me like they don’t even need it.

iansand says:

03:29pm | 02/08/10

But Bobster - The gummint already gives me a lot less, through payment to my daughter’s school, than it gives parents of kids in pblic schools.  Would you argue that a child of rich parents attending a public school should be forced to pay something toward his or her education?  Apart from arguments based in class warfare, why should I get nothing?

Bobster says:

04:04pm | 02/08/10

@ iansands,

I get nothing from the aged pension. I get nothing from the dole. I’m not currently sick, so I get nothing from the health system. I don’t live in a capital city so I don’t get much in the way of transport. Mental health funding does little for me and I don’t often have to call on the police force. I’ve not seen a great deal of personal benefit flow from my tax contribution to the Air Force.

I do, however, pay tax for all of these things.

I could move to the city and my transport issues at least would disappear. I don’t want to though and so I pay my own way for the choices I have made.

You pay tax for education and as a result you have hundreds of public schools to choose from. If you want more than that, you pay for it. The same way as if you want more in your retirement, you save for it.

No one owes you a living and those with no choice in education should not have to pay for you to have a choice. Taxes are there so we can afford collectively that we can not afford individually. If that doesn’t suit your tastes, you’re lucky enough to live in a country with the option of private health and education - you just have to pay for it and the market should set the price.

James1 says:

04:39pm | 02/08/10

Mr Donnelly,

If you can point out where in the Bible it talks of a Westminster-style system, or British common law, I will accept that argument.  Last time I checked though, there was no mention of the executive being drawn from the legislature in the Bible.  Also, do you wear cloth made with more than one fiber?

Helen says:

12:33pm | 02/08/10

Honestly, this thing about drugs and public schools is such utter sh*te.. I was active in the postpunk scene in the Melbourne southern suburbs which was very much dominated by the graduates of surrounding exclusive private / Grammar schools. Drug taking, up to and including class A, was absolutely rife. I remember one kid fed her habit by forging cheques on Daddy’s account (remember cheques?) and an overheard comment by one society matron about the kids of another society matron, “Oh, the *** girls? They’re such terrible junkies!”
The point is that private school kids are more likely to get away with such stuff because mummy and daddy are hugely invested in hushing up any consequences.
and they get to this point because they have more money to spend in the first place.
As the mum of a public school kid who got a brilliant TER last year, I am sick and tired of hearing this Drugs in Public Schools crock.

James1 says:

03:39pm | 02/08/10

Anjuli,

Those rich parents, if they are unhappy with the amount of tax money going into private schools, can always choose to send their children to government schools.

James1 says:

04:00pm | 02/08/10

Another factor is that private school kids tend to have more money, and thus are able to afford to buy far more drugs than their government school counterparts.

Tim says:

09:57am | 03/08/10

@James1,
yeah but the Public school students are the ones doing the dealing.
Good entrepreneurial spirit
Jokes.

Kevin Donnelly says:

12:05pm | 02/08/10

Sorry about the mistake - I have to admit that even I am not perfect!

Kevin Donnelly says:

12:09pm | 02/08/10

I’d argue that governments should fund students and not school systems, on the basis that every child deserves a properly funded, well resourced education system.  I’d also argue that we should have school vouchers (where the money follows the child) to enable more parents to make the choice; especially, less well off parents.

iansand says:

12:18pm | 02/08/10

Noel Pearson is an old boy of my daughter’s school.  Some sort of scholarship, I think.  And it is not the only school that provides such scholarships.

Economist says:

12:50pm | 02/08/10

Thanks KD for your response. Clearly you have not read my other comments as I too support your solution. I think this is the most important point you’ve made and its a solution rather than than the tit for tat argument private vs public. By the way can I suggest you use opportunity cost in your analysis rather than actual costs to demonstrate the savings, because as I’ve demonstrated there are no savings unless the non-government school student numbers fall from 24% to 14% .

Also it seems that your main concern is values, perhaps this is the key debate we should be having and we should be asking Gillard, and Abbott for that matter, what strategies will they put in place to increase safety and reduce bullying in public schools and importantly tackle irresponsible parents.

AdamC says:

01:09pm | 02/08/10

“Without [government education] we’d have an autocratic society based on the 1800s industrial society where only the wealthy can afford an education and the rest of the kiddies can work in the mines, factories and fields.” A little over-wrought, don’t you think? It is difficult to argue some kind of superior, objective reasoning when you make absurd, counter-factual propositions like that.

Maybe the big cleavage here is that, for someone like me, education is a service. It is not primarily a means to increase class mobility or general equality, rather, it is an end in itself. If one sees education as a means to a social(ist) objective, then quality is only relevant in a relative sense - hence all this guff about private schools getting too much money. If you see education primarily as a service, the quality of that service is paramount.

The big problem with education today is that the public system does not offer (or, at least, is not perceived as offering) a high quality service. That seems like the obvious thing to fix first. That is, assuming this whole debate is about doing anything at all.

iansand says:

01:22pm | 02/08/10

Economist - You have to be very careful about recommending a voucher system.  As a parent paying private school fees, I am all in favour of that plan if it is across State and Federal governments.  It will save me a few grand every year

And that is the point.  However you slice the figures and whatever assumptions you make, I have less of the taxes I pay devoted to my child’s education than I would have if she was enrolled in the public system.  That is a choice I have made, and I don’t begrudge it.  I do not understand why that choice should deny me all government support for her education and nothing in this these comments has enlightened me.

Nick says:

02:37pm | 02/08/10

Iansand “I do not understand why that choice should deny me all government support for her education and nothing in this these comments has enlightened me.”
Because no one has, in fact, denied your daughter government support for her education at all.  She is still 100% entitled to have 100% of her education paid for by attending a public school.  You seem to think that, in addition to this, we should also be paying you an additional amount because you want her to go to a private school of your choice.  Do you get it now?  You are the one being subsidised - not everyone else!

iansand says:

03:08pm | 02/08/10

Nick - So you would deny me the choice of where my daghter is educated?  I didn’t think you were a lefty.

Nick says:

03:51pm | 02/08/10

iansand, you may not like the quality of the water out of your tap at home, so you choose to buy bottled water.  Would it follow that the government should then fund the water bottling companies because people like yourself are drinking bottled water?  And, would the people that are drinking bottled water be in any way subsidising those who drink tap water (because they are not drinking as much tap water)?  Of course not. Yet, this is exactly the line you are taking in the context of private education.

iansand says:

03:58pm | 02/08/10

Nick - Should my water rates be less because I drink bottled water?

baal says:

12:08pm | 02/08/10

Then it would seem silly to run this impoverished school. Unless of course there is another motive, besides a sound education, you have for sending your child to a private school.

Susan says:

08:13pm | 02/08/10

The standard of education at this particular school is high, and the school is well sought after for various reasons.
My point is just that being a non-government school doesn’t equate to endless money.

Helen says:

12:20pm | 02/08/10

good one Bobster!
I feel the title of the OP should have been “*Recycling* the myths about Private School funding. Oh, well, recycling’s a good thing, isn’t it! :-D

Baal, actually. says:

12:21pm | 02/08/10

In indonesia private citizens have been setting up private police forces to help young people, especially those virgins keep in line with comunity standards. If history has taught us anything is that government funding religion always ends up well. Just ask an altar boy.

Steely Dan says:

01:27pm | 02/08/10

Excellent analogy!

Tim says:

03:07pm | 02/08/10

Sorry Steely Dan,
how is it a good analogy?
The law is the same for everyone so there are no faith based issues.
A more apt analogy would be a faith based hospital.
.......Oh wait a minute.

papachango says:

03:14pm | 02/08/10

Actually it is a good analogy, but perhaps not for the reasons you think.

The ‘same manner it funds private schools’ would actually mean that anyone who employs private security (e.g. a small business with a security guard) should receive a lesser service from the police, who will not investigate crimes where they are a victim as thoroughly.

Would any one seriously suggest that?

Bobster says:

03:20pm | 02/08/10

@ Tim

The point is, Tim, if you want to beef up security around your home because you don’t like the job the state police force is doing, you pay a private security firm out of your own pocket - you don’t go demanding everyone else picks up the bill because of your right to choose.

And, private hospitals shouldn’t get any funds either for the same reasoning. If we believe the market will provide, let the market provide.

It’s about time we dropped the hypocrisy. Either socialised health care and education is a good idea or it’s not, and if it’s not then private institutions should pay their own way.

Demand, competitive pricing, greater access blah blah blah.

Or do we only believe in that when it’s some other poor bugger struggling to pay the bill?

Steely Dan says:

04:48pm | 02/08/10

@ papachango

“The ‘same manner it funds private schools’ would actually mean that anyone who employs private security (e.g. a small business with a security guard) should receive a lesser service from the police, who will not investigate crimes where they are a victim as thoroughly.”

Not quite, papachango.  Obviously the police don’t do this.  Why?  Because people who have private security have the same right to receive police protection, just as children attending private schools should have the same right to attend public schools as the kids attending public schools.  They only relinquish their right to public schooling in practical terms (ie. no kid can attend two schools at once).

The right to public schooling is always there.  Paying for private education doesn’t take it away.  Plenty of kids dropped out of private schools and came to my public school when I was there.

Bobster says:

01:03pm | 02/08/10

@ Andrew - You’ve got to love a conservative socialist.

You pay more taxes because you have gained more by living in Australia. Your higher standard of living would not have been possible without this country (for instance, if you were born in Sudan, I doubt you’d have done quite so well for yourself) and as such you owe Australia more because it gives you more.

One of the things Australia gives you is guaranteed education and healthcare - that gave you a safety net while you climbed - as well as the roads and the ability to find a job that will allow you to buy a Merc. 
In return for your taxes you have a multi-billion public education system and a multi-billion public health system so that if your fortune fades, you won’t be forgotten.
If you choose not to take advantage of it, that’s your own problem and you can bloody well pay for it because my children won’t be able to go to your kids’ school come hell or high water.
Should you need it though, my kids’ school will be open to your progeny - that’s the difference, and that’s why you pay tax. No one ever told you you couldn’t go to a public school and no one’s banned you from driving on Paramatta Road either.

Shane From Melbourne says:

02:14pm | 02/08/10

@Andrew- More idiot logic. Road- “public goods”, Rubbish Removal- “public goods”, Public Education- “public goods”, Private Education- “private goods” If you want to purchase private goods or services such a private education for your child, good for you. But at a full market price thank you. As for the rich people pay more taxes, so the should get more return, corporations pay the most taxes so they should get first dibs on the education system. Thank you for playing…..

Economist says:

02:33pm | 02/08/10

Gregg mate, you’re not making any sense. I’m an opponent (sic) of Wayne Swan? Did you mean to say supporter and what’s Wayne go to do with it?

Why are you suggesting that private schools will not exist? To take a quote from another commenter “A little over-wrought, don’t you think? It is difficult to argue some kind of superior, objective reasoning when you make absurd, counter-factual propositions like that.”

The issue is about maximising value for money. You assume I’m against private education when I’m not. What I’m against is misinformation. Dr Donnelly’s analysis ignores willingness to pay and exaggerates the savings. I have indicated why this is the case with some simple calculations, perhaps too simple, based on key economic concepts. Dr Donnelly wants certainty with regards to the funding of private education and presuming that Gillard will reduce funding despite her move to the right in other areas. She’s not stupid, why would she withdraw funding from such a significant voter base.

Ironically it seems you want less accountability with regards to expenditure on private education. I thought you Liberals were all for Cost Benefit analysis and watching every dollar. Tell me what is the rate of return on the subsidy?

I’m for flexibility, I have indicated support for a voucher system for the federal funding component. For example, if you live in Northern Beaches, but have a Household income of $50,000 and you send your child to a private school you might get around a $2-3000 subsidy for the school ( I don’t know the exact figures), as the models based on where you live. There is no guarantee that the school will choose to pass on the subsidy to you by reducing their price. Alternatively under a voucher system you may get $8,000, as it’s based on your HH income, to send your child to the school of your choice. You have the power. Get it.

I wouldn’t call others ignorant without actually clearly reading their arguments. I suggest you re-read the comments.

Gregg says:

04:40pm | 02/08/10

Eco, are you not taking funding for education from education for students?
You can look at savings from the premise of there always being parents who want to make more of a choice for their childrens education if you like but you are really dealing with an unknown quantity.
And look at it that way all you like if you feel that justifies your claims but there’ll also be many able to see that a known quantity is a government funding figure for all students.

The other known figure is the number of students going to non government schools and multiplying that number by the funding gap is the ammount the government is not paying out because of students going to non government schools.

So you can either focus on facts or the maybes and drug addiction, bullying and other irrelevancies as you have infinitum.
Repeating it over and over again is about as good as repeating ” moving forward ”

Economist says:

11:13pm | 02/08/10

Gregg without being too rude, please take the time to re-read your contributions before sending. I’m haivng difficulty in reading your sentences. You state: “are you not taking funding for education from education for students?”

What does this mean?

You state: “You can look at savings from the premise of there always being parents who want to make more of a choice for their childrens education if you like but you are really dealing with an unknown quantity.
And look at it that way all you like if you feel that justifies your claims but there’ll also be many able to see that a known quantity is a government funding figure for all students.” 

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. How can you know the quantity in government schools and not non-government?  It’s simply a subtraction from the total student population. Currently the quantity in non-government is 34%. In 1997 it was around 22% it’s not unknown.
I believe what your trying to say here is if you increased the subsidy say from $6606 to $12,639 more people may choose the non-government sector, so the figures change etc, that the true level is unknown? 

You stated: “The other known figure is the number of students going to non government schools and multiplying that number by the funding gap is the ammount the government is not paying out because of students going to non government schools.”

Yes that is the situation if you look at actual cost, but as I’ve argued till I’m blue in the face you’re subsidising choice. I’m not being bitter or evil simply putting forward a different, and I believe accurate point of view. For example If public education was funded at a level of $50,000 per student there would still be a school that charges $60,000 that parents would choose / demand, but should we subsidise them and if so how much? 

Look personally I’ve been more than reasonable with you and your vitriol. I wasn’t the one to raise the drug issue, but I responded to what I believe is an absurd claim and as for my other comments on this Punch contribution, what’s wrong with putting forward ideas and solutions and discussing other peoples ideas. Basically you want to shut me up with comments like Scatter Brain rather than be constructive,  just because the Punch is a little more relaxed with its personal abuse policy.

Gregg says:

02:26pm | 03/08/10

When you have got past your antics Economist, you do get down to an understanding you may choose to deny.
Have a look at your own writing infinitum and a continual blue in the face theme
” Phil your figures are wrong. The subsidy actually costs the tax payer $2.6 billion. You’re assuming that the government actually bans private education and choose to ignore the fact that there are parents willing to pay regardless of the cost.
………..
Kevin Donnelly the savings of $7B is based on the assumption that all non-government students would go back to the public system. this is clearly not the case. Secondly SES is only pseudo needs based. Its based on where you live not the resources available to you. A voucher system of Federal funding would be more equaitable and needs based.
……………
Now that I’ve had the above rant I think it’s important to debunk this myth that private education saves the tax payer money. The key reason for debunking it is because we are subsidising a choice that would have been made regardless of the subsidy being in place.
…………..
Dr Donnelly I have followed your arguments debates on this issue for quite some time and you continue to argue for comparative funding, but choose to ignore three key points. The first being that private schools can be selective in who they take, they are not obliged to try and teach the most socially destructive children, young criminals. This is one of the key selling points to private schools. Second, they are only loosely obliged to meet curriculum requirements and can teach what ever they like. Third these schools, even the Catholic ones are not required to be present in remote and regional areas where the cost of education is much higher that pushes up the average to $12,639.
…………….
And then you agree on a funding of students basis
“ I’d argue that governments should fund students and not school systems, on the basis that every child deserves a properly funded, well resourced education system. I’d also argue that we should have school vouchers (where the money follows the child) to enable more parents to make the choice; especially, less well off parents. “
........................
I am not claiming private schools do not exist but you are misinformation being spread and claiming savings do not occur because parents choose private schools.

I think it is people like you Economist who desire to cloud the truth and will go to all sorts of extremes with potential figures to not having a simple truth disclosed.

Put very very simply for you, lets talk in round numbers of 1000 students and a standard education funding of $1000, a voucher system if you like, total cost of $1M.
300 students go to a private school and government funding for them drops to $500 so cost in government funding not paid is $500/student.
Off set that id you like with taxation deductions and rebates etc., another story.
But your claim of there is no saving and in fact a subsidy because of parents being prepared to pay more is well away from agreeing to a voucher system of $$$/student.

And then you’d claim the government cost is higher because of remote located students, Oh yeah!, and just what % do remote students make up.
Your whole premise is based on the principle of ” Dr Donnelly’s analysis ignores willingness to pay ” and that clearly defines your thinking.

Economist says:

03:48pm | 03/08/10

Simple rebuttal using your example. So you have 1000 students to teach at a cost of $1000 each. 300 of them choose to go to a private school because they are not happy with the public system. Total saving to the government, $300,000 if no subsidy given. There you have it. Why give them anything it’s their choice.

But of course it’s more complicated then that. Would 300 then choose the private system if no subsidy was given?  Is it fair? No. Do some students need more support then others? Yes? I think my position has been pretty clear. I certainly don’t appreciate abuse. It’s not my fault is you choose not to understand what I’m trying to say. Finally it’s pretty difficult to summarise every possible idea and initiative in a blog.

iansand says:

02:23pm | 02/08/10

Education expenses are not tax deductible.  Donations to schools’ building foundations, etc are (even public schools if they had such foundations).  The problem is that private schools are adept at gouging donatons from their alumni.  My mother is approaching 90, and still gets requests from her old school.  I am not that old, and I rarely hear a peep from my public school (although James Morrison and Tom Burlinson have turned up at fundraisers a couple of times).

Helen says:

03:45pm | 02/08/10

Andrew, please try to get it into your head that to be able to get your kids into private schools even by “scrimping” you have to have a fair income in the first place (or grandparents or kindly uncles/aunts with money). It doesn’t mean you’re onthe BRW rich list, but it does mean that you have a measure of privilege which is out of reach of some people using the public system. A “choice” is only a “choice” in this case where you have the funds to exercise that choice.

iansand says:

03:54pm | 02/08/10

The idea has been around for many years.  The AEU (and many other people and organisations) will resist it because it will lead to reduced funding for public schools (assuming the pot stays the same size).  The concept puts a lot of things into perspective.  It highlights how much of the “debate” on this issue is based in envy and class warfare.

Kirk says:

04:16pm | 02/08/10

Great system Georginorx.  I have no kids, so you can just send the voucher to me, care of me.  It will go nicely into my bank account.

If you have any sense of history you will know that this voucher system is not a new idea.  It was not conceived in this thread.  Research the conservative hardheads like Milton Freidman for more history on it.

The voucher is just a way to flatten the tax system.  We all pay tax and then we all get the same amount back.  It’s quite horrible.  Should we all get a public hospital allowance too?  Perhaps a police allowance - only one call per year!  Think twice before you use it.

Public education is there for communal benefit.  If you don’t choose to use it that’s fine, don’t use it.  But why should you expect to get the funding?  “All kids deserve the same funding” - but why?  Do you expect the same funding as a disabled kid?  Of course not.

There are government benefits there for the taking.  Either take them or don’t take them.  You can’t expect to put your hand out for the cash that it *would* have cost to utilise the service and proclaim that you will spend it your own way.  I don’t (seriously) expect to get a tax refund for not having kids even though it’s the responsible option (let some f**king refugees into the country if we need more people to support the economy).

Georginorx says:

04:25pm | 02/08/10

The pot will need to be bigger.  I’m pretty sure public education funding is only just enough to meet minimum education standards. I’m not sure how the public would feel about paying a lot more for the same education results (if this is the case - I haven’t found any stats on the issue from an unbiased source).
@iansand: Your last sentence is a bit confusing - are you saying that the amount of public funding is greater than private, and the argument against private schools receiving equal funding is a class warfare mechanism of wealth redistribution, where those who can afford more expensive education are penalised for having the money in the first place?
PS how do I pronounce your name? is it i-an-sand or ians-and or…

Peter says:

06:15pm | 02/08/10

@ Iansand. Im not sure how this amounts to class warefare? It’s not as if somebody on an average wage will send the whole family to Scotch College on the back of a $12,000 voucher, but it will give them a choice to send their kids to a Catholic school etc.. It’s the rich that ask for these grants to private schools claiming they pay tax and they should get some benefit too. The voucher idea, to which they will be entitled too as well is that benefit and im sure Scotch College could come up with some great ideas on how to use it..

@ Kirk, public (or private) education is not just there for communal benefit to use it or not, education is compulsory for kids up to 15 years of age. At least the voucher system might help the parents choose a school suitable for their kids and not send them to some poor performing state school because of where they live and where otherwise talented kids get demorolised and leave school… These kinds of state schools exist… This is not class warefare, the rich will still have their schools and everyone else will have what they can afford..

I do not like the idea of public money going to private schools. I think this voucher system will take the whole class warefare thing out of the debate..

Kirk says:

09:23pm | 02/08/10

@Peter How can you support vouchers but not ‘public money going to private schools’?  That’s a straight contradiction.  Vouchers are public money - they’re funding through the government.

Public schooling is a benefit that parents can use or lose.  Yes, they need to arrange some education but there are many options - private fee based schools, community schools or homeschooling come to mind.  There’s no need to fund private schools.

Helen says:

10:18am | 03/08/10

The flaw is that as with the first homebuyers grant, it will simply push the price of private education up and up. There will be no change in the distribution of privilege, as the privates will charge whatever people are prepared to pay. So just as the first homebuyers grant hasn’t addressed the availability of housing, vouchers won’t solve the problem of availability of quality education.

Peter says:

10:27am | 03/08/10

@ Kirk, despite being accused by some on this forum of being more right wing than Eric Abetz, i do actually believe in universal health care and free primary/secondary education for all..

The main reason we have funding going to private schools is because the rich claim that they pay their share of tax and demand funding for their schools (fair enough). What i am advocating is that rich kids/families be entitled to the same education grant as anyone else. Parents can then chose which school their kids go to and these private schools would get no further grants and the parents that winge about paying tax and not getting anything back, would stop their winging…

Peter says:

10:30am | 03/08/10

@ Helen. Regulations put in place can prevent that from happening… As i said, the voucher would only entitle you to a 100% Government funded school.

Georginorx says:

04:13pm | 03/08/10

@ Kirk:
Public education is not purely a communal benefit. Sure parents have time to go to work during the day, it keeps kids in a supervised and social environment etc but that’s not the ultimate outcome here - it is simply an education that makes someone a competent employee.
The reason I pay tax is to provide funding of an economic system that I enjoy and recognise the full benefits of. Education is a huge contributing factor to Australia’s economic growth (and hence the luxurious lifestyles we all enjoy - not to mention the various social benefits) and therefore deserves public funding. Education is a public good because the benefits are seen by everyone, not just those with children. Private education is a private good to the extent that they have a yacht club and super-powered computers and religion and social status and ridiculous uniforms - these features privately benefit the child and the family, but arguably doesn’t benefit society. The basic education under all of that extra stuff does not go away. Why should we not fund that basic education?
If the public school system does not support the needs of the child or the values and culture of the family, the family should have the option of choosing a different educational scenario without being financially discriminated against.
I once supported the “like it or lump it” idea, but it’s clearly not working out. I believe in public education but I support education options. I have my reservations about potential market failure in the voucher scenario, but I’ll need to do some research before delving in to that one.

BTW Kirk, attacking the author doesn’t win points. I like that you responded with a criticism of the system, but did you really need to be sarcastic? Did your attack on my background knowledge of this system achieve anything? Please consider framing your discussion more positively.

Bobster says:

04:29pm | 02/08/10

@ iansand, That would at least remove some of the hypocrisy in having private schools set their own curricula while picking from the public purse.

Peter says:

12:18pm | 03/08/10

No, because higher income earners will get a bigger deduction, thus making their kids education cheaper than the average wage earner…

Kevin Donnelly says:

01:12pm | 03/08/10

If you read the original article you will see that I state funding is not shared equally -  I say that wealthier non-government schools receive 13.7% of the funding received by a state school student with more needy non-government schools getting 70% of the figure.

Kevin Donnelly says:

11:29am | 03/08/10

I’m always amazed at the way people talk about government money and ignore the fact that government money originates from citizens.  Governments, via taxes and other charges and imposts, take money from individuals (and companies), as such those who choose non-government schools have every right to expect that some of the money taken by government via taxation is returned via school subsidies.

Steely Dan says:

12:47pm | 03/08/10

@ Kevin

“...as such those who choose non-government schools have every right to expect that some of the money taken by government via taxation is returned via school subsidies.”
No, they don’t.  Not if they don’t need it.  I don’t get given drought assistance, because I’m not directly affected by drought.  But my tax dollars pay for drought assistance, so should I demand that I get my share of the loot?

DocBud says:

01:40pm | 03/08/10

Who gets to decide what people do and don’t need, Steely Dan? It all comes down to whether or not the government takes a fair amount of tax and uses it judiciously and fairly. I don’t believe they do so I’m comfortable with my kids receiving some of the vast amounts of tax the Mrs and I pay back.

Steely Dan says:

02:44pm | 03/08/10

@ DocBud

“Who gets to decide what people do and don’t need, Steely Dan?’
The government of the day.  Why, do you have a problem with the current definition?  I would have thought that saying that parents who can afford to send their kids to a private school don’t need education assistance was a non-controversial one.  But if you disagree, do you support me receiving drought assistance?  Or maybe a disability pension?

“I don’t believe they do so I’m comfortable with my kids receiving some of the vast amounts of tax the Mrs and I pay back.”
So because the government doesn’t spend tax dollars on exactly what you want, you can justify receiving a freebie you don’t need at my expense?

DocBud says:

04:57pm | 03/08/10

I don’t consider getting my own money back as “assistance” but I’d prefer the government took a lot less of it in the first place and left me to decide what to do with it. However, as has been pointed out, the government’s real goal is to save money, not subsidise rich people’s kids, by making it attractive to educate children privately for people on quite modest incomes the government relieves itself of the burden. The same philosphy applies to superannuation tax incentives.

The top 1% of earners contributed 18.5% of personal tax in 2007/8, I don’t think my child’s education is at your expense but there are one or two that get their’s at my expense.

Economist says:

08:14pm | 02/08/10

To be fair Jeff I think there are many private schools that do take on children with special needs and certainly there are numerous non-government schools specialising in the support of disabled children where parents are paying $30000+ of their own money.  Personally I think the government needs to do more in this space.

With regards to suspension and expulsion. I think it depend on the issue. Bullying is not a one strike policy, generally both parents are called and the issue is discussed. Warnings are given, though repeat offences are dealt with harshly. Good luck in trying to achieve the same productive objective in public schools. Alternatively as recently demonstrated, if you are caught committing a crime that embarrasses the school you’re automatically out.

But I tend to agree that public schools can become the dumping ground.  In my public school the principals car was regularly stolen, violence was a daily exercise for some kids including punch ups with teachers and more than you’d expect as an average ended up as murders and thieves, but not one expulsion occurred because they’d simply be dumped on another public school out of their zone.

Returned Man says:

11:25am | 06/08/10

“Private education is important for Australia”

“were it to happen that private schools were banned and all children had to attend public schools, Australia would go broke because they couldn’t afford it”

Such well-reasoned, carefully explained arguments. Obviously your private school education did your thinking the world of good.

Economist says:

08:03pm | 02/08/10

I gotta say I love the reverse envy argument. It’s completely designed to undermine the concept of public education. But it does sort of lead to one important point. How is the public funding distributed to public schools. What are the formulas?

Helen says:

09:27am | 03/08/10

Au Contraire. Having a socioeconomic mix going from the top to the bottom is an important factor in keeping public education viable. Writers like Jane Caro and Sandra Tsing Loh (Google her if you haven’t read her) talk about the “white flight” to private education here and the US and the need for “pushy parents” who can use their privilege, knowledge of how systems work, etcetera, to advocate for all the kids at the school and help keep things running smoothly - as they do in the private system. Poor and uneducated parents do the best they can, but they don’t have that added clout of privilege and higher education, resources and networks.
Secondly, if the public education system is just a “safety net” for all the “others” once any kid with ability has been creamed off by your predatory private schools and the rest have been crammed into selective schools by panicked parents, how do you think we are going to give the best chance to those children? Children need to mix with higher and lower socio economic groups, not be cordoned off into walled communities according to level of privilege.
Better-off parents in the public system is a vote of confidence and a boost to the system. We have this in the Vic primary system already.

iansand says:

09:09pm | 02/08/10

Edicare.  I’m in.  Base rate plus whatever else you are prepared to ante up for your kids’ education.  Smarter folk than I will explain how this is different to a voucher system.

DocBud says:

06:36am | 03/08/10

I’d agree with you, Jackie, if your friend doesn’t pay income tax, GST and other taxes. How muc does your friend pay in tax compared to the average person ($16401 in 2007/8)? Why should ‘rich’ people’s taxes be used to subsidise the education of other people’s children but not used to educate their own?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/aussies-paying-40-per-cent-more-tax/story-fn3dxity-1225699185859

Rob says:

07:27pm | 04/08/10

I can see your point Jackie, however it would do nothing to address the reality of schools in low socio economic areas being disadvantaged. The school I teach in is just above the economic line which would grant it extra funds. Our kids miss out on the benefits of new technology and everything that brings, they are handicapped before they can finish school and it’s not their fault. ALL schools should have access to the same resources regardless of the financial circumstances of their parent body. The current system is not equiable in any way but unless your fee system included “sharing the wealth” it would not help.

Georginorx says:

04:35pm | 03/08/10

Unfortunately, education can not be extracted from values and culture. I would prefer that all children get taught about tolerance, equality etc but this is not a choice you can make for others. I don’t agree with your argument against relgion in schools, despite how some religions have values that I disagree with.
My point is that despite the characteristics of private schools that you disagree with, they are still providing their students with a basic education. That education, in my opinion, is worth publicly funding.