In the lead-up to the 2001 federal election, a Labor backbencher from Melbourne’s outer west weighed into the national debate on schools funding.

Blackboard Jungle: the PM should remember her past rhetoric.

In a media release headed Howard’s Unfair School Funding Model Must Go, the MP attacked the Coalition Government for the funding arrangements it had introduced earlier that year.

As evidence of the inequity the release pointed out that the model treated elite private schools as more needy than public schools and gave them almost twice the funding per student. That was both “ridiculous and unfair”, the MP said. Fast forward ten years and that backbencher is now our Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, the change in her job description has not yet been matched by a change in school funding arrangements. The same SES model with the same flaws and inherent inequity remains.

To her credit, Julia Gillard has implemented a comprehensive review of these funding arrangements – the first review in over 30 years to look at how all schools are funded. Education Minister Peter Garrett also understands the need for change describing the Howard model as “flawed in design and application” and a case of “a political party putting ideology before good policy”.

It is not an exaggeration to say the fortunes of millions of children are tied to the outcome of this review, which will report to the Government in December. Given the current system will have been in place for 13 years by the time it is replaced we can expect the new arrangements to take Australia well into the 2020s.

Whatever your view about schools funding, I think you will agree the most pressing question for the expert panel conducting the review is this: How do we ensure that every child, no matter where he or she lives, no matter what their parents do or where they come from, can get a high quality education?

How successful are we in doing that now? Well by international standards Australia has a high performing education system and the results our schools and students achieve are something we should be proud of.

But our overall performance as a nation has slipped in the past decade, compared to other major OECD countries. Of even greater concern is that the gap in achievement between students from wealthy areas and those from disadvantaged areas has grown, according to the results of the international PISA test of 15 year old students.

Those gaps are now the equivalent of between two to three years learning – an unacceptable difference when you are talking about students who are nearing the end of their secondary education. Indigenous students are, on average, three to four years behind students from wealthy areas in reading. According to the PISA report, the effect of socioeconomic background on performance is greater than on average among OECD countries.

Unfortunately, the way the Federal Government is funding schools is contributing to this problem rather than helping to fix it.

Under the current system, all public schools are funded at a flate rate, regardless of the needs of their students. That rate is lower than even the wealthiest private school in the nation – the point Julia Gillard and Labor were making when the SES funding model came into being in 2001.

That inequity in funding is despite the fact public schools remain the foundation of our education system. They are the only ones open to every child, in every community. They also have the overwhelming number of students with higher educational needs who are more expensive to educate such as those from low income families (77 per cent), those with special needs (80 per cent) and those who are Indigenous Australians (86 per cent). 

Rather than recognising that fundamental role and resourcing it, the federal funding system is short-changing public schools. They have two thirds of students but get only one third of the funding.

That shortfall is fueling a resources gap between schools. As My School shows, when all sources of funding - state, federal and private - are taken into account,  Independent private schools have, on average, 36 per cent more recurrent income per student to spend than public schools.

The challenge, and opportunity, for the expert panel conducting the review and, ultimately the government, will be to design a funding system that better meets the needs of every child. Funding must be directed where it is needed the most.

Better resourcing our public schools must be a key part of that solution if improvements both in equity and overall achievement levels are our objectives. As the NSW Governor Marie Bashir has so rightly pointed out, our future as a nation “can only be assured with confidence through unswerving commitment to public education of the highest quality”. Our children deserve nothing less.

99 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Bob Real says:

      09:18am | 24/08/11

      Public schools are a state responsibility. Howard gave the states rivers of gold in the firm if the GST. If they cannot adequately fund state schools despite that colossal largesse they are incompetent. The commonwealth has no responsibility for public (state) schools. Looters need to keep their fingers out of the commonwealth cash register and get on with teaching.

    • Salec says:

      09:47am | 24/08/11

      Exactly. It is dishonest to say they have two thirds of the students and one third of the funding. It is true of federal funding, but when all public funding is included, public schools get vastly more funding per student than private schools.

      You can’t include private funding, parents have the right to spend more money on their child’s education if they want to. They already pay a price for that in the form of less funding from the government (state and federal), but its ridiculous to suggest it should be set to zero. This would result in less kids going to private because their parents could no longer afford it, putting even more strain on the public system. There has to be a balance, which I think is exactly what we have now.

      And you can’t directly compare results of children from public and private schools without comparing the starting base. As you say public schools have higher numbers of students with ‘higher educational needs’. These students will never have the results of other students with a higher aptitude for learning no matter how much money you throw at them. You need to measure learning improvement, not overall results.

    • PTom says:

      11:11am | 24/08/11

      @Bob,
      The rivers of gold replaced other State revenue, not new revenue.

      @Salec
      “When funding from all sources, including State/Territory and Commonwealth governments, fees, fundraising, sponsorships and the like, are taken into account, average total expenditure for students in government schools is several thousand dollars less per year than the average figure for students in private schools. (MCEETYA, National Report on Schooling in Australia, 2008). “
      This includes public school fees too.

      So if public schools are states responsibility then why the hell should federal fund any school public or private?

      “These students will never have the results of other students with a higher aptitude for learning no matter how much money you throw at them “
      Really so student that recieve $7000 in government funding are doing better then those that recieve $1000 and money has nothing to do with it.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:24am | 24/08/11

      @PTom- nailed it in one. Public schools are a state responsibility and the Federal Government shouldn’t be subsidizing any school, public and private. Looters (private schools) need to keep their fingers out of the commonwealth cash register and get on with teaching.

    • Salec says:

      11:52am | 24/08/11

      @ PTom

      “Really so student that recieve $7000 in government funding are doing better then those that recieve $1000 and money has nothing to do with it.”

      No students that receive $4000 in TOTAL public funding are doing better than students who receive $12000 in TOTAL public funding and the PUBLIC funding level has nothing to do with it.

      I know the total funding including fees is higher for private schools, of course it is, fees are higher. The point is parents of private school kids pay a premium for this extra funding.

      I took a quick look at the my schools website for some public and private schools in SA, and while the elite private schools get in total around $6k - $8k more funding per student, parents pay $14k for the privilege. In terms of total government funding they get around $7-8k less per student. If you look at the lower to mid tier private schools some of them have the same or slightly more funding per student and parents pay $4k to $6k for the privilege.

      It’s a all a balancing act. Kids in private schools cost the government (and the taxpayer) less than kids in public schools. If you take away funding from the private schools, more kids will be forced into the public school system, and the funding will be spread thinner, actually reducing the funding per child in the public system.

      The current system might need tweaking to get the balance right, but the idea behind the system is the right one.

    • Willie Mac says:

      12:52pm | 24/08/11

      @Bob Real,

      If the commonwealth has no responsibility for public education, it’s ludicrous to say that they do have responsibility for private eduaction. I respect the right of people to get better services than others if they are prepared to pay for it, but this service should not be subsidised by everyone else.

      If the states are incompetent for trying to draw on extra resources outside of their core source of funds, the same must surely apply to private school boards.

    • PTom says:

      01:15pm | 24/08/11

      @Salec
      Do you know how much Government funding (State+Fed) is provide to private and public and how many students are in each.

      It is not a balancing act it is a rort the princple behind it is wrong. Schools should not be funded based on the suburb they are in but the students needs.
      http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/federal-funding-a-bonanza-for-catholic-schools-20110217-1ayab.html

      Like remote schools may need extra funding per student for school maintenance because of lower class size, while some outer-metro schools need extra funding for ESL students.
      But right now schools recieves federal funding based on the suburb not on the student needs.

    • mick says:

      10:00pm | 24/08/11

      I have worked in the Private, Catholic and Public systems.  The worst kept secret is there for all to see.  But then the top end of town has influence and normally gets what it wants.
      I was amazed at the difference in funding between the systems.  It leaves a bad taste when one sees the truly elite schools with the opulence which they display and then go to the opposite end of the spectrum where necessary equipment like computers are all but non existent.
      The funding of schools needs to be means tested but don’t hold your breath that this is going to happen.

    • Ben Haslem says:

      09:24am | 24/08/11

      Angelo, when are you going to stop being so dishonest. You and the AEU repeatedly pedal the myth that independent schools receive more government funding than public schools. They don’t and you know it. You never acknowledge that the Commonwealth (Canberra) is not responsible for the vast bulk of funding for public schools. The States are. And the States are NOT responsible for funding independent schools. The Commonwealth is. When you combine all government funding (Commonwealth and State), public schools receive vastly more funding on average than independent schools. As they should. I have two children in public schools and support increased funding for that sector. I also think the SES funding model is flawed. But I am sick and tired of the AEU’s misinformation campaign. When the teacher’s union lowers itself to misleading the public it reflects poorly on its members. But, hey, it’s working, I meet intelligent parents all the time who honestly believe independent schools receive more government funding than their public counterparts.

    • TomZ says:

      10:32am | 24/08/11

      Well said Ben. Another load of poisonous bigotry and bile from a lying union hack. God help Australia that these grubs are passing on their class envy and propensity for dishonesty to future Australians.

    • Jess says:

      01:03pm | 24/08/11

      And Ben, in the interests of honest disclosure, how many private schools do you represent professionally?

    • TomZ says:

      01:46pm | 24/08/11

      Jess, I don’t see you raising “honest disclosure” as an issue with Angelo Gavrielatos the Federal President of the Australian Education Union. Could it be your bias is showing? Or are you just another union hack trying to pour taxpayers money into the bottomless pit of union incompetence called our public education system?

    • Craig says:

      05:00pm | 24/08/11

      Does it even matter if that statistic appears “dishonest”. In actual fact I read it to mean Federal funding Ben. Blind Freddie can see that the majority of private schools, particularly the elite ones, are swimming in money and don’t need public money to offer smaller class sizes, better facilities and the like. Public schools, however, do rely on government funding and shouldn’t be disadvantaged by a funding model that directs public money to alread rich private schools. What is it you don’t get about the term “private”? Funny how conservatives scream blue murder if the government tries to regulate business but as soon as there’s money to be taken from the public purse you’re the first ones to put your hand out for funds that could be going to those worse off. Get a grip.

    • GlendaSings says:

      05:05pm | 24/08/11

      Canberra is not the Commonwealth. Canberra is a nice city of 350,000 people set an hour from the coast near the Brindabella ranges.

      The people of Canberra all get one vote each just like the rest of the country. Yes, some of us are public servants - paid to deliver the policies of the government elected by the people of Australia. Sometimes we get to work on policies we agree on, other times we have to grit our teeth while enacting policy we personally detest.

      Collectively, the population of Canberra are thoroughly sick of being held responsible for the parties you vote for, the policies you vote for and the sometimes misguided politicians that you send to live with us for part of the year.

    • Ben Haslem says:

      10:44am | 26/08/11

      @Jess. I work for the Exclusive Brethren whose parents attend private schools. Very good ones, I might add. I went to Canberra Grammar for 13 years. My sons attend a local public school. I am a swinging voter. Does this make an ounce of difference to the fact that Angelo’s piece is dishonest? No. Am I conflicted? Yes. I have a client involved in the independent schools sector; I have kids in a public school; I attended a private school. Another client (pro-bono) is the St James Ethics Centre, which is behind ethics classes in public schools. I may as well not post a comment! And on disclosure: who the hell are you, ‘Jess’? At least I have the guts to put my name to my post and don’t hide behind some silly handle or first name.

    • Ted says:

      09:25am | 24/08/11

      How about a real story involving a lying MP, prostitutes (paid with union money), using public money to extort a job, attempted cover-ups and a proven liar PM who wants to maintain power.

    • dw says:

      11:44am | 24/08/11

      That’s true Ted. The Punch have been strangely silent on the topic.

    • Mahhrat says:

      12:32pm | 24/08/11

      I’ll third this one, Ted - I’m left-leaning myself, but I want to know what’s going on.

    • Shooter says:

      02:51pm | 24/08/11

      Ted you forgot the shop lifting Liberal Senator. All should be investigated.

    • HeatherG says:

      08:22pm | 24/08/11

      Shooter, the shoplifting Liberal senator has been investigated, and that case cannot be commented on as it is yet to go through the court system. If found guilty, she will be dealt with as necessary.

      The Union Card needs to get to the first base; hasn’t yet.

      At least she didn’t try to blame it on a phantom, eh?

      Okay. Maybe that’s not a fair comment. Maybe it’s just my cynical nature. Hells, though, I don’t know about anyone else, but if my Union Card had been stolen, my name forged and someone who looked suspiciously like me on my stolen ID had used my employer’s (well, really, Union member’s) funds to pay for a helluva lot of, presumably, shagging, I’d be wanting the police to check it out, quick smart, not trying to cover it up by having the funds authorised and then paying the money back later.

      Maybe I’m just weird.

    • Michael N says:

      09:25am | 24/08/11

      Agreed. I had no idea that private school’s received a larger amount of federal funding - that is anathema to every other social welfare policy we have. I had always assumed that each student received the same amount of funding regardless of Public, Catholic or Private. I hope you get what you wish for but I fear that the current political climate might be dominated by other issues for a while!

    • Glen M says:

      03:05pm | 24/08/11

      Micheal if you add state and federal funding together actually private school children recieve less per child than those who attend state schools. The article above is a fabrication based on only a selected understanding of the facts. If taxpayer funds were distributed equally per child,  funding to private schools should increase. 
      The simple reason why funding cannot and should not be reduced to private schools is that the government saves money for each child educted privately. Any decrease to funding would simply move the burden of educating more students onto public schools and reduce the quality of education in those schools further. Unfortunately as this topic is not understood by most, as obvious by the article and the comments here, it is used by labor governments as a political tool, to gather votes.
      Typically Gillard will likely tinker at the edges of policy on this topic so she can make grandiose statements about how she is addressing an inequitable solution, but she can’t make major changes as that would add to the budget cost and the labor surplus would be even harder to deliver.

    • Anna C says:

      09:26am | 24/08/11

      If I was in charge of schools I would ban all private/independent and religious schools. All children would be required to attend their local public school (thus reducing traffic) and all government funding and donations (by parents) would be funnelled into a single channel and distributed evenly on a per capita basis.  Schools which have fewer students or who have students from poorer socieo-economic backrounds would be entitled to a funding top up.

    • RyaN says:

      09:58am | 24/08/11

      The tall poppy syndrome is strong in this one!

    • AdamC says:

      10:38am | 24/08/11

      Anna C, what would be gained by your approach? It seems some people, like you, support a centralised, Soviet bureaucracy approach to education simply for the sake of it. How would your proposal actually benefit students by giving them a better education?

    • Hartz says:

      10:50am | 24/08/11

      OMG - how do you function in society..?? Does your carer know that you are using the computer..??

    • Anna C says:

      11:13am | 24/08/11

      “How would your proposal actually benefit students by giving them a better education?”

      AdamC, who cares about giving students a better education. All I care about is reducing the traffic in Sydney. Have you ever tried to get anywhere in peak hour In Sydney. Most of the bloody cars are filled with mums in 4WD trying to get their precious bundles to and from school.

      Who said anything about providing the kids with a better education. What is it about people with kids? Why has it always got to be about you?

    • fml says:

      11:14am | 24/08/11

      Anna C,

      Even i wouldnt ban private/independent schools! and im a commie pig!

    • PTom says:

      11:24am | 24/08/11

      Anna,
      You have slipped to the left with equal funding for all. I argue with you lots about issues but here is one issue I agree with you. Scary.

      It is so funny because all the private school advocates always talk about recieving the same government funding as student in public schools.

      So when a Government builds a $100,000 class and allocates $2000 per student, they want the same amount being spent on private. But then the government spend extra on additional on improving the school for blind and learn impared childern, private also want the extra funding even if they don’t have the need.

      Yet right now more government funding per student is being spent on Private. Why?

    • Anna C says:

      11:38am | 24/08/11

      You guys are all a bunch of SNOBS. Isn’t public education good enough for your kids? Who do you people think you are the royal family or something? Oh dear oh dear.  You know you guys really should stop having such delusions of grandeur.

    • Anna C says:

      11:50am | 24/08/11

      Ptom, my political leanings change with every issue. I am not a rusted on supporter of the left or the right, regardless of what some people might think.

      When it comes to things like school funding and the private health insurance rebate, I don’t think it is fair that I am expected to subsidise other people’s lifestyle choices. If you want to send your kids to private or independent schools (a real oxymoron) then you should pay for it and not expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

      As far as I’m concerned people can do whatever the hell they like BUT don’t expect me to pay for it.

    • Giraffe says:

      12:08pm | 24/08/11

      Oh c’mon AnnaC,
      I don’t want to pay for you’re health care either, or your aged pension because I don’t get sick and will retire self funded. Unfortunately, we don’t have those choices, see my comment below for choices we do get to make though..

    • Andree says:

      12:25pm | 24/08/11

      Just ban the government funding non government schools and let the free market sort out the rest.

    • TomZ says:

      01:38pm | 24/08/11

      Anna C, those people pay taxes. Depriving them of a choice to better the lives of their children is totalitarian rubbish. You are a grim little hater.

    • AdamC says:

      01:52pm | 24/08/11

      Anna C, by your logic, we should abolish state education altogether. After all, having kids itself is a ‘lifestyle choice’ and parents should meet all the obligations of raising kids, including educating them, without a government subsidy. That would probably even help with the Sydney traffic!

    • Peter says:

      02:55pm | 24/08/11

      I take it those in favour of Anna C’s proposal will be happy to pay the increased taxes that would be required to maintain the current Government funding for State School students (which has been pointed out above is significantly more per head for public students than private). The influx of students from the private system would also flood the public system that we are continually told is already overcrowded.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:59pm | 24/08/11

      @Anna C- I wouldn’t ban all private / independent and religious schools but I would nationalize the graduates and sub contract them to the private sector for a profit. Why should private schools freeload of the taxpayer dollar without giving a benefit to the state in return?

    • TomZ says:

      03:23pm | 24/08/11

      Shane, so you trying to tell us that a taxpayer is “freeloading” because he / she receives services that are funded by taxes? You idiot lefties just don’t get it do you.

    • AdamC says:

      09:41am | 24/08/11

      The problem with this article is that, according to the author, public schools will always be neglected, underfunded and ignored by governments, no matter how much they talk about or chuck money at them.

      I went to a state primary school and a private high school in Victoria. Despite what Angelo says, there is no unitary ‘education system’ in Australia. There are state and terrirory systems, a Catholic system, and hundreds of independent schools. Unfortunately, for a sector that is supposed to nurture new ideas and creativity, the state education systems and their ruling bureaucracies are highly rigid and reactionary in their thinking.

      In my view, state education systems should be reformed to allow non-government schools to become providers within the public system. Meanwhile, state-owned schools should become independent and self-governing; the educational bureaucracies should be effectively abolished. Lastly, teachers should be employed directly by schools who should be free to set their own remuneration and incentive structures.

      How about some real change, Angelo, rather than just carping and grasping at every bit of cash?

    • Lisa H. says:

      12:37pm | 24/08/11

      This is a really good comment. My own children currently go to the local public primary school, which is one of the few independent public schools in the state.
      The school is fantastically run, and the professional standard is amazingly good.
      The facilities are much better than our previous Catholic school. Class sizes are much smaller. There are greater choices in activities and equipment.

      However, the social spectrum is different between these two local schools.
      In comparison with the Catholic schools, there is a very low level of parental involvement in the public school.
      There is also greater evidence of family breakdown amongst my children’s play mates.
      In stark contrast to the Catholic school experience, I am one of only two parents that have been involved in our parent reading help program for my young daughter, during the entire year.
      As a result, I have spent all year helping other students, and have never once sat with my own child in the school environment!

      The neglect of some of the children in the school is evident.

      Private schools get less public funding than public schools. The class sizes can be larger in private schools, the facilities are often inferior. But private is populated with self-starters, and it’s this social difference that’s the biggest benefit.

    • Punters Pal says:

      09:45am | 24/08/11

      Well, all I can say, thank god you are not in charge of anything. You should take your enlightened ideas to Kim Jong-II, no doubt he will approve. Way to go, abolish all current schools network - private, selective and public.

    • Punters Pal says:

      11:25am | 24/08/11

      I would like to clarify this comment was supposed to be as reply to Anna C comment from above.

    • Anna C says:

      11:54am | 24/08/11

      Now now Punters Pal, no one is talking about abolishing public schools. Dear oh dear you really ought to get your eyes checked.

    • Punters Pal says:

      12:11pm | 24/08/11

      Anna, based on your theory, everyone should go to their closest schools. There are plenty of public shools, selective and non-selective, to which students travel from far and away. I suppose you would like these schools abolished as well, since the little buggers clog up the roads and public transport.

    • Tchom says:

      09:50am | 24/08/11

      Last year, there was a scandal involving my old public high school. A whistleblower revealed that there was dangerous asbestos in some of the school blocks. Apparently they had reported it several times, but no action had been taken due to funding constraints. Public schools need more money. I don’t really care how much money private schools get, just so long as public schools have the resources and facilities for their pupils to achieve a level of education that enables them to enter the workforce or go on to tertiary education. Preferably without cancerogenic building materials

    • Giraffe says:

      10:18am | 24/08/11

      I try to expain my position on this public v private debate to my mates as follows;

      Two Families, each with 2 children, each with an annual income of $100,000, each living in the same suburb with exactly the same basic living costs.

      Each child basically recieves the same funding from government to be schooled. Lets say $5000 annually.

      Family A chooses to send their children to a public school, reasoning they will gain more from life if they are taken on overseas holidays once a year, and have access to a nice boat and various other toys. This families discretional spending goes into these things.

      Family B chooses to send the children to a private school, reasoning they will gain more from a private education, even though they will not be able to go overseas or play with the boat etc on weekends. This families discretional spending therefore goes into the private school.

      How can we justify taking government money from Family B, purely because they choose to spend their spare money in a different way to Family A? Each earns the same, each has the same cost of living, why shouldn’t each recieve the same amount of government funding?

    • Jamin says:

      10:44am | 24/08/11

      Damn right.  Well said Giraffe.

      @  Anna C (posted above) - What Giraffe said.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      11:02am | 24/08/11

      Giraffe, let’s look at it this way then:

      Family B’s money is going towards improving the infrastructure etc of the school their child is going to and the Government money is going towards the child’s education.

      The money the public school receives for Family A’s child is spent on everything that is required to keep the school running and then the child’s education.

      This is where the issue comes into play, I’m happy for both independent schools and public schools to receive the same funding for students provided those students are not having their education hampered by the level of funding, which is what we are seeing in areas where parents can’t afford to send their children to private schools.

      To be honest I would be more likely to hire a public school student than a private school as a public school student is more likely to understand the meaning of hard-work.

    • fml says:

      11:18am | 24/08/11

      I agree in principle that all schools should have equal funding, but i also think that regional schools should get concessions/extra funding to promote good quality teachers to move out to teach in the country.

    • Tchom says:

      11:18am | 24/08/11

      Because its not a choice available to all families? Because the school family B goes to can remain elite and exclusive from the money it makes from its fees, and the additional funding it recieves is at the detriment of public schools who could use that money more?

    • randomscrub says:

      11:35am | 24/08/11

      but in reality, $100 000 a year represents a relatively small proportion of the population - your argument is a narrow fiction.

      the proposition is funding according to need;

      education provides an ongoing benefit to our society;

      how best can we use taxpayer money to create an eduction system that:

      a) meets societal needs; and
      b) does so in a manner that provides EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY regardless of differences in socioeconomic circumstances.

      at present we have a mixed system of education with parents choosing to send their children to private school for religious reasons, a perceived academic benefit (usually based on resourcing considerations) or social/class reasons. they make a decision to pay for this, as you say.

      the release of myschool data has shown that public and private schools are roughly equivalent in terms of academic achievement in similar socioeconomic cohorts - ie: where circumstances are similar, so too are outcomes.

      you ask ‘how can we justify taking government money from family b purely because they spend their money in a different way to family a’.

      i would argue it comes back to the reason why we have an education system - to serve a social purpose.

      in our society not all need is equal.

      if, as a society, we choose to use taxpayer money to provide equality of opportunity - an agreed ‘level’ of education which will provide a citizen with the ability to live their life to the best of their ability - then the questions of need and apportionment are unavoidable.

      is it fair to divert resources from areas of greater need to those of lesser need on the basis of a perceived entitlement?

      is it more or less socially responsible to spend public money on improving opportunity to those with the least?

      the state uses your money to provide a school system, your decision to spend more of your money to send your child to a particular school is your own - a freedom afforded to you by the state.

      it is a question of politcal philosophy as to what type of society you wish to live in - ie. one that seeks to lift the least of its citizens versus one that caters to a small and often elite subset of the population.

      what are the longer term consequences of not funding public schools properly? what are the benefits?

      the education provided now determines the adult citizenry of the future. if you keep underfunding those with great need, you entrench poverty, disadvantage, ignorance, a decline of societal standards.

      hopefully the review takes these overarching considerations into account rather than being driven by marginal electorates, base politics and the deluded notion that individual wants are somehow greater than societal needs.

    • PTom says:

      11:45am | 24/08/11

      Giraffe,

      If only funding was actual worked out that way. But it does not.
      Why should millions in government funding be given to a private exclusive $100,000 per year fee school to build a 2nd pool just because the suburb it is in has a mean income of $80,000 yet the public school across the road with disabled childern recieve no extra funding the then the allocated $1000 per student.

      Yet you whinge about family B tax being spent on public schools for family A. How about Family A whinging that their tax is being spent to benefit family B.

      BTW which family actuals pays more taxes including GST and education rebates?

    • Salec says:

      11:59am | 24/08/11

      Agreed Giraffe. And right now they don’t get equal funding. In fact the author is complaining about the funding family B gets even though currently it is less than what family A gets. The author wants family B’s funding reduced even further. It doesn’t make sense.

      And then he cloaks it in deception by referring only to federal funding and total funding (incl. fees paid), but never total government (federal + state) funding without the fees. Why? Because total government funding is significantly less for private school students.

    • Anna C says:

      12:17pm | 24/08/11

      Giraffe, if your kids as stupid it won’t matter how much money you spend on their private education?

      “How can we justify taking government money from Family B, purely because they choose to spend their spare money in a different way to Family A?”

      Well Giraffee, that is because Family B was always going to spend their money sending their children to private schools anyway and so DO NOT NEED HELP from taxpayers like ME.

    • Giraffe says:

      12:29pm | 24/08/11

      Ptom,

      I’m not exactly sure what you’re on about but;
      If the private school has 1000 kids, it should recieve the same amount from government as a public school with 1000 kids regardless of fees paid out of parents discretionary spending. Disabled children are another matter, personally I think they need more resources which the government should cough up, regardless of which school they attend.

      Secondly, I never whinged about ‘their taxes’ being spent anywhere.

      Thirdly, If you want to use the ‘who pays more tax argument’ your whole position becomes flawed. I dare say the taxes paid by the families of private school students outweighs that of public families per capita, so should they get more back? Didn’t think so…

    • Giraffe says:

      12:54pm | 24/08/11

      I could probably get a more rational argument out of a stick, but here goes..
      AnnaC,

      If I happen to breed with a bint like you and create a stupid child, surely I’m entitled to ‘waste’ my money on its education if I feel like it.

      So because family A ‘was always going to’ buy an $80,000 boat instead of pay large fees, why do they deserve help ‘from (likely minimal) taxpayers like you’?
      The justifications you use for you opinions are weak at best.

    • Demoman says:

      01:23pm | 24/08/11

      Theoretically I would like to send my kids to a public school because I am a tight arse, but in reality I would likely send them to a private school or a public school that has an entry test (Thus full of hard working Asian kids).

      Public schools are full of disruptive kids, political agendas, excessive female teachers, drugs, whores and gangsta types. Private schools also to a smaller degree.

      All schools should receive equal funding and what parents do with their excess income is entirely their business. I am all for means of providing social mobility for people such as education but I would advise these people to not become too greedy with other peoples money or they may choose to withdraw support all together.

      If having a kid and providing opportunity for them is too great a financial burden for you then you should limit the number you are having rather than expecting the more productive to have less kids so you can have more.

      Also, more funding doesn’t scale linearly with better educational outcomes. Education is better funded than decades ago and full of all this nonsense “multimedia learning experience”, yet outcomes are worse among whites. It is all to do with the attitude of the parents. Parents with a good attitude towards learning and that are involved in the process will have better outcomes regardless of the school. No amount of interactive digital crap or excellent teaching will make a pain in the ass kid high on sugar want to learn or sit still for longer than 5 minutes.

    • Giraffe says:

      01:27pm | 24/08/11

      randomscrub,

      It’s true, it is fiction, but it does highlight the point Im trying to make.

      I’m all for equality of opportunity, as my original post demonstrates children can be born with equal opportunity, but have that taken away by their parents for various reasons, I fail to see how this then becomes societies responsibility to deal with.

      I believe the government needs to determine where this ‘agreed ‘level’ of education’ is and provide EVERY child with the funds to reach this level. If some children’s parents for go other things to spend extra on their childs education, that is their choice.

      ‘is it fair to divert resources from areas of greater need to those of lesser need on the basis of a perceived entitlement?’

      ‘Percieved entitlement’? I look at it this way - Every child is entitled to an equally state funded education, regarless of where their parents choose to spend other money.

      ‘is it more or less socially responsible to spend public money on improving opportunity to those with the least?’

      What about spending extra public money on educating family A’s children because they chose to buy that shiny boat and go on overseas holidays? Is that socially responsible?

      I do see your point of view and certainly respect where you are coming from, unfortuanately I think these arguments will always remain for an issue as complex as this because the solutions offered by the government will always centre around marginal electrates and re-election.

    • PTom says:

      01:42pm | 24/08/11

      Giraffe
      “If the private school has 1000 kids, it should recieve the same amount from government as a public school with 1000 kids”
      If only that was the case it is not.

      The problem is disadvantage program, maintenance and building for public schools come out of the same public funding this is not the case in private. This is why private schools whinged about assets be included on the myschool site.

      I aIso understood it is still illegal in NSW for a public school to recieve private or corporate funding, I believe this was done so public schools did not take funding from private.

      So when people complain that private are not recieving enough government funding, public recieves no corporate funding.

      Back to your example it would then only be fair if both recieved the same base government funding if the public was allowed to attract it’s own corporate funding.

    • AdamC says:

      01:58pm | 24/08/11

      Some of the comments here seem based on a media-driven fiction. Private schools do not get very much money from governments in comparison to state schools. They get very little and, in most cases, government funding is a very small proportion of total funding - most of which comes from tuition fees. This idea that ‘rich’ private schools are being lavished with cash while state schools are being de-funded is demondrably false. Check the MySchool website and see for yourself.

    • Anna C says:

      02:12pm | 24/08/11

      Giraffe, getting a bit hot under the collar I see.

      Firstly, as lovely as your proposition i.e. to have a child together; I am not into bestiality.

      Secondly, going by your comments I think we can safely assume that yes you will have a stupid child.

      Thirdly, waste your money however you like including on private education because it’s not like I’m in charge. But if I was in charge it’s safe to say that I would have you neutered so your arguments regarding school education funding would become a mute point.
      .

    • Giraffe says:

      02:34pm | 24/08/11

      HaHa at least your mildly entertaining annaC, if nothing else.

    • Timmy says:

      02:52pm | 24/08/11

      @PTom

      “private exclusive $100,000 per year fee school”

      No such beast exists in Australia. (As far as I am aware)

      http://www.kings.edu.au/enrolments/documents/TKS-FEES-2011.pdf

      Maybe $44,000 for boarding in year 12 at Kings in Sydney. This is a long way off $100,000.

      The private school I teach at charges $3500 PA for year 12. Cut government funding to my school by even 50% and it would have to close, sending all 800 students to the local comprehensive, which is at capacity. If all the government funding for my school was transferred across to that state school, it would in real terms be a cut in funding per student by $2000+.

    • randomscrub says:

      03:58pm | 24/08/11

      Giraffe

      People choose to pay for private education. That is their right and the market has evolved to meet that demand.

      In doing so they opt out of public education provided by the state.

      Is it fair that they should expect the taxpayer to subsidise their costs given they have consciously chosen to forego the public education provided to them?

      in effect, money is being diverted to set up a two-tiered system - private school advocates are double-dipping into the public purse in calling for subsidies and doing so regardless of other students’ needs.

      the public school system is available to them but they have consciously rejected it for a variety of reasons. that’s fine, but i am not convinced of the merits of subsidising the individual’s decision in this regard.

      it is not a question of how individual A chooses to spend their money versus individual B - that is a matter for the individual.

      it is a question of how government should use resources for the betterment of the majority - John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian principle.

      ‘What about spending extra public money on educating family A’s children because they chose to buy that shiny boat and go on overseas holidays? Is that socially responsible?’

      again, you are arguing from an unhelpful fiction - why does anyone deserve greater resources on this basis? to indulge your argument - family A have already received their share of resources through the public system and the government has met its obligation of providing them equality of opportunity. what they do with that opportunity is up to them.

      i can’t help but feel that this whole argument is tainted by the rampant primacy of the individual that pervades this particular age ...

      this still comes back to a question of need and the nature of society we collectively would seek to build.

    • Mum from the Burbs says:

      10:33am | 24/08/11

      Wow - way to go you lot.  Hands up those who were educated in the Public system and or, the Private system.  Once you’ve done this, then it’ll give others a better idea of what is motivating you all.

      Cheers, you big ears!

    • George says:

      10:51am | 24/08/11

      The Government has a responsibility to fund public schools which are open to all children no matter their background or wealth. Parents who send their children ot private schools make a choice to opt out of that public system. But having made that choice don’t like th e result which is that they pay for it and managed to convince the Howard government to introduce a blatantly unfair scheme. Private schools have been great at bleating for funding although they do not want the accountability that comes with such funding. They want their cake and to eat it too. Angelo is right - as a consequence we have children who have swimming pools in their schools being funded far more than children in schools that lack even the basics. I wonder how those parents whose children attend Christian schools justify this kind of robbery when the injunction is “Thou shall not steal”.

    • Punters Pal says:

      11:30am | 24/08/11

      What about selective schools, George. Although public, they are full of kids who go through intensive tutoring programs, while not necessary smarter than other kids. These schools are not open to all children and mostly filled with children of Asian decent whose parents spend inordinate amounts on private coaching colleges. Based on your argument, goverment should close these as well.

    • Anna C says:

      12:35pm | 24/08/11

      Spot on George. There is a funded place for everyone’s kids in the public school education system. If they choose to opt out of the system then they should forfeit their right to that funding? End of story.

    • Lisa H. says:

      01:47pm | 24/08/11

      There’s not a funded place for every child in the public system, Anna C. The government is not paying to keep empty desks warm!

      Public school budgets are set according to their actual numbers, not number of births five years earlier in local hospitals.

      Sheesh!

      The tax system is already heavily weighted against higher earning people. They already contribute much more to the public good in terms of cash handed over.

      Their children should be allocated exactly the same amount of public funding for education as the net- non-taxpayer in the suburb next door.

    • Anna C says:

      02:38pm | 24/08/11

      Thirdly, waste your money however you like including on private education because it’s not like I’m in charge. But if I was in charge it’s safe to say that I would have you neutered so your arguments regarding school education funding would be a mute point. 
      Lisa H, unlike private/independent or religious schools, government schools are not allowed to discriminate (based on wealth etc) and are required to provide free public education to all children regardless of their circumstances. Public education is for everyone.  If you choose not to use it then that is your prerogative. But pay for it yourself.

    • Lisa H. says:

      03:11pm | 24/08/11

      People who choose private (which often is not selective, no private schools in my regional area are selective) do pay themselves, forgoing other nice things such as housing, holidays and second motor cars.

      We are all already taxed through the highly progressive tax system…all educational dollars are paid in after tax money.

      Why should people who use private education have to pay again? Private education users are already subsidising the public system, and subsidising their own children’s education also.

      Are their children not members of Australian society? Do these people not contribute to Australian society? Are their children not expected to contribute to Australian society?

    • Anna C says:

      03:15pm | 24/08/11

      Oops. Please disregard my first paragraph in reply to Lisa H’s comments. Now how did that get there?????

    • Anna C says:

      03:53pm | 24/08/11

      “People who choose private (which often is not selective, no private schools in my regional area are selective) do pay themselves, forgoing other nice things such as housing, holidays and second motor cars.”

      Yes Lisa but why do they feel the need to choose private schools? What exactly do they think they are getting for their money? Is it the prestige? Is it to make useful contacts in the old boys/girls network for use later on in life?

      I think parents would be better off sending their kids to public schools and paying for any extracurricular activities like sports etc that they require rather than wasting money on private school education. Public education is good in this country regardless of what some people think. Save your money. If your kids are meant to succeed then they will regardless of which school they attended.

    • Lisa H. says:

      04:25pm | 24/08/11

      Hi Anna C.,
      I myself was educated at a public school and rather crap it was too. Not because of the school facilities, or the professional staff, but because of the general disinterest shown by most of the parents of the student body.
      In an earlier post I mentioned why parents feel private is a better choice for their children. Private school families, in my experience, tend to be self-starters, have straonger values, and simply try harder.

      The overall effect is a better social environment for students’ learning and personal development.

      I am experiencing the difference between the systems now, having just moved from a Catholic primary school to a very nice new public school and in my own personal experience (in a fairly bogan area) lack of money is not the problem at all.

      Also, while I embrace the idea that all children are equally valuable, and that should be reflected through equal education funding for each child, I feel embarrassed about making that point in my earlier post.

      The reality is that some needy children, eg disabled and special needs kids, should have access to extra funding.

      I guess this is the thin edge of the wedge…what is ‘special needs’? And how should these extra payments be managed?

      In this era of education where disabled kids are integrated into the regular school system, perhaps these payments should mostly be paid directly to parents, or shared between parents and their chosen school.

      But I stand by the view that every child is worth the same basic level of education investment from the government, once a certain level of service provision has been achieved.

      I think the level of service provision in Australia’s public schools is actually very good. Perhaps I’m just saying that because my mother is a public school teacher?

    • Ando says:

      05:45pm | 24/08/11

      Lisa H,
      I agree many Private school parents sacrifice alot. What many are paying for is isolation from distraction and influence, a valid position.I dont think it is unreasonable that a premium be paid . These schools should not get more funding than to ensure a minimum standard be met.
      We do not pay taxes and add up direct benift to each individual. Where can funds be distribited to prevent less kids from becoming unproductive adults? The answer has to be the public system.

    • George says:

      10:50am | 25/08/11

      Punters Pal,
      In fact Private schools are selective by their very nature. If they are not selective on the basis of wealth, they can be selective on the basis of religion. They are also selective on the basis of family and some require a child to be registered at birth to attend and if their behaviour brings the school into disrepute they will be banished to the public school system. Under the constitution there is the clause about the separation of church and state. If someone took the funding of religious schools to the High Court there may well be a lot more bleating. Just because you have children and want to give them the right contacts and you can afford the fees for a private school does not mean that the state must subsidise that choice when it is religiously based.

    • Col. of Blackburn says:

      10:59am | 24/08/11

      Interesting to note the number of ALP pollies who had the benefit of a private school education? Methinks they doth protest too much! wink

    • Stevo says:

      11:21am | 24/08/11

      Unfortunately, because you didn’t put forward the state funding situation the “we pay taxes” brigade will ride in and dismiss all arguments because of so-called vested interests and cherry picking. No need for them to declare their own though.

      And as already seen, some of them will accuse anybody saying that perhaps independent schools are funded more than appropriate in this country of being socialist, soviet, fascist, communist and/or totalitarian.

      A more telling statistic might be a comparison of Australia’s overall government spending, state and federal, on independent schools relative to every other OECD country. From memory we spend more of our combined education budget on the private secondary system than any other country besides Belgium which operates a hybrid-linked system with tiered schools, very different from our divided public and private system.

    • Hartz says:

      12:22pm | 24/08/11

      Why go back to 2001 to find an example of Julia’s hypocricy there are so many more current examples….

    • nikki heat says:

      01:36pm | 24/08/11

      abolish private schools and make all children suffer public schools.

    • nikki heat says:

      01:37pm | 24/08/11

      abolish all public schools and send all children to private schools.

    • Craig says:

      05:18pm | 24/08/11

      I hope you’re prepared to pay for the exorbitant fees Nikki?

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:14pm | 24/08/11

      Craig, you can send your kids to a Private school for not much more than a pack of smokes or two a week. Of course, some cost tens of thousands a year, but most don’t.

      Depends on whats more important to you I guess.

    • Tigger says:

      01:42pm | 24/08/11

      After reading a bunch of these topics repeated over and over again, one thing really stands out to me. Those people who protest loudly about removing all govt funding from private schools and advocate funding only for public schools are the most SELFISH of the lot. “Everything for me me me” they cry. Screw the rest of you who want to make a different choice.

      In this country every child has a right to “an education” - not just to a particular narrowly-defined system of education deemed to be acceptable by the socialists. I hardly think it’s “fair” to tell all parents their kids are entitled to an education, but only if it’s the type we stipulate… based on a purely political motivation of course.

      It’s an outright lie that private schools get more total govt funding that public schools do.

      And if you strip all govt funding from private schools, the rich will still afford it. It’s the middle class families - the ones who rely on that help from the govt to pay for it - who will be forced to return to the public system. This won’t close the gap between rich and poor - it will make it even bigger.

    • Gomez12 says:

      01:56pm | 24/08/11

      As someone who doesn’t have kids and isn’t going to - it’s entertaining watching you all fight over my tax dollars.

      I have this weird new policy I want to see get tracttion “User Pays” - You breed ‘em, You feed ‘em. (And clothe them, and educate them, and house them etc.) - Apparently this system is fair and equitable for the roads I travel on, the trains I catch, the health insurance I must have, why are other peoples children exempt from this?

      Cue wailing from parents about how their little darlings are going to “look after me in my old age” or “Pay my pension” - newsflash, when I retire, there will be no pension, I will be entirely self-funded. And if I need something done I will pay one of the people my government imports at a rate of 10,000 per week to do it for me, you aren’t doing me any favors by having kids.

      That being said, since I can’t avoid paying for your rugrats, I say keep the system as it is. There’s nothing at all wrong with private schools having better facilities than public since the parents pay for it. And if anyone bothers to actually look at the statistics, those with children in private schools basically pay for the public schoolkids, then their own, then kick in some extra for the premium education/facilities - and apparently should be further penalised for doing this? Weird.

    • Jane2 says:

      02:08pm | 24/08/11

      The inequity in education has nothing to do with funding and everything to do with parental contribution. Private schools have parents who volunteer time and are willing to donate to fund things. Public schools the parents these days expect the state to provide everything and then complain when it doesnt.

      You can find public schools where parents pitch in and those schools are wonderful, providing lots of extra correcular (sp?) activities, maintenance done at minimal cost to the school so the school can spend funds elsewhere etc etc.

      Different attitudes by parents have resulted in different outcomes by schools. Invest in your school.

    • Craig says:

      05:12pm | 24/08/11

      LOL!  Try telling that to parents on low incomes and see how far it gets you Jane. If the greedy elite private schools weren’t ripping off the public there’d be no need for parents to scrounge for extra money to fund what should be provided by the taxes they already pay. Why should public money be spent on private schools? Bourgeois parents who think their kid(s) somehow deserve better than their poorer neighbour can go to private schools but pay for it like you would any other non-government provided service.

    • Demoman says:

      06:04pm | 24/08/11

      Why does the child of low income parents deserve more funding than any other parents child, Craig?

      The bourgeois pay more taxes than low income earners earn per year, surely they are entitled to services also?

      Why do poorer neighbours think they are entitled to what richer neighbours have, when there was a difference in effort and choice made between the two groups. If for example a doctor cannot achieve a lifestyle greater than that of a garbage man because the garbage man would be upset, then what is the point of making the extra effort to be a doctor when people like you feel the two should have the same in life.

      Doesn’t make sense, but that is hardly shocking since you are a prole. Stop breeding so us bourgeois don’t have to keep propping your sad existence up.

    • Lisa H. says:

      06:24pm | 24/08/11

      My beautiful new local public school asks for a paltry $50 per year as a student’s contribution.

      Less than half of the schools’ families pay.

      As I mentioned in my earlier post, so few families contribute to parent reading schemes that I have worked all year at the school helping other children, and have not had the time to sit and read with my own child once!

      If you dont’ value education, and won’t contribute a cent of your after-tax money to your child’s education, or put in your time, how is this any problem but your own?

      To begrudge highly motivated parents, who sacrifice other pleasures such as larger or improved housing, or holidays, to pay school fees from after-tax money, is really a case of naked envy.

      God (nature) helps those who help themselves, as the saying goes.

    • djc says:

      11:02pm | 24/08/11

      @demoman “Why does the child of low income parents deserve more funding than any other parents child..”

      A low income parent cannot provide the same opportunities. That’s why it’s called low income. In Australia children are given the right to a first class education. By not funding that education adequately you are damning those children to a life remaining in low income. Education gives them the ability to learn and develop to improve their lives and societies.
      @Lisa H. “so few families contribute”. This is probably because those low income parents are spending every moment they can working to earn enough money to feed and clothe their children. The majority of families don’t have the luxury of surviving on a single income. They don’t have the free time or lifestyle that allows them to spend that time ‘helping’ out at school.

    • Dan says:

      02:27pm | 24/08/11

      The government runs schools and offers them for free (or min cost).

      Some people turn their noses up at these and want better, so they go private. Private schools are run at a profit, so fees are involved. The people with turned up noses don’t want to pay the full fee so demand for funding from the government. And so it goes.

      Meanwhile away from the greed driven west, some kids just want an education (of some sought).

    • dw says:

      02:37pm | 24/08/11

      Perhaps the government(s) should fund only the foundations of education - reading, writing, math mixed with some life skills. The reading and writing can encompass a bit of history, geography and general science.

      By limiting the broad definition of ‘education’ - funding can be maximised in these key areas early - giving all children a better foundation on which to build.

      After this foundation is completed -  education then becomes the financial responsibility of the parent to determine if pursuing the more abstract areas of education (higher maths, chemistry, physics etc) are appropriate for their child. There could be schools to cater for that - as there could also be for the arts, or trades etc…

      I think that this may lift the general performance throughout a school career. If all parents had money on the line for secondary education, you would find both students and parents motivated for success - particularly if the high school student is focused on areas of individual interest.

    • PTom says:

      03:11pm | 24/08/11

      Yes, Funding should be based on the student not the school.

    • PTom says:

      03:22pm | 24/08/11

      I wonder if the free transport to schools is included in the state education budgets.

    • TheRealDave says:

      03:59pm | 24/08/11

      So why then was the head of the Queensland Catholic Education department out in the press yesterday stating that Qld State Primary Schools get around $11k per year per student in funding (he did say an exact figure of just over the 11k mark but I can recall the exact fugre hence my $11k figure) Whilst Catholic Primary Schools get just over $7k per yer per student in funding. They get about an extra $2k per yer per student in school fees bring the total up to just over $9k per student per year.

      Now, parents who send thier kids to Privat schools pay on average a LOT more tax than the people who send their kids to State Schools. So it seems there is a bit of inequity here in that parents sending their kids to Catholic private schools are paying TWICE and getting less in return. They pay their taxes to go to education AND they pay school fees but their kids are still $2k a year off the average State School.

      So how does the author of this article scream poor? And further - why do Private Catholic Schools have far better images, far better appearance of teaching staff, disciplinary records etc and can do more with less??

    • Demoman says:

      05:04pm | 24/08/11

      If I am paying more tax than people less well off than me how is it that my children do not deserve the same level of funding from the government?

      The same applies to health care. I pay more tax than most AND I have private cover yet somehow I am the bad guy?

      You socialists truly hate the fact that some people are more productive than others and want to turn this country into a bankrupt, mediocre, European style hellhole.

      You want equality? You can have it when there is equality of input. Instead of trying to make everyone equal by dragging all those above the lower end downwards how about you start dragging the lazy and unproductive upwards.

      No my fault they had no ambition or made poor choices in life.

    • stephen says:

      05:41pm | 24/08/11

      It’s beneficial to have variety in education.
      Graduates then, within a market capitalism, find different ways of being successful.
      I think there is a case, however, for more ‘boutique’ and smaller private schools : they should be given a trial curriculum by State or Federal authorities.
      Discipline in class should be a priority, and sport should be emphasized as a high achievement.
      There may indeed be an imbalance between moneys given to State and Private educators ; however, the most important improvements to modern schooling are, in my opinion, not yet available to us ... because we don’t experiment enough with good modern theories of learning.

    • Arbee says:

      08:28pm | 24/08/11

      A lot of the private school funding is hidden - they don’t want it made public.  It is not all private schools but many who are being overfunded.  Some of them are in as poor a situation as public schools.  The arguments in this thread frighten me - I think many of you should study British history (and current events) to see what an entrenched class society can bring.  Australia is becoming a nation of haves and have nots with some never having a chance to improve their circumstances.  The greedy rich and the needy poor is becoming entrenched.  I am ashamed of Australia when I read some of these comments - particularly the ill-informed and ignorant ones on both sides of the argument.

    • Jeff says:

      04:15pm | 21/09/11

      @ Bob Real and others- No rivers of gold in Tasmania - only the poorest kids in government schools slashed by hundreds of millions (the whole Tas Ed budget is only a bit over a billion).
      It’s in everyone’s interests to have a well educated populous - it is a cornerstone of democracy and a key factor in a nation’s productivity. 
      Publicly sponsored private schools aren’t going to improve equity of access to education in Australia as some government schools become a residual system - under resourced, with more than their share of kids with disabilities and disadvantage. Get equity in education right and we will share in a wealthier and more prosperous Australia..

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

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

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

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

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

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

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter