Prev
Next

Turning MySchool into a battlefield in a class war

Kevin Donnelly

by Kevin Donnelly

29 Nov 05:35am

Must Reads

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it - this is a caption

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

180

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment - this is a caption

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

27

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest - this is a caption

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

3

Filed under: Education, Myschool, Politics, School Funding

60 comments

Non-government schools are angry over the way the My School website is about to make public their sources of funding and their socioeconomic profile. 

What's next - rating a school on its head wear?

The Shadow Minister for Education, Chris Pyne, has even suggested that the ALP Government and non-government school critics have a secret agenda to use the data to justify reducing funding.  Pyne is correct.

During the recent federal election campaign the ALP appeared to support school choice when it promised, if re-elected, not to take money away from Catholic and independent schools.  Gone were the days of Mark Latham’s hit-list of so-called wealthy, private schools and the old politics of class war.

In terms of rhetoric, there appeared little difference between the two major parties on the issue of school funding and it was only Cassandras like me that expressed misgivings and doubts about the left’s new won adherence to school choice.

Fast forward to the current stoush between non-government schools and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) over the intention to make public every school’s socioeconomic profile and sources of funding and it’s clear that non-government schools, once again, are under attack.

Julia Gillard, when Minister for Education, justified making a school’s funding information and socioeconomic profile public on the grounds of accountability and transparency.

It should not surprise, though, given the ALP’s and the education left’s hostility to Catholic and independent schools that there is another agenda.

Put simply, and in the context of the current Commonwealth review of funding, non-government school critics will use the My School data to argue that such schools are awash with money, that they only serve the top end of town and that as a student’s socioeconomic background is the main cause of educational disadvantage that only government schools serving less well-off communities deserve support.

Evidence that there is a secret agenda can be found in a number of speeches and presentations given by the ALP appointed head of ACARA Barry McGaw suggesting that non-government schools are socially divisive, that such schools only perform well academically because they enrol already privileged students and that such schools are over-funded as a result of decisions made during the Howard Government years.

In a May 2006 speech to the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne McGaw argues that Australian schools fail to promote equity in education because, when compared to other OECD countries, there is a strong correlation between a student’s socioeconomic background and academic success or failure.

The reason why Australian schools reinforce disadvantage, McGaw suggests, is because we have a school system divided into government and non-government schools; one where schools divide on the “basis of gender, faith, social background, wealth, geography and so on”.

McGaw goes on to suggest that Catholic and independent schools contribute to social division and instability when he states, “Given the growth of the non-government school sector, we need specifically to consider whether that development, in the name of choice and, with government funding, in the name of fiscal fairness, has positive or negative effects on education outcomes and on bridging social capital and, ultimately, social cohesion”.

On reading McGaw’s speeches and presentations it’s clear that he believes non-government schools have had a negative effect on Australian society. 

On being interviewed in February 2008 McGaw makes no secret of his fear that the proliferation of non-government schools will lead to community break down when he states, “If we continue as we are, I think we’ll just become more and more isolated sub-groups in our community”.

In a second interview in January 2009 McGaw complains that the Commonwealth Government refuses to release data identifying the performance of government and non-government schools in international tests like the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

If such data was made available McGaw argues that the Australian public would realise that the only reason non-government schools achieve strong academic results is because their students are drawn from middle to high socioeconomic communities.

There are two flaws in this argument.  Firstly, Catholic schools that make up the lion’s share of non-government schools have a community profile very similar to government schools.  Secondly, a good deal of research concludes that there are many other factors in addition to socioeconomic background that effect success or otherwise.

Such factors include teacher effectiveness, the quality of the curriculum, student motivation and schools having an academic and disciplined focus with high expectations – factors most often associated with non-government schools and the reason many achieve strong results.

While not as obvious or extreme as Mark Latham’s hit list of non-government schools taken to the 2004 election, it should be obvious, in the context of the current review of funding, that the Gillard Government’s agenda is to undermine the success of non-government schools and to limit their growth by reducing funding.

McGaw’s appointment as head of ACARA and the development of the My School website are evidence of such an agenda. 

McGaw is clearly no friend of the non-government school sector and the ACARA website, while justified in terms of holding schools accountable and making information available to parents, will be used as a vehicle to justify reducing funding to Catholic and independent schools.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
223The world puzzles over Australia's Prime Minister

60 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • BT says:

      05:01am | 29/11/10

      People have become hysterical over their children’s education. My parents divorced during my HSC and failed the entire year. The years leading up to that were a nightmare too. I could barely concentrate and didn’t do any homework at all. But guess what, after I finished high school I went to TAFE, got a diploma, used that to get into uni, and got a degree. It all boils down to the determination of the student and what they want to do with their life. There will always be people who try and stop you from achieving, just don’t let their negative messages take root and you will be okay.

      Reply

    • Bernadette says:

      06:58am | 29/11/10

      Too True…......
      I did half of year 12 and left before the HSC (had my reasons at the time) I obtained a TAFE certificate then a TAFE diploma then went to Uni got a Bachelors degree then a post grad certificate and numerous short courses so many that the certificates don’t fit all in one folder, BUT NO HSC! I have said many times the certificates are not about intelligence they are about determination and persistence. MY hubby’s education level is school certificate and he went to a ‘better’ school than me, came from a ‘better’ socioeconomic background.

    • Gregg says:

      07:21am | 29/11/10

      That’s all fine BT and Bernadette and I did tertiary study from a similar background of family disruption and attended multiple schools from the last year of primary all the way through secondary and it was only that I attended RMIT on a part-time basis whilst working that I had any stability of sorts if you could call it that in my youth.

      The article is however not about such micro situations but more the macro approach of lets attack non-government schools if you have a mind set to do that and that is what the author is claiming of Mc Gaw, some people obviously having a real bent against non-government schools when the public can be thankful for them, and Why? you may ask.
      Very very simple in that all governments total funding on a head basis for the education of pupils at non-government schools is less than for those at government schools so in effect those students going to non government schools have parents prepared to pay for that to occur.

    • Lexi says:

      06:38am | 29/11/10

      Most people would argue that there are disadvantaged Catholic schools too. Instead of being scared of this “hidden agenda”, you should be looking forward to the My School data demonstrating this to prove these schools need government funding, too.

      The best return for our education dollar is in disadvantaged public schools - the kids at MLC, Newington, Kings and so on are going to do well in life (on the balance of probability). For kids living in public housing estates, never knowing anyone who works for a living, a good (well funded) education, including early intervention, more one-on-one support, social and behavioural support, has the chance of breaking the welfare cycle - this would benefit our society in a number of ways:
      * Delivering more taxation revenue
      * Reducing welfare costs
      * Reducing social support costs (DOCS, public housing etc)
      * Reducing public health costs
      * Reducing the burden on NGOs (Salvos, Vinnies, ACOSS etc)

      So someone, please explain to me again why the non-government (Christian) education sector opposes transparancy in education funding?

      Reply

    • Where's the fairness? says:

      06:57am | 29/11/10

      With the VCE recently over it’s timely to bring up the discussion on taxpayer funding of education. Let’s not forget that children who attend private schools receive less financial support from both levels of government than children who attend public schools.

      Reply

    • persephone says:

      07:06am | 29/11/10

      Well, the solution’s simple then - take your kids out of the private school and send it to the public one.

    • GregS says:

      08:03am | 29/11/10

      Why is it then that public schools teach approximately 65% of students but only receive 35% of the government funding?  I have no problem with private schools complaining that their data are being misused and incorrectly presented BUT these errors can be fixed.  These arguments should not, however, be used so that the private schools can avoid transparency.

    • A.F says:

      08:42am | 29/11/10

      Is this comment meant to be funny?

    • Punters Pal says:

      09:40am | 29/11/10

      GregS - are you off your rocker? The figures you are quoting are just plain wrong. I have no idea where your nonsense comes from. As mentioned by previous commentators, government (state and federal) funding to public schools exceeds funding to private schools. In fact it would cost much more to government if there were no private schools.

      By the way, I do not have childern who go to private schools, nor I went one myself, but I just had to comment on really stupid post.

    • Ned says:

      10:21am | 29/11/10

      “children who attend private schools receive less financial support from both levels of government than children who attend public schools.” Well that’s a bit simplistic, how about just comparing the “total” dollars spend in each students education and see if it is fair. Lets see student at government school around $9000pa, student at private school anywhere in the range from $9000 to $30000+pa. Yep that’s fair. So lets see the real figures put on Myschool, why are private schools afraid?

    • GregS says:

      11:18am | 29/11/10

      Punters Pal:
      Read the entire report (i.e. get past the title page and not dismiss is based on the title)

      http://www.aspa.asn.au/images/news/mcmorrowreport20100118.pdf

      A brief synopsis:

      The research by senior academic, Dr Jim McMorrow, said the funding imbalance was due to an “unfair and dysfunctional” funding system put in place by the Howard Government that should be scrapped.

      The McMorrow report reveals:

        * By the end of the current schools funding agreement in 2012/13, private schools will have received $47 billion and public schools $35 billion from the Rudd Government for building works, new equipment and running schools.

        * Despite teaching over two-thirds of all students, the public school share of federal funding will be back to 36 per cent in 2012/13. An extra investment of $1.5 billion a year in public schools would be required to return their share of education funding to the level it was under the last Labor Government (43 per cent).

        * Public schools are not receiving a fair share of funding for computers in schools and trades training facilities and would be getting $500 million extra if the money was distributed on the basis of need.

      Of course, I would imagine you will simply dismiss this as all NONSENSE because it does not serve your purpose or view.

    • Where's the fairness? says:

      11:18am | 29/11/10

      Ned, the reason why there is more spent in total on private school students is because parents dip into their own pockets but the fact remains that there is far less total government spending on private school students than there is on public school students. How is that fair? Why should students be penalised because they go to Wesley, Scotch or MLC? If every parent who chooses to send their children to these schools took them out and sent them to public schools, imagine the overcrowding and massive increase to the taxpayer.

    • Where's the fairness? says:

      11:41am | 29/11/10

      @ Greg S. You are typical of the private school bashers. Selectively quoting sources to neatly fit your bias. By only quoting the federal schools funding and conveniently ignoring the state funding you present a false and misleading account of the true state of affairs. Public schools get the vast majority of their funding from state governments, not the federal government. When you add in the state government funding, state school students get more money per head than private school students. Fact.  How is it fair that a parent receives less government support if they send their children to private schools?

    • ned says:

      12:17pm | 29/11/10

      So Where’sTF how is it fair that one student has $9000pa spent on them and another student has $30000+pa spend on their education? If your kid was the one having only $9000pa spend on them would you be happy? How do you expect the educational outcomes for those students to be equal? How do you expect the opportunities for those students to be equal. If parents want to “opt out” of the public system they are welcome, they just have to pay the private school but should not expect to just top up the $$$ on top of a government funding.

      Ah the old “If every private school kid went to public school” myth (as if that could ever happen!!!), simple their government funding would go with them, no big deal.

      As for students who have $30000+pa spent on their education being disadvantaged if the government doesn’t give their private school $9000 that is just weird and continuing the educational divide of haves and have-nots that does not need any government support.

    • Joseph says:

      12:51pm | 29/11/10

      @Ned Include on the myschool website the proportion of money spent that is paid for directly by parents by choice rather than the government, and you may come closer to a “fair” display of information.

      Why punish parents who choose to invest in their children if they can, rather than just sit back and rely on the government to do everything for them.

      The real question is whether you believe funding per child should be equal, or means tested against parents income. .

    • Where's the fairness? says:

      12:59pm | 29/11/10

      @ Ned - I see that you are a victim of the green-eyed monster. What do you care what another person spends their money on? If a parent wants to fork out more for their child’s education, either by sending them to a private school, or by hiring a tutor, or by sending their child to summer school, how is that any business of yours? The fact remains that children who attend private schools receive less government funding than children who attend public schools. Fact. How is that fair? Parents who “opt out” of the public system are still taxpayers and have every right to expect the same amount of government support no matter where they choose to educate their children.

    • ned says:

      01:40pm | 29/11/10

      The key here are the words “opt out”! That is a choice and as soon as a parent makes that choice than they should not expect the same government funding. In education no government should continue supporting a funding system that results in such inequities as I have highlighted before (they are their to govern for all of us after all). Having the government (federal or state) funding two or three parallel systems does not work very well either and is not the best use of limited funds. This applies to roads, hospitals or schools which all need a more complex funding structure than the simplistic (and ultimately selfish) “we pay taxes so want the same”.

      As an aside it would indeed be interesting to see the average tax paid by parents on the myschool site as well. That might shut up the “we pay taxes so want the same” crowd.

    • GregS says:

      03:38pm | 29/11/10

      @ Where’s the fairness.  Try to culture a few brain cells will you.  Nowhere in ANY of my posts have I [bashed] private schools. I merely pointed out the considerable discrepancy in funding bases for private versus public school.  For all you know I may actually be a supporter of private schools. Perhaps my children attend private schools because of the parlous state of public schools in Queensland due to the reduction in real terms of directed funding. There is NOTHING in my posts that suggest anything about where my allegiances lie in relation to public versus private schools.  None of this matters as it is not central to the debate about where public funding is being directed.  @Ned makes the relevant points here - the actual per person $$ spent on our children.  The transparency issue is about forcing private schools to reveal their sources of funding - all the endowments they receive, money from the churches (those that are religious based) and so on.

      Perhaps you would like to argue that the September OECD report that showed Australian spends less on public education than United States, Britain, France, Germany and New Zealand was all some devious plot by “private school bashers”.  One of the most disturbing pieces of information was the fact that Australia (at both levels of government having input to school funding) did not increased funding to public schools from between 1995 and (I think it was) 2005.  Is that also just a falsehood raised by “private school bashers” who control the OECD reporting?

      You raised the dichotomy between state and federal funding:  public schools are primarily funded by state governments (about the only valid point you almost made) whereas private schools get their massive load-up from the Federal government.  The various reports that have examined the serious issue with declining funding (in real terms against inflation) for our public schools.

      Finally, if you had bothered to read the document for which I provided the link, you would have noticed that the tables in the report showed funding from state and federal government sources for the various different specific programs targeting education.

    • Sam says:

      04:18pm | 29/11/10

      GregS
      Over half the students completing the HSC this year in NSW were attending Non-Government Schools - in total they recieve less than half of the funding, so it leaves me wondering: shouldn’t they get more money in the interest of equality?
      No.
      But anyway if you make these schools unaffordable - in NSW we will see an influx into the Public Sector that is unmanageable and will lead to declining standards and less funding for all - your publically educated children are much better off because I chose to send my 3 Boys to Independant schools

    • Dean says:

      05:42pm | 29/11/10

      Greg S
      a recent government report into school funding found the following, in 2008 Catholic systemic schools received funding of $11031 per student from all sources, $7835 was government funding. Independent Schools received total income was $16155, with $6214 being from government and public system received $15,230 all government funding.

      The above figures puts the debate into perspective, I will further add that in regards to school computer in NSW the Catholic system was able to implement the computer for schools program far cheaper than the Government Sector , whilst also giving the students a better computer with better software. Same same with the BER.

      I think the problem is not so much to do with the amount of funding, but how it is spent. The government sector has a large bloated administration, that sucks money away from the chalk face. 

      One final point. All students that attend schools in Australia are children of tax payers, therefore entitled to have taxes spent on their education.

    • GregS says:

      08:55pm | 29/11/10

      @Dean and @Sam:  Where are your sources? You claim government reports etc. so provide the appropriate and full citation so that others can judge for themselves.  This is the fundamental point of the issue about transparency.  If the data are so obviously in favour of the independent schools being unfairly treated, why are those schools fighting said transparency.  Stop trying to reduce this to silly and nonsensical statements about where you think my children go to school and that somehow you are supporting them by having your children go elsewhere.  Provide some evidence to support your claims.  Better still force the independent schools to provide these data so that all can judge.

    • Economist says:

      11:43pm | 29/11/10

      @Dean your average comparisons are nonsense and meaningless. These figures were used by the private sector lobby to criticise the AEU by claiming they’re more efficient. The fact is Catholic schools are not located in every suburb town and remote centre where public schools are required to deliver services at a greater cost.

      Secondly, I dispute Dr Donnelly stats on equal representation of demographics. If the populations are so similar why is it that approximately 84% and 80% of indigenous students and disabled students are taught in government schools. Shouldn’t this align more closely with the total population of 64%??

      Thirdly @WTF, @dean @ Sam the savings you argue are accounting savings not economic savings. @Sam currently the non-government sector teaches around 34% of students and receives $6.6 billion. It is only if this number drops below 15% where it would be cheaper for the government to subsidise, but it’s not worth arguing about because Donnelly is simply speculating on what a Labor government will do in the future? With no evidence to support his assertion? His only evidence was Latham’s hit list. Perhaps a more pertinent question to ask is what would a Liberal government do? I’ll speculate based on their attacks on public education in the past that under Abbott we wouldn’t have public education. Prove me wrong.

    • James1 says:

      11:19am | 30/11/10

      Where’s the fairness,

      Who told you life is fair? 

      Like others have said, you chose a non-government school.  If you don’t like the results of that choice, make a different choice and stop whinging.

    • Dean says:

      11:26am | 30/11/10

      GregS
      My source Is List of Tables
      National Report on Schooling in Australia 2008
      Additional statistics on Australian schooling.
      The URL is http://cms.curriculum.edu.au/anr2008/pdfs/anr2008_Statistics_16-8-10.pdf
      It is table 23 page 27.

      The fact remains that the private school sector saves the tax payer significant amount of money, and if it didn’t exist the public system would collapse.
      My point still remains that the public system employs bureaucrats to make decisions that Principles make in the private system and that is one of many reasons the Public System suffers.

    • Mother Love says:

      07:02am | 29/11/10

      I worry about the families who have kids at schools at the bottom of the list and can’t afford to move.

      Reply

    • JJJ says:

      08:26am | 29/11/10

      Why? Statistics are fine, but if you really want your child to do academically well, the school doesn’t have to be the only determining factor in your child’s intelligence. Just because most students at the school test badly, doesn’t mean a.) it’s a ‘bad school’ or b.) that your child cannot still achieve great results!

    • Jolanda says:

      08:28am | 29/11/10

      Problem is Mother Love that some kids are not doing okay and they are not in the schools at the bottom of the list.  The Public school system has the attitude that the majority rules, so those who are not average students, and that happens to be the majority of children as the majority of students are either above or below average,  are not valued.

      For those who are above average, they are seen as already doing well even if they are not being taught and for those who are below average - well the parents are blamed.

      Problem with public schools is that they believe that it is the parent’s responsibility to educate their children and more and more parents have to do that at home by tutoring and coaching.  I feel sorry for the parents who cannot afford or are unable to teach/tutor their child outside of school as these children will struggle to compete and even keep up.

      It took us quite a few years to be able to afford to move our children out of the public school system as we have 4 kids but one by one they moved and they have been happy in the Catholic School system.  Two are now in University.  For years I had to drop my kids off at school depressed and in fear of being bullied and victimised by Education staff all caused because I dared to complain and ask for more and bring up issues in relation to the education of gifted children.  My kids have been through hell in the public school system, being bullied by your peers is one thing, but being bullied and victimised by adult Educators is quite another.

      One thing for sure in the Public school system – nobody cares and bullies are protected.  Nothing will change until that situation change.
      Education – Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

    • Bernadette says:

      04:17pm | 29/11/10

      Please read my post below as a response to this statement. Also the responses of myself BT and Greg above. To change schools we moved from renting in an expensive area to buying in a cheaper area.
      Also I agree strongly with Jolanda’s response (well strongly with the first 3 paragraphs).
      The list is rubbish, another thing I didn’t say was that the first school my kids went to that is high on the list for the 2 weeks before NAPLAN they got different homework and practice tests to do to boost their scores, whereas the school low on the list continued as normal before the tests. I will be honest and say I don’t understand why one school practices and another doesn’t.

    • Richard The Lionheart says:

      07:09am | 29/11/10

      As usual nothing about the the growth of Muslim schools and the teaching of Arabic to read or chant the Koran. The Catholics always cop it from Labor. Private schools though save governments money and generally encourage and produce more grounded/ productive students. Most parents make huge $$ sacrifices when deciding to send their children to private schools. It’s not always about class or status.

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      08:29am | 29/11/10

      Dicky, ,have you also noticed nothing, repeat NOTHING, about the growth of Jewish schools, and the teaching of Hebrew to read or chant the Torah. ?
      I know that you werent just going in for a bit of mild Islam bashing, so I mentioned the Hebrew schools just so you could be even handed in your outrage. You are , arent you?

    • Richard The Lionheart says:

      02:41pm | 29/11/10

      TChong, Prove to me any increase in Jewish schools/education. They are in decline in all cities, outstriped by the growth in private Muslim schools. When It comes to ethnic schools rather than psuedo religeous schools like C of E Grammar, Scotch, Wesley ect, ethnic students would be better served in the State system where they can get a better understanding of Australian history, integration and Australian values ( sport or ethics).

    • Bernadette says:

      07:24am | 29/11/10

      Hand on heart this is a true story.
      My kids went to a ‘good’ school - highly ranked on the my schools website, it is a school that has certain politicians children there the school rates highly as many of the children excel but easily 50% have after school tutoring (I kid you not) when my kids started getting behind I went to the school and a teacher told me “I can’t force her to learn to read I can only give her the work and if she refuses to do it…...” She was in kindergarten found 3/4 through the year that she needed glasses, got them and the school did nothing to help her catch up. My son was behind too and I couldn’t work out why but I kept getting responses like ‘you will need to teach the multiplication tables at home as we do not do them here’. 
      Then we moved and the school they go to now is rated low on the website.
      My daughter has completely caught up because they were horrified that she was so far behind when she was half way through 1st grade and provided some extra help etc to help her catch up. My son is older and had been subjected to the ‘good’ school longer so he is still catching up but the leaps and bounds he has taken in the past year at the ‘bad’ school are amazing and I know he will be a normal average student before high school.
      They get home work from the new school but it is homework that they can do or need only a little help with I have never been instructed to actually teach them how to do the work as I had the other school. I also no longer pay for after school tutors as I had started to do at the old school.
      I do not deny that when sending them to that school I did so with a defeatist attitude…. they do so badly where they are it won’t make a difference to send them to a crappy school maybe there they will look less stupid but guess what- I was wrong I can see how much they are learning and progressing and how far ahead the youngest is at this stage compared to where the older one was at the same age.
      The factors they use to rate the schools are stupid and obviously do not reflect the truth.

      Reply

    • John GW says:

      07:38am | 29/11/10

      My children went to state schools and seem to have done OK.  However, I objected to teachers whose agenda seemed to be “in search of mediocrity”, where children who did above average were dumbed down and discouraged from achieving more (we might as well set height targets and tell children they are not allowed to be taller than their peers).  At the same time the weaker students were in no way encouraged or strengthened.
      As for funding, certain well-to-do parents never paid the voluntary supplementary fees so deprived the state schools of income.

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      08:36am | 29/11/10

      You had better append which state you are talking about John because as far back as I have experience, Queensland state schools walked all over NSW ones. No doubt those same non-paying well-to-do parents regarded their non-payment as a tax ruse. Now we have the ostentation of a certain Private Hornsby school out from behind it construction wraps, it requires no disclosure at all to see they never needed any government funding.

    • P Kelly says:

      07:44am | 29/11/10

      The coalition should abandon any commitments to the National Curriculum in NSW. It will lead to further centralised control over schooling and finance. Flagship government schools such as the higher performing selectives will be the next to feel the brunt. They probably raise more funding from “school communities” than the average high school. Wait for the cuts in government funding to compensate for this. It will be done on exactly the same principle. The only way schools will be financially equal will be if parents contribute zilch. The academic results will still vary exactly as home environments vary. As usual calls for equality will drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator with no one better off.

      Reply

    • Economist says:

      07:58am | 29/11/10

      I see nothing wrong with transparency. These are our tax dollars. We expect public schools to be accountable, why not non-governmetn schools with public sector money. 

      You automatically assume that the new information will be used to cut funding, when the opposite may be true. You’re being cynical. There may be Catholic schools in the same area outperforming the local public school with considerably less resources.

      Yet in some instances funding cuts would be justified, but no doubt any suggestions of these cuts will get plenty of media attention from the vocal middle and upper class affected. You forget that the current SES funding model when introduced was not allowed to make any school worse off, despite this methodoogy identifying some non-government schools as being over-funded. The overfunding was in the order of $800-900 million a year, so inactual fact the non-government schools sector have received around $10Billion more than they should have under the current model.

      I’m far from against using public funds in non-government schools, but the current model is not efficient and beleive me you shouldn’t be crying poor when the most successful education nations in the world don’t proivde anywhere near the same support to the non-governmetn sector as Australia does.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      08:49am | 29/11/10

      So it effect a Catholic School lobbyist is saying that they want the taxpayer dollar but they don’t what the transparency and auditing that comes with it. The solution is simple. Cut off the taxpayer dollar, then they can have all private funding they want. The government is only obligated to provide some form of education, not subsidize the private sector and the taxpayers are entitled to see that their taxes are being spent well.

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      09:20am | 29/11/10

      True, private schools have always been in a position to, in effect, set their own taxation supplement in the form of raised fees and they have never hesitated to do so. The taxation of the upper income level has been by way of supplement to the less well off, rather than generate an education gap so intolerable that their exclusive world come under threat from the rampaging hordes. The same reason they sent the convicts out of England in the first place. Some things never change. smile

    • loxy says:

      09:06am | 29/11/10

      I grew up in Canberra where overall the quality of state schools is excellent. However, I now live in Brisbane and wouldn’t dream of sending my own kids to the majority of state schools up here. Reducing funding to private schools is not the way to go as it won’t change the fact that the state schools are still not up to scratch. The majority of people who feel strongly about their kids getting a good education (like me) will still send them to private schools and just cop the extra fees.

      The solution is simple - there needs to be a significant improvement in the quality of education at state schools.

      Reply

    • xyz says:

      10:27am | 29/11/10

      Loxy, you are wrong. My son has just graduated from 12 years of study in the state school system here in Brisbane and I couldn’t be more proud of his achievements. I also studied in the state system and went on to uni and I now have a great and well paid career. My son is planning on doing architecture at uni next year. You couldn’t be more wrong… the state system works very well!

    • Rose says:

      02:25pm | 29/11/10

      xyz, that all depends on the area in which the state school is situated. I could not in all good conscience send my kids to any of our local state schools (north western Adelaide) and have elected to send them to Catholic schools where they are doing incredibly well and are fortunate to have so many study options available to them. If I lived in the eastern areas or around Brighton I wouldn’t be able to justify the school fees I currently pay as the public schools in those areas are as good as most private schools. So take a look around, the quality of education seems to me to be directly related to the standards expected by the parent body, in disadvantaged areas people are so used to getting shat on they don’t tend to expect any better, or they too have come through the ranks of the poorer schools and don’t know how to get improvement in their schools. If we can improve struggling public schools you will stop parents seeing private schools as their only real option.
      From what I gather however, the private schools only want to make sure that the information on the Myschools website is accurate. I think that for the time being that information may need to be restricted to the sctual amount from government funding, both federal and state and also what the schools charge in school fees.Those two figures would be absolutes and should be readily available and then more time could be given to ensure the complex financial arrangements that exist within some schools are accurately represented.

    • xyz says:

      07:12pm | 29/11/10

      Rose, your assumption is that all private schools are the same and that they are superior to all state schools. That’s an invalid assumption.

      Not all private schools are elite. In fact the majority of Catholic schools are not elite and in some cases are suffering even more financial hardships than their local state school counterparts. Indeed the only people that send their children to a non-elite Catholic school are Catholics and non-Catholics who think it’s a cheap status symbol. As you know, the fees for a non-elite Catholic school are similar to the costs at a state school (there’s no such thing as a free education). I agree that some state schools in poorer areas are struggling, but don’t be blinded into thinking that the Catholic schools in those same areas are any better off… why would they be? It is especially in these areas that public funding should be increased. Of course, the elite schools, both private and state, are not in the poorer areas.

      I agree that most of the elite private schools can offer a superior education, but at a very high cost to the parents who are usually either wealthy, dual income parents, drug dealers (look at Carl Williams’ daughter), or their child has won a scholarship due to academic or sporting prowess. These schools are there for the financially well-off or the extremely gifted. I have no idea why anyone would want to live on baked beans on toast just to send their child to an elite school they can’t actually afford (not to mention all the ski trips and European study tours they would miss out on).

      However, I don’t agree that the ordinary private schools are automatically any better or worse than the local state schools.

    • Chewy says:

      09:13am | 29/11/10

      Everyone overlooks the role of genetics in education outcomes.
      Even in an egalitarian society you cant educate idiots.
      The problem with this debate is emotion triumphs over rational thinking. The cost to the tax payer (federal and state)  is less for private school students than public school students. Simply its cheaper for the tax payer to have a child go private than public. If you withdraw funding from private schools could the public system cope with additional numbers and could the tax payer cope with a higher tab?
      Bitter pill for bleeding hearts who often dont understand that cost and outcomes are more important than intentions but its the truth.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:08am | 29/11/10

      Absolute Rubbish. The state is not obligated to subsidize the lifestyle choice to send a child to a private school any more that it is obligated to subsidize any other product you buy. Are you suggesting that the private school system would collapse without these rather generous subsidies? Then it is a rather inefficient market. Let’s call it as it is- middle class welfare to parents who would still send their kids to private schools even if the government withdrew their subsidies. Fair enough, but let them pay full price for the product without government subsidies.

    • Chewy says:

      11:18am | 29/11/10

      Ofcourse the very rich will always afford private education regardless of subsidies but this is a minority.
      I am not suggesting the private system would collapse without subsidies. But if you understand what economists call price elasticity of demand or PED you will understand there is a point where tax payers will be worse off by increased participation in the more costly public system. Dito for the larger classes and strain that will be felt in the public system without an increase in OVERALL education speding.
      While I certainly agree with your social justice sentiment on this issue, I find the alternitive will result in a worse outcome for ALL students and/or a higher cost to taxpayers. Getting even doesnt always get the best outcomes for students or taxpayers. Its should be about dollar cost and outcomes for all student nothing else.

    • Where's the fairness? says:

      11:31am | 29/11/10

      @ Shane from Melbourne - Absolute rubbish. Every parent has the right to send their child to any school they want without being punished if that school happens to be a private one.  And yes, the state actually is obligated to subsidise the schooling costs of all parents (aka the taxpayer).

    • xyz says:

      02:15pm | 29/11/10

      Where’s the fairness?:

      It’s not about being fair. If that was the case what about all those tax payers who don’t have any children?

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      10:55am | 29/11/10

      No public financials = No public finance.  Simple.

      Reply

    • MF says:

      11:32am | 29/11/10

      I came from a low socio-economic status family, went to multiple public schools that would in no way be considered anything more than average. But I worked my butt off, got a degree, did well enough to get into a PhD and now I’m working as a university lecturer.  With zero financial support from my family - they couldn’t afford it.  You don’t need to go to fancy schools or have rich parents to succeed.  Those who say you need private school education and financial support from your family to get anywhere are using it as a cop out excuse as to why they failed.

      Reply

    • Christine says:

      11:33am | 29/11/10

      Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent. If schools have alternative sources of funding, these should also be made clear in the interests of transparency. I hope we will also see information about the extra funds gained by public schools from their raffles, fetes and fence-placement advertising. I bet those greedy public schools are raking in five or ten thousand a year through such sources, and probably frittering it away on books or replacement uniforms for the intergenerationally employment challenged. Those eight year olds could get work if they tried. I’d also like to see HOW public funding is spent, revealed. For example, one private school in my local area has just converted their splendid outdoor basketball court complex to much needed teacher parking ~ boom gate and all! You don’t see public schools thinking of their staff that way, the best they can manage is usually shared dirt and the hope of shade on a hot day. Some ‘private’ schools in remote communities are struggling to find books and teachers; public schools seek corporate sponsorship to supply simple ancillaries such as music lessons, and some for-profit religious and corporate schools build swimming pools with public largesse ~ which are not open to the public. Past time for a review, and some means testing. Too hard? Centrelink could provide the details of their simple and efficient system, which has ben used effectively for decades.

      Reply

    • Pablo says:

      01:06pm | 29/11/10

      I love this. People complaining that it is not fair that PRIVATE school students do not receive the same funding as PUBLIC school students. What next? Should the state subsidise yachts for the rich? Parents pay for private schools to privilege their children. It is not to help the state, as some seem to suggest here. This is a nonsense debate. Greedy, selfish people are demanding the government subsidise their extravagance. Absurd.

      Reply

    • Chewy says:

      02:45pm | 29/11/10

      Yep Pablo private school shouldnt receive a single tax payer cent!
      And when the exodus of non toff kiddies ie the majority of children in private schools make their way into the more costly tax payer funded public school system the net result is worse educational outcomes for ALL students due to the additional strain/costs on the system but we can be happy in the knowledge social justice has been served though to the detriment off ALL the public school students.
      Oh but wait, what about the remaining toff students left in the private system? You know the ones whose parents have unsubsidised yachts? They will still be receiving the same education regardless but it doesnt matter to them because they can afford it, actually they may benifit from smaller class numbers.
      If you follow the OUTCOMES of your alternative this is the net result. Absurd.

    • Kevin Donnelly says:

      03:34pm | 29/11/10

      I don’t argue that non-government schools should receive the same government funding as state schools.  I accept that funding should be based on the wealth of a school’s community as the current SES funding model does.  Wealthy non-government schools only receive about 14% of what governments give to state schools - per student.  Non-government school parents pay taxes for a system they do not use - they deserve some support, after all it’s their money!

    • ned says:

      07:44am | 30/11/10

      Kevin you say private school parents deserve “some support”, can you define that as a percentage because it seems that so far all I have heard is that they should receive 100% funding relative to public students, is this right? Rather than looking at sectors, as you do, how about the total funding per student? Where do you sit 50%, 25%, 75% funding per student relative to a public student?

      I still don’t follow the “I shouldn’t pay taxes for something I don’t use” argument when used to justify funding private schools, how does that work with everything else the federal and state governments fund?

      As an educationalist how do you view the divide in funding between the public school student who gets funded around $9000pa and the private school student that has up to $30000+pa spend on their education? Is that fair? Is that how the system should work?

    • Mark says:

      01:37pm | 29/11/10

      Lets think for a minute what would happen if all the private schools went away…. the students wouldn’t and the public school system would have to replace almost 100% of those school with 100% publically funded schools. Yes, the private schools are partially funded by the government, but if they weren’t then fees would be too high, they’d die through lack of students and the government does not want that. Rather than thinking of it as ‘elite private schools’, think of them as ‘low cost (to the government) schools subsidized by parents’. Do you want to pay 25% or so of their fees, or 100% of an equivalent public schooling for the same students?

      Reply

    • Chase Stevens says:

      02:46pm | 29/11/10

      Religious and Independent Schools take Public Money. The Public deserves to know where else these schools are getting money from, how much money and whether or not these schools are justified in taking our tax money. In the interests of trust and honesty we the public deserve to know these things.

      Reply

    • David C says:

      03:31pm | 29/11/10

      does the government subsidise the schools or the kids?

      Reply

    • jane wallace says:

      06:10pm | 29/11/10

      in reality,what percentage of single people read the my schools website once they have escaped school?
      married couples and partnerships only read the my school website to justify all the money,time, and effort they have wasted on children over the years.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      09:17pm | 29/11/10

      I think a variety of educations is worth preserving.
      If a couple can afford to send their child to a private school then they have that option, and it may be to society’s benefit that the community should contribute.
      Currently the state system is hampered by backward thinking, and sometimes a downright scared Teachers Union who are reluctant to interfere in the National Curriculum lest they usurp all their previous efforts at dumbing down the already impossibly banal and stupid.

      Reply

    • xyz says:

      11:34am | 30/11/10

      @Economist:
      “I’ll speculate based on their attacks on public education in the past that under Abbott we wouldn’t have public education. Prove me wrong.”

      I couldn’t agree more. Howard tried desperately to discredit the state school system and he succeeded…. a lot of ordinary Australians have now lost faith in the ability of the state system to work at all… shame on you Howard!

      He was trying to do the same to our hospital system as well. I want a great education and health system for all Australians, not just the wealthy (just look at the US).

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 28 May 12 12:01AM

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 27 May 12 10:49PM

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:12PM

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:03PM

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

180

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

27

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

3

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

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]

Light weight

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

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed