Prev
Next

Whether public or private, our schools deserve a fair go

Jennifer Buckingham

by Jennifer Buckingham

22 Nov 05:40am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Children, Education, Funding, Private Schools, Public Schools, Schooling

48 comments

Last week on The Punch, conservative education writer Kevin Donnelly laid into a report proposing a new model of universal funding for public and private schools. Here, the report’s author, Jennifer Buckingham from the Centre for Independent Studies, sets the record straight.

School choice means different things to different people. In essence, it refers to the principle that parents should have the right and the means to choose their child’s school, and that this choice should be not be restricted to government schools.

Naaaaaaaaaaaaw. Picture: Jeff Herbert

To adhere to this principle, a school funding system must have several key features.

First, it must be child-centred. The amount of public funding provided for the education of each student must be based on their individual needs and circumstances. Second, the type of school attended, whether government or non-government, should not affect the level of funding. Third, students should be able to enrol at any school of their choice. And funding entitlements should follow students.

For school choice to create an effective and dynamic education market that inspires competition and innovation and drives up quality, schools must have a large degree of autonomy.

A robust non-government school sector is vital. Meanwhile, government schools need to be decentralised and empowered.

Over the last two decades, The Centre for Independent Studies has published dozens of reports, books, and opinion articles arguing the case for school choice and a free market approach to schooling.

It has been unwavering and active in supporting school choice and public funding for non-government schools on economic, educational and moral grounds.

The most recent report on school funding from CIS is consistent with previous work in this policy area. The CIS’s publication history speaks for itself (and is free to download).

However, our most recent report does represent a significant departure from previous funding proposals. After 10 years of focussing almost entirely on one issue, it would be unusual for an open-minded scholar and researcher not to see shades of grey between the black and white.

A case in point is balancing the competing objectives of neutrality and efficiency. Typically, school choice advocates have proposed funding models in which all children are entitled to the same level of public funding, irrespective of the school they attend.

Free-market school choice advocates argue that this public funding entitlement should also not be affected by the private income or wealth of the school.

There are good arguments for this approach. It is simple, transparent and neutral.

Importantly, it does not penalise parents who voluntarily make significant financial contributions to their child’s schooling and it does not create disincentives to private investment in education.

The elephant in the room that can no longer be ignored, one which is acknowledged and grappled with for the first time in the recent CIS school funding report, is that this approach is extraordinarily expensive.

The average non-government school student currently receives around half of the public funding of the average government school student.

Bringing all students up to the same average level of public funding would require billions of dollars of additional public expenditure and potentially either supplement or crowd out private spending.

The challenge is to balance neutrality and equity against efficiency and fiscal responsibility.

To keep a lid on costs and to avoid providing scarce public funds where they are not needed, it is essential to find a mechanism that can vary the level of student entitlement according to need.

One option is to apply a means-test for school funding to all families. This would mean a large number of middle-class families with children in government schools would receive a substantially lower amount of public funding.

Government schools would have to charge tuition fees to make up the shortfall. In effect, free public education would be abandoned.

A comprehensive and persuasive argument for this approach would be a welcome contribution to the debate but is yet to materialise, suggesting this idea is not yet of its time.

Another option is a model that considers the private income of the school rather than the family. My recent report, School Funding, Choice and Equity, proposes that funding for all schools be based on a national resource standard.

Schools charging fees beyond a certain threshold would have their public funding reduced incrementally and marginally as fees increase. Importantly, the model also has a lower limit on public funding. A guaranteed minimum level of funding for which all schools are eligible no matter how high their fees, recognising that every child in every school is entitled to some public support for their education.

The model retains a sector-neutral approach. Any school, government or non-government, that charges no or relatively low fees would receive the full student funding entitlement. Schools that collect significant levels of private income from fees do not meet the ‘need’ test of public funding efficiency and therefore have their public funding reduced at a marginal rate (less than dollar for dollar).

This is not an arbitrary “hit list” or discrimination. It is responsible use of taxpayer resources.

Lower public funding can benefit schools by reducing the burden of public accountability.

Schools that voluntarily receive lower public funding would have greater autonomy and independence, the level of which is a matter for debate.

My personal opinion is that discrimination against students on the grounds of sexuality, pregnancy or religious belief alone is no more defensible than racial discrimination.

No school funding model will be perfect but I am yet to see an alternative proposal that effectively deals with the dilemma of equity and efficiency while also promoting excellence.

Likewise, not all students will benefit to the same extent from school choice. In a perfect world, all children have attentive and loving parents who value education and who actively seek the best for them.

We do not live in that world.

Unfortunately, the quality of education children receive is to some extent still influenced by their socio-economic circumstances. It is not a deterministic relationship.

Many children from disadvantaged backgrounds do very well, and vice versa, but there is an effect.

Any given student will very likely have poorer outcomes in a school with a low average SES than in a school with a high average SES, irrespective of socio-economic circumstances. This has been confirmed using numerous data sources, from international and national down to state-level.

Acknowledging that some schools have high concentrations of disadvantage and that this is particularly harmful is not to put a noose around the neck of school choice.

To deny that it occurs - even if it would likely happen under just about any policy - deeply dents the credibility of school choice advocates. It is a problem that has to be dealt with in any school policy framework, whether through increased resources, improved teacher quality, a complete rethink of educational provision, or even a program of school closures, mergers and takeovers.

School choice provides the greatest good to the greatest number.

Future schools policy in Australia should facilitate the ability of parents to choose from a diverse, dynamic and robust array of government and non-government schools. This is possible only with a funding model that is equitable, student-based and efficient.

It’s easy to say, but it’s much harder to do.

Jennifer Buckingham is a research fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies. Her most recent report School Funding, Choice and Equity is published by the CIS.

Most commented

48 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:42am | 22/11/11

      Perhaps there should be a public document created through the Standards Australia transparent committee process, to give guidance on quality in education and training ? Our schools might then become certified.
      Then other schools might benchmark off this one ? :
      http://mhs.nextstudio.com.au/

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      05:48am | 22/11/11

      As a long term taxpayer, I strongly object to public schools which are substandard.  There can be no excuse for allowing peer groups to dominate other students, and impress their poor values.  Leadership must come from dedicated teachers.  Surely it’s about time we recruited some with industrial experience, who’ve actually done a REAL job ? Let’s start up the technical colleges again, and this time encourage the tech-heads to go there ?

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      09:26am | 22/11/11

      Are you advocating that all teachers must have held another occupation before they can be seen as “fit” to teach? And that young graduates from university are not dedicated?

      Before I get fired up and on my high horse, can you explain further? I’m curious to hear what you have to say.

      But as a recent 22 year old Primary Education graduate, I can tell you right now that I don’t need to have held another job before becoming a teacher to be dedicated. There is a reason I chose this as my career in life!

      And I think that this is an excellent article. I’ve long had arguments over public funding to private schools, and while the solution proposed by Jennifer is not perfect, it sounds like a good system to have in place. And having been out in public schools in Queensland, I can tell you they are in desperate need of more funding!!

    • acotrel says:

      11:08am | 22/11/11

      @Richard
      Are you ‘dedicated’ through a commitment to an intellectual discipline, or simply because you are receiving a salary ? You might be dedicated but are you competent to guide kids through life, if you’ve never been anywhere yourself ? Good intentions are no replacement for experience in workplaces outside the class room. If you had that you might have some objectivity.

    • Tigger says:

      12:16pm | 22/11/11

      @Richard

      I have been a uni lecturer and I’ve also worked in industry. I can tell you that as a general rule, the people who have spent some time in industry make better lecturers than those that haven’t. It’s because they have a better idea of practical skills since they’ve actually had to apply those skills themselves.

      It’s something that I come across time and time again - people underestimate the value of practical experience unless they have actually experienced it themselves.

    • Jade (the other one) says:

      01:28pm | 22/11/11

      @acotrel and Tigger.

      I certainly agree with you when it comes to university or higher education, vocational education, and even high school subjects such as design, catering, business, hospitality, the manual arts, and to a lesser extent some of the sciences. But then, I don’t really believe that senior high school should be so entirely focused on vocational subjects. I actually think a lot of them are inappropriate to the central goal of education.

      I do not understand why people think that someone who has no understanding of how language develops, the development of the child in general, the differing types of learning styles, theoretical basis of assessment, behavioural analysis and the wide variety of other skills that teachers learn through university degrees is more competent to teach a primary student than someone who worked in a job where they likely had next to no contact with children, and where any qualifications had zero to do with understanding how to craft learning experiences, and assessment tasks, how to plan units and lessons to meet the learning objectives, how to identify the learning needs of individuals and groups, and how to manage these appropriately.

      I think one of the greatest problems with teaching is the lower OP and the lack of enticement to teaching means that we are churning out graduates who only understand what they were taught at university on a very superficial level. I remember being on prac, and being told by a few teachers that “smart people such as you don’t make good teachers.” Funnily enough they frequently had to call on me to explain difficult theoretical concepts to their class, and acknowledged that some of the theoretical underpinnings of literacy and numeracy development, assessment and other things were lost on them.

    • Tim says:

      06:09am | 22/11/11

      I like the idea of having a sliding scale of public funding depending on the amount of fees a private school charges.
      It completely removes the argument that always gets trotted out in these articles of “why should we pay for your swimming pools?”

      You mention one of the things I think needs to change in your article, which is well off middle class parents sending their children to government schools for free. A means tested contribution to their children’s school should be mandatory.

      Reply

    • Tator says:

      06:31am | 22/11/11

      Tim,
      With private schools, infrastructure is paid by a seperate levy along with the tuition fees and not part of any recurrent funding given by the government.  In addition many alumni have organised fundraisers or just donated funds for facilities as a way to give back to the schools so basically, apart from the BER, private schools receive little in capital funding for infrastructure from either level of government.

    • Nathan says:

      07:00am | 22/11/11

      The problem with a sliding scale is that it does not take into account how much they get in “donations” and this is where the money comes from to build new science labs etc

    • Tim says:

      07:29am | 22/11/11

      Nathan,
      There would obviously have to be limits to the amount of donations and fundraising that a school could receive before it affected their government funding to prevent schools rorting the system.

    • Nathan says:

      08:08am | 22/11/11

      Tim
      I don’t see how contributions above school fee’s is any right of the government to monitor other the norm. By decreasing government funding based on donations you are effectively taxing charitable donations. It opens a Pandora’s box, cause then you need to monitor every school and all the donations they receive state or private.

      Allot of the private schools that have these facilities people complain about are also boarding schools. They need to provide a whole other set of facilities for students.

      One thing is for sure though, if the state system opened their teachers up to more reviews and where actually accountable you might see a better standard. Teachers in the state system just don’t get fired regardless of how useless they are, whilst receiving the same rewards as those that work hard and have their students performing

    • shep says:

      03:10pm | 22/11/11

      Come to think of it, why should anyone have free education - if not the children of the “well-off middle classes” (who pay significantly more taxes than the less well-off). 

      Perhaps all education should require a financial or time committment from a parent.  Every child, even those of the higher achievers deserve the same level of government committment and if that can’t happen then parents who choose to contribute more should be bloody well applauded and it should be acknowledged that they are in fact carrying the financial burden for both the Government and other parents who are unable to contribute. 

      Same old rubbish argument.  There is this unconcealed jealousy of anyone who through circumstance can get more, have more, buy more either for themselves or through their children.  It comes from the unable to pay being excluded and therefore resentful of those who can access it.

      If public schools need more funds, so be it lets find it.  But its time we got over these underhand attempts to bring all schools down to the same low levels of equality because not every school has the same high level of infrastructure.  This is less about education - as the Naplan keeps ramming home to us and all about beautiful grounds, buildings and sports centres. 

      Its the policy of envy.

    • Against the Man says:

      07:06am | 22/11/11

      The ALP have given the schools new halls and maybe a roof or two. They have done their part and moving on. Deal with it.

      Reply

    • Dr Jack says:

      07:26am | 22/11/11

      Before I can possibly comment, please tell me what is an “conservative education writer” and what is the “Centre for Independent Studies”. And who decides on these titles and are they meant to know more and better than the rest of us? When I know those things, I will turn my mind to this very boring headline. I promise I will.

      Reply

    • Dave says:

      07:35am | 22/11/11

      So stupid and illiterate parents should be able to make rational choices about schools? Why not ask them to write the curriculum while you are at it.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      11:11am | 22/11/11

      @Dave
      I’m a parent and neither stupid or illiterate, and I’m quite capable of writing a curriculum.

    • Kevin Donnelly says:

      07:58am | 22/11/11

      Over the last 20 years or so I have written 3 books and hundreds of articles advocating school choice, based on the research that concludes that diversity, competition and autonomy in education promote stronger schools and better outcomes.  I have never argued that all students, regardless of school or SES background, deserve equal funding.  The current SES model is based on need with wealthier non-government schools only receiving 13.7% of the government funding per student state schools receive.  It also goes without saying that disadvantaged students deserve additional support.  Unlike Jennifer, I believe that freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of a free and open society and that it is wrong to discriminate against faith based schools in areas like staffing and enrolments - that is why international and local human rights agreements allow exemptions under certain circumstances.

      Reply

    • Dave says:

      08:27am | 22/11/11

      “Freedom of religion” is the most abused term. It is more like freedom to discriminate and propagate sexist beliefs. Religious schools who receive public funding should not be granted exemption from anti discrimination legislation.

    • Richard says:

      09:39am | 22/11/11

      @Dave, why shouldn’t religious schools be allowed to hire teachers that share their religious beliefs? While I think a significant number of students who attend religious schools are not religious, there are a fair number of students who attend these schools because they ARE religious. How do you expect non-religious teachers to espouse the same views as the school? Parents that send their children to these schools are aware that they are religious and that there will be religious studies and that the teachers are indeed religious and that religious views will be promoted in the school. So why should an Atheist or even say a Buddhist or Muslim be employed to teach at a Christian school? And vice versa, why should a Christian be employed at a Muslim/Buddhist school? They don’t share the same views and couldn’t be expected to convey those views with any conviction.

      Likewise, the school should be free to choose who they admit into their school. Realistically though, many schools accept most of the students are apply.

      So I think that religious schools have the right to only employ religious teachers. And still be eligible for funding. Children shouldn’t be penalised where they go to school.

    • Beth says:

      10:33am | 22/11/11

      @Richard

      Three cheers for common sense

    • acotrel says:

      11:16am | 22/11/11

      @richard
      ‘So I think that religious schools have the right to only employ religious teachers. And still be eligible for funding. Children shouldn’t be penalised where they go to school.’

      Why should the taxpayer subsidise fundamentalists ? Is that in the national interest ?
      Perhaps the government should also subsidise research into aromatherapy ?

    • Beth says:

      12:09pm | 22/11/11

      Its education, not aromatherapy. And the parents who pay the high fees are also taxpayers

    • Dave says:

      01:25pm | 22/11/11

      We live in a secular society where civil laws trump religious dogma. Religious beliefs do not confer a right to discriminate on the basis of marital status, sexual orientation, race etc… By taking public money there is an expectation that religious schools will be subject to the law as is everybody else. The sad irony of course is that the catholic systemic system do employ many gay and divorced teachers but they just don’t wont to admit it. Which brings us to the other very important side of the school choice argument, staffing. Do people who advocate so called school choice, voucher system etc… believe that teachers would want to work in such systems. My personal experience is that many qualified teachers avoid working for religious schools because of their warped value systems.

    • Harry says:

      01:36pm | 22/11/11

      Acotrel, quit fighting strawmen. First of all, no Australian school teaches a militant relgious doctrine (the interpretation of ‘fundamentalist’ I presume you are trying to dog-whistle up).

      Second of all, to the extent that conservative views of religion exist (the correct meaning of fundamentalist), to steal the author’s phrase, there may be a relationship between religion and conservatism, but it is hardly deterministic. The overwhelming majority are mainstream Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Islamic (pick your madhab) etc.

      Third of all, do you limit your criticism to relgious views? Do you support government funding of alternative education theories such as montessori or steiner schools? If not, why not?

      Finally, and relatedly, why do you wish to deny some parents (and only some parents) the right to have their children educated in a context they believe in?

    • Al says:

      07:59am | 22/11/11

      “Third, students should be able to enrol at any school of their choice”
      HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHA!
      Sorry, but that just isn’t feasible or even possible.
      Ever heard of selective schools, they would have to be removed (no more special targeted education for high performers). Also what occurs when there are no places available at a school, wouldn’t they have to allow ALL students who choose to enrol there to enrol.
      Sorry, not buying it.

      Reply

    • James In Footscray says:

      08:08am | 22/11/11

      “A robust non-government school sector is vital.”

      Um ... could you explain why?

      I ‘m a libetarian. I hate the government intefering with personal choices - what and how much we eat, drink, smoke etc.

      But children have no choice who their parents are. Why should some kids be lucky? How is that equal opportunity for all?

      Reply

    • Brasil says:

      09:08am | 22/11/11

      Because if there isn’t a non-government school sector, then you are choosing between different government schools, all teaching to the same low standard. Competition drives innovation and improvement as much in education as it does in the auto industry or anywhere else.

    • Beth says:

      10:39am | 22/11/11

      If you have good parents you are lucky, because they will put your needs before their own. You don’t need to be wealthy to send your child to a non-government school. Many of them have bursary programs and it is often a matter of prioritizing where you spend your income. I would rent and send my children to a non-government school rather than have a mortgage and not be able to afford it

    • mick says:

      08:25am | 22/11/11

      The private system has had a “fair go” for many decades.  It does not have dilapidated third world infrastructure and from all account uses its very very generous grants for addition swimming pools and the like.

      I have worked in both public and private schools and understand the difference.  It is quite clear which sector needs funding.  And it ain’t the Kings’ and like kind of the nation.

      Reply

    • Why bother says:

      09:00am | 22/11/11

      Means testing for families? Fair dinkum…
      Kids, don’t try at school, because when you get a good job the government will take away money for flood levies, health insurance rebate, carbon tax compo, child care, medicare surchage etc. But if you put in no effort at school and get a crap job, or none at all, the goverment will give you money for all those things!!!

      Reply

    • Jolanda says:

      09:54am | 22/11/11

      It really isn’t about our public schools or our private schools deserving a fair go. What it really should be about is our children deserving a fair go regardless of where they live or what school they attend.

      When you have children coming from different backgrounds and home environments and you have children developing at different rates and speeds the funding that the school gets is not going to really make that much difference unless the school uses the funding to cater for each individual child’s needs and that in the current set up is impossible.

      I just do not understand why schools insist on grouping our children into grades on the basis of a ‘date of birth’ that has been chosen by the DET.  Wouldn’t it be smarter and more effective if children were put into grades, in the different subject areas, in accordance with their ability and their need at that particular stage in their life?  Flexibility between grades and years should be the norm so as to cater for difference.

      Schools need to get with the times and show by example that they embrace difference. All children are different even if they are a similar age.  Some children come from dysfunctional homes, some come from homes where there is sickness, some come from home where there is abuse, some others come from homes where they are in optimal learning environments and have access to highly educated parents and tutors.  Some children are just naturally smarter and faster than others and some are slower.  To make these children all go through the system at the same level and pace if they have a certain birth date is in my opinion cruel and unfair.

      Children should progress through education at a pace and level that is appropriate for them, not at a pace and level that an administration system has set up so as to control the outcomes and to segregate.

      Education – Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

      Reply

    • Kylie says:

      06:10pm | 22/11/11

      I am with you on this…I was one of those students who was faster at picking things up than some yet I was held back at ‘grade level’ because I ‘had to be at the same pace as everyone else’...this caused me great detriment - I became bored easily, distracted, disruptive…my mum ended up home schooling me for years 3-4 and 5…at those ‘grades’ I was doing 5-6 and 7th grade work…went back to school in year 6 to ‘socialise’ (recommended by DET), and my work was pulled back to a 6th grade level…I got bullied because I was smart and ‘teachers pet’ because once my work was complete I was allowed computer or reading time…problem being my work was completed in 1/4 of the time of the rest of the class because I had done the work before…bullying followed me to Yr7, I dropped out (I was physically assaulted a number of times with the school telling me maybe I should try to ‘fit in’ more and not finish my work early) - at 14 I was accepted to TAFE early and from 14-20 did various TAFE courses including veterinary science while working and volunteering…

      I feel if I had been put with peers at my own academic ‘level’ I would have done much better through primary/high school and possibly would have not been bullied so much…

    • Tchom says:

      10:14am | 22/11/11

      The private school across the road from ours had a heated swimming pool. Our school had asbestos. Public schools need to lift their game. I don’t think taking the limited resources available for education in this country and giving more to private schools will do that.

      Reply

    • Bomb78 says:

      11:13am | 22/11/11

      Tchom - did the whole BER thing pass you by? Feeding more money into the public system won’t help things either, because the same product will keep coming out the other end.
      The private system gets half the per head funding of the public system and produces more for it. Why? They are accountable for the outcomes of every decision. They know how to get a good return for the money they spend. They plan and build for the next fifty years, not the next election cycle. 
      Every child that moves into the private education system saves the government money. At some point the public education system will wither realise it’s in a competitive market and improve its business practices, or will become both second rate and irrelevant. Maybe we need to take some resources out of the bureaucracy and hand it over to the dedicated teachers at the coal face of public education.

    • Stew Collins says:

      04:18pm | 22/11/11

      The Catholic school I taught at was riddled with asbestos. It has nothing to do with the type of school but when it was built. There are many older non-government schools with asbestos just as there are state schools with asbestos.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      10:46am | 22/11/11

      The funding models for what I believe are the three innate rights of every person, opportunity (education), health and law are flawed absolutely.
      A model for each should be as follows. A percentage of income is levied for each as a tax which is then redistributed to an appropriate fund, i.e. health insurance, child education fund or legal insurance of the taxpayer’s choice.
      Health care and legal representation to an insurance institution, education redeemable in a voucher system to institutions. Then get government the hell out of all but inaction defence and infrastructure.

      Reply

    • Cat says:

      10:47am | 22/11/11

      I am getting a little tired of this debate. The economic reality is that if the government was not being subsidised by the parents who send their children to fee paying schools (yes it is that way around) then the government (and thus the taxpayer) would be paying a great deal more for education than it does now. 
      Parents send their children to fee paying schools for many reasons. The child around the corner goes to a fee paying school because no state school would accept him. He has a chronic disability. There is always someone with nursing experience available in his fee paying school.
      I know another child who goes because the school teaches a language he particularly wants to learn, a girl who is getting special music tuition not available at her state school, a school that has a special unit for children with intellectual disabilities who are able to enjoy art, craft and domestic science facilities not available elsewhere because public policy was to reduce access to these things.
      It is time ti recognise the contribution made by fee paying schools. They are not just for “the rich” and there are many reasons for their existence not just a simple decision to pay fees for your child’s education.

      Reply

    • dw says:

      12:14pm | 22/11/11

      I’m curious how home schooling would fit into this scenario.

      Reply

    • Tigger says:

      12:27pm | 22/11/11

      I think the idea of a sliding scale of govt funding is fundamentally flawed. It teaches the lesson that the more you contribute to your child’s education, the less the govt will. Ergo, parents will contribute less to schooling, and their kids will learn this lesson in life too. What will happen is that parents will instead shift their spending to areas where they are not penalised - weekend and after school tutoring clinics.

      This whole debate of funding or not funding private schools is a red herring. If public schools could operate with greater autonomy, efficiency and self-governance their standards would surely improve. Why does no govt want to address that? Oh that’s right ... the union.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      03:16pm | 22/11/11

      You’re right. Withdraw ALL funding to Private Schools, who’s parents are already paying for yoru kids in Public schools AND their own kids in Private….and then have the public schools find double the amount they are currently giving the private schools to cope with the influx of kids moving from the now unaffordable to 95% of the population Private Schools to the Public System.

      Might want to throw some extra dollars into the Math program while your at it….

      Reply

    • glenm says:

      03:23pm | 22/11/11

      Its simple really each school private and public should be allocated the same funds per child end of story.  If people want to pay extra over that to senf thier children to a private school its up to them.

      Reply

    • Stew Collins says:

      04:25pm | 22/11/11

      And if that happens, when taking into account combined state and federal funding, more money will have to be poured into the independent sector to reach parity. At the moment independent schools receive much less government funding (from all sources) than public schools.

      Reply

    • xar says:

      05:36pm | 22/11/11

      one of the main problems I see is that some schools have a higher opperational costs due to factors other than simply offering more “frills”,  they will be costs associated with specific resources ect. related to the pedagogical style of the school - there is a real threat to, in particular, alternative forms of schooling if the decision makers don’t recognise this factor as the schools might not be able to simply cut the budget and still function as eg. a steiner or montessori school. I’m not saying the idea has no merit or isn’t necessary - just that I am extremely wary about the potential detriment on alternative schools in particular - if you ignore the balance between incoming $ and outgoing $ you’d kill off schools like this and have quite a negative impact on parent choice.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      12:52pm | 23/11/11

      Please use more punctuation.

    • Samuel says:

      02:09pm | 24/11/11

      So how do you propose funding special schools for kids with high disability that can barely afford to scratch 5c together?  There are no private schools that I’m aware of that include a program for Severe and Multiple Disabilities. If there were, their fees would be astronomical. Public schools must accept anyone that rocks up whilst private school can be discerning and selective, and when they’ve had enough, or decide they can’t handle the child,  the child is sent back to public schools.

      Reply

    • Truthful says:

      01:43pm | 28/11/11

      @Samuel - there are quite a few private special schools that cater for children with severe and multiple disabilities.  Giant Steps in Gladesville is one in particular worth noting.  There’s also the Royal Institute for Deaf & Blind Children network of schools, the ASPECT (Autism Spectrum) schools, and quite a few other stand-alone schools (these are just the ones I’m aware of in NSW).  They get some govt funding but most of their costs are met through fees from parents, donations and fundraising.  The reason most mainstream private schools don’t have programs for the students you mention is the cost factor - they don’t have an entire govt department with the centralised resources that entails to support them, the individual school community pays for it (eg. parents, through the fees they pay) and the funding they get for these students is criminally low.

      FYI, private schools cannot refuse enrolment of a student with a disability except on grounds of ‘undue financial hardship’ to the school - this is in the Disability Discrimination Act.  They have to prove the school’s financial hardship.

      Also FYI, some private schools do have specialised programs for students with disabilities.  One of the high fee girls schools in NSW has a specialised unit with up to 20 students with Down Syndrome.  They participate in some mainstream classes and undertake a special program for Life Skills which gives them the skills they need to be able to live independently as adults.  The school community fully funds this program (the parents of these students pay a reduced level of school fees).

      Regardless of one’s view, it’s high time governments FULLY funded the education of students with disabilities, regardless of the type of school they attend.

    • Truthful says:

      01:51pm | 28/11/11

      On the topic of the article, the author’s approach seems eminently sensible in recognising that there truly are many shades of grey in the area of school funding.  Donnelly’s black and white approach sits at one end of the funding debate spectrum, while the ‘don’t give private schools any money’ is at the other extreme, and neither are terribly helpful nor realistic and completely disregard or are ignorant of the true and complex picture of our education system.

      Having worked in the private education sector for a number of years now (with many years in the government education sector prior to that)  it’s apparent that there are ‘happy’ mediums in these areas of grey, and it makes sense to explore them and find the right balance in relation to funding and other education policies.  Buckingham’s catalogue of work in this area shows she’s at least prepared to look at the options, recognising the value of non-government schooling and the strengths that our schooling system (all inclusive) has because of its diversity.  What we need are governments that are prepared to look intelligently at the issues instead of just the next election cycle (as someone has already suggested).

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 25 May 13 12:12AM

@Bogans_Heroes @1fatbogan Ha! So Adelaide, so creepy. Gilles St, then Unley, then Pembroke.

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 13 10:23PM

@joekiely just beat the crus. No sweat eh?

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 13 10:03PM

@bolgo101 Stick ROG in front of the posts and you still have white knuckles

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 13 10:02PM

@joekiely how far out was he?

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

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

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

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

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

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

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

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

Tim says:

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

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

Kel says:

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

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

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

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter