Public vs Private School funding

[Opine]

I refer to your signature, it reminds me of Toxoplasma gondii, which is spread via cat excrement. It is perhaps most famous for some of its claimed effects on human behaviour. Toxoplasmosis infections have been associated with an increase in aggressive and impulsive behaviours, a reduced perception of risk, and an increased probability of developing psychotic symptoms.

This explains you attacking lefties at every opportunity.

How is this garbage relevant to the discussion ?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

How is this garbage relevant to the discussion ?

You asked about why I likened you to a virus. I linked it to your signature.

You’re likening me to a virus?

Why?

 

[Opine]

Host Patrol?

Is that some kind of religious designation?

Back on this, why did you raise this point?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Back on this, why did you raise this point?

I was curious. Why were you looking for a host?

 

[Opine]

I was curious. Why were you looking for a host?

Why religion?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Why religion?

Many of the private schools are religious. I think it plays into some peoples views on private school funding.

They seem to want both tax exempt status and public funding.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Part 1: Education policies over the decades have intensified socio-economic segregation - Pearls and Irritations

As prime minister, John Howard, along with his education minister David Kemp, drove the push to privatise schooling in line with their political philosophy. In 2007, education professor Max Angus described the system in these terms. “The Australian education system … is evolving into something...

johnmenadue.com

Part 2: Society bears costs of education policy ‘crimes’ - Pearls and Irritations

In most other countries it would be hard for a government to persuade an electorate it was dealing with widespread economic hardship while it was funding private schools with resources beyond the dreams of avarice. Despite the fact that its funding policy removed the downward pressure on private...

johnmenadue.com

It would be good if the author had taken the time to actually explain how the federal funding model truly works. The Government does not guarantee that it will fund 80% of the School Resourcing Standard, it funds 80% of the amount less the school's capacity to contribute. Even for a school in an area which is in an area that is in the top 20% of disadvantaged areas in the state, their capacity to contribute can be as high as 20%.

The SRS for secondary students in 2022 is approximately $15k per student. There are some schools that receive as little as $3k. Now that is not to say that they should get even that amount (it's about 200 schools out of roughly 2.500 funded using this model) but it is entirely misleading to imply that the commonwealth is giving all schools the same amount of funding.

From 2021 the calculation was actually updated to make it more reflective of the demographic of each school (based on parent income). In the same town one school receives about 85% of the SRS, at the more "exclusive" school that figure is about 57%.

It is entirely misleading for people to continually assert (either directly or indirectly) that the federal government funds all non-government schools the same way. it is patently untrue.

 

[Gralin]

There are indirect effects to every political decision. That’s a far cry from accusing a government of deliberately setting out to keep a group of Australians down. It’s a ridiculous accusation.

So you believe that Governents never target groups of their citizens in negative ways?

 

[Carn The Berries]

So you believe that Governents never target groups of their citizens in negative ways?

Having programs/policies that have negative impacts for certain groups of citizens is entirely different to government's deliberately seeking to keep people down. There may be cases where both occur, but what you're implying with that response is a false equivalence.

 

[Gralin]

Having programs/policies that have negative impacts for certain groups of citizens is entirely different to government's deliberately seeking to keep people down. There may be cases where both occur, but what you're implying with that response is a false equivalence.

So you believe that Governents never target groups of their citizens in negative ways?

 

[Gralin]

Having programs/policies that have negative impacts for certain groups of citizens is entirely different to government's deliberately seeking to keep people down. There may be cases where both occur, but what you're implying with that response is a false equivalence.

You're splitting hairs here suggesting that negative policies would never be a deliberate attempt to disadvantage or keep particular groups down.

But that aside anyone who thinks that Australia doesn't have a history of Government deliberately targeting groups to keep them down must subscribe to the Alan Tudge school of history

 

[Carn The Berries]

So you believe that Governents never target groups of their citizens in negative ways?

No, quite the opposite. What I am saying is that having a policy that negatively impacts certain parts of the citizenship doesn't NECESSARILY imply the government is trying to actively keep them down, which is the inference you were trying to make.

Take tax increases for example. They negatively impact the people they are being imposed upon, but that doesn't mean that the government are doing it to try and keep them down/disadvantaged.

There may be cases where that is true, but it can't be assumed.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Why religion?

i suppose first thing I associate with the word host is "host of angels" which is religious (yes its odd that I didn't think of the viral host meaning first)

 

[Gralin]

No, quite the opposite. What I am saying is that having a policy that negatively impacts certain parts of the citizenship doesn't NECESSARILY imply the government is trying to actively keep them down, which is the inference you were trying to make.

Take tax increases for example. They negatively impact the people they are being imposed upon, but that doesn't mean that the government are doing it to try and keep them down/disadvantaged.

There may be cases where that is true, but it can't be assumed.

I never said its always the case but I was responding to someone else who apparently thinks Governments never do it at all

 

[Opine]

So you believe that Governents never target groups of their citizens in negative ways?

I don’t believe this government or any other legitimate prospective Australian government, regardless of political leaning, has/would directly target a group of Australians in the manner which the underlying subjevt of your question relates.

 

[Gralin]

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I don’t believe this government or any other legitimate prospective Australian government, regardless of political leaning, has/would directly target a group of Australians in the manner which the underlying subjevt of your question relates.

Can you explain what they were trying to achieve with robodebt, despite the legal advice they were given about it?

Trying to undercut the NDIS is another example, while at the same time funneling money into big business lnp donors.

 

[Opine]

Can you explain what they were trying to achieve with robodebt, despite the legal advice they were given about it?

I don’t know enough about it. What do you think the underlying objective was?

 

[kickazz]

I'm fine with some government funding of private schools, as has been mentioned it does open them up to a greater portion of the population. Not everyone unfortunately, but overall I htink it is ok.

To improve the public school system they need to make it easier to get rid of underperforming staff, in particular, principals that are useless or don't give a shit are hard to move on, and can make the whole school a pretty crappy place.

 

[Sttew]

i suppose first thing I associate with the word host is "host of angels" which is religious (yes its odd that I didn't think of the viral host meaning first)

I hear 'host' and I think Airbnb or party

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I don’t know enough about it. What do you think the underlying objective was?

Virtue signalling to lnp donors. They wanted to punish the poor while giving billions to lnp donors like Canstruct, Paladin, Gerry Harvey etc.

It was cruel by design, and was found to be unlawful - which they were told right from the start by their own legal advisors.

 

[Opine]

Virtue signalling to lnp donors. They wanted to punish the poor while giving billions to lnp donors like Canstruct, Paladin, Gerry Harvey etc.

It was cruel by design, and was found to be unlawful - which they were told right from the start by their own legal advisors.

Are you exercising some subjective liberty saying that their intention was to punish the poor or was that found to be a fact?

 

[HairyO]

Virtue signalling to lnp donors. They wanted to punish the poor while giving billions to lnp donors like Canstruct, Paladin, Gerry Harvey etc.

It was cruel by design, and was found to be unlawful - which they were told right from the start by their own legal advisors.

Labor designed Robodebt. The Coalition took it to the next level.

It could have been a great policy if they had human oversight and didnt treat people as guilty first and require proof of innocence. It was always going to fail with those 2 things.

 

[Gralin]

It was never a good policy

 

[Evolved1]

Which isn't any where near an adequate measure depicting future achievement.

Here's the thing: kids ostensibly are stupid. Talented, untalented, intelligent, unintelligent; the children are essentially within each other's range when they're children. Those that aren't come back to earth the older they get; through the latter half of high school and into university, those kids regarded as talented, unless blessed with a supreme work ethic (the real indicator of achievement, when coupled with emotional intelligence) come back to the pack.

Picking kids for a scholarship at 13-14 is a bad idea, because past performance between the ages of 5-13 isn't an indicator for the rest of a human being's life. University serves as a better means of divining intelligence/application/EI, with VCE/HCE/IB being the measures by which achievement should be assessed. Doing it sooner creates adverse life, educative, and psychological outcomes for kids who - emotionally speaking - need to spend less time studying and more time socializing or being kids.

See, I like what you're saying here. It echoes how I feel about trying to counter the effects of racism upon society; it shouldn't be about dragging people down, but pulling people up. But the current status quo is unsustainable from a financial and egalitarian perspective, and unless you have a concrete pathway towards achieving this I'm sorry but slowly weaning private schools from public money to smooth the transition is my desired outcome.

Studies back this up, but there's an issue with the response being shrugging and continuing to do what we're already doing.

That's the kicker: the current status quo is bad, and getting worse. Inaction is not an option.

I don't have a problem with that, and you don't have a problem with paying higher taxes to supplement education and medicine. If the proposal changes to add funding to public education to make up the difference, you're on board.

This sentence brings forth a bit of a LOL from me.

You don't want them to fund religion. You're against that, even if you're for private education. Having reasons why individual areas shouldn't be funded with public money isn't something that's inconceivable to you.

I've told you why this needs change. There is a risk of further stratifying economic class in this country, pushing it further in a direction that we have never been before.

Is there any better means of measuring future achievement than scholarships? Most of the scholarships go to 11-12 year olds before crossover from primary to secondary schooling. Thinking back to my schooling years, which is all I have to go from in respect to the topic, a vast majority of those who had scholarships achieved success in VCE.

There's opportunities for academically inclined students from the public (and private) systems to gain entry into public selective entry schools, so realistically there's a path for all people if they have the capabilities.

You view removal of government funding for private schools as an opportunity for the government sector to gain more funding. Whether the good intentions of your plan work as intended remain to be seen. If students are forced into the public system because parents can no longer afford private school tuition, government funding for that student has just increased by over 40%.

The other issue I have with your plan is that I can't see it leading to different inequalities because of geography. Public schools from lower socioeconomic areas typically don't provide the same quality of schooling as inner city schools. Take a student that lives in Keysborough or surrounding suburbs for example. Private school options within the vicinity include Haileybury. If that same student is pushed out of the public system and into a public school in Keysborough or Dandenong, their opportunities become far more limited.

While I see your goal as worthy, I disagree with the means you wish to use. Until public schooling options are reasonably equal across the board among Melbourne suburbs, private schooling should be subsidised. Most of the differences seem to be cultural, and that's no easy fix. Fix that issue first and I'm with you.