Public vs Private School funding

[Opine]

It is not favouritism, it is a deliberate liberal party plan,

Libs fear education for all.

...

You don’t really believe that do you? There is no conspiracy win any legitimate political party to deliberately keep groups of Australians down. it’s a ridiculous suggestion.

 

[Evolved1]

One of the Rights virtues they love to spout is "equality of opportunity" and as soon as you make mention of ways to achieve that then all of a sudden it left wing nutjobbery.

We mean it, but not for everyone.

Nice strawman.

 

[Hoops]

Nice strawman.

What's this?

Gralin and Ghost Patrol would prefer our government pay $17,000 than $12,000 for an education because they hate rich people and choice. Damn those parents in the outer suburbs who want their kids to get a better education!

Your whole existence on BF is building strawmen.

 

[Evolved1]

The government funding per student at a school could look like this; standard funding per pupil - Fee/2.
Lets say standard funding is $10,000 then it would look like this

Fee	Government Funding	Total per student
$0	$10,000	$10,000
$5,000	$7,500	$12,500
$10,000	$5,000	$15,000
$15,000	$2,500	$17,500
$20,000+	$0	$20,000+

And then on top of that public schools should get extra funding for the disable, indigenous etc

Let's have another round of class wars because that worked so well for the ALP previously. You must want them to lose the next election.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Do not have a problem with governments funding private school students learning but a fu**en state of the art sports field for example is not funding education. If governments want to fund sport fund a sporting club that is a community organisation. Not this bs of private schools requiring hyperbaric chambers or whatever. It’s a joke in every way.

Things like this are often funded by donations by wealthy parents or alumni. Some do it cos they’re grateful to the joint, some do it cos they want their name on it, some a mixture.

And that would continue outside of the fee/govt funding system. Even in an “equalised” system, private schools would still be ahead because of this. Just the way it is.

 

[Hoops]

Let's have another round of class wars because that worked so well for the ALP previously. You must want them to lose the next election.

for some reason class wars seem to work for the coalition.

 

[Evolved1]

What's this?

Your whole existence on BF is building strawmen.

Strawman followed by red herring. If you have a point, please state it clearly in your own words.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

 

[Evolved1]

for some reason class wars seem to work for the coalition.

Many parents of private school children would shift their vote based on your proposed changes. Might is right, or so I've been told over the past couple years.

 

[Hoops]

Strawman followed by red herring. If you have a point, please state it clearly in your own words.

You said those in private schools get a better education. How do you justify that with your conscience knowing that not all have the means to get a private education. But that's not you problem is it?

 

[Bombermania]

Private schools might soon fall out of favor with the Liberals because much of the heat in its heartland is coming from private school types wanting action on climate and other issues.

 

[Evolved1]

You said those in private schools get a better education. How do you justify that with your conscience knowing that not all have the means to get a private education. But that's not you problem is it?

It's a simple fact of life that we're not all born with equal opportunity, and I don't see it as my responsibility to ensure equality of opportunity for all. As I've posted before, I'm happy to pay higher taxes to bring the public health and education systems up to standard. The private sector wouldn't be necessary in a perfect world.

 

[Bombermania]

The real evening up happens at university or tafe.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Unless this discussion totals up state + federal funding and divides it per student it's a dumb discussion.

I don't necessarily agree that private gives a better all round education than public (and by all round I mean that broadly, not narrowly). It surely does deliver greater "elite" opportunities. I'm not convinced much of that "elitism" is worth aspiring to.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Private schools might soon fall out of favor with the Liberals because much of the heat in its heartland is coming from private school types wanting action on climate and other issues.

No the Libs issues is with them coping heat for the private school boy style culture within their party that's been highlighted by Christian Porter and the woeful handling of the Britney Higgins rape federally and the Tim Smith car wreck at state level. Not that they are going to turn on the Private Schools (don't bite the hand that feeds you) they just want to try and distance themselves from it at the moment.

 

[Bombermania]

No the Libs issues is with them coping heat for the private school boy style culture within their party that's been highlighted by Christian Porter and the woeful handling of the Britney Higgins rape federally and the Tim Smith car wreck at state level. Not that they are going to turn on the Private Schools (don't bit the hand that feeds you) they just want to try and distance themselves from it at the moment.

That's the boy schools but the girls schools alumni are increasingly driving social issues whether that be gender or tackling climate change.

 

[Gethelred]

So you're against funding choice for parents who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford private schooling. Interesting.

Is it a supplement for funding education at private schools to allow children from lower economic tiers to attend private schools, or are there a significant amount of private schools that are only financially viable due to the government funding + fees?

Is there a conversation to be had from the other direction: if you've a school that would not survive without both private and public funding, is that school truly considered a long term proposition? Is it a worthwhile investment compared to - say - improving a government school or schools to the point where both from a capacity and an educational perspective that it/they can accommodate the students from said private school without undue negative educational outcomes?

 

[Ice-Wolf]

That's the boy schools but the girls schools alumni are increasingly driving social issues whether that be gender or tackling climate change.

Yep the girls are no longer as willing to let the bullshit from the boys slide as much as they did for previous generations which means the Libs are going to have to adapt or die. Unfortunately this doesn't mean that they're going to adapt in the right way as it seems like they are moving towards recruiting from the religious conservatives instead (because they will put up with that crap).

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

The real evening up happens at university or tafe.

Tafes and Unis have been gutted though.

 

[Kyptastic]

Should taxes paid by childless couples be used on government schools? If so why???

Childless couples benefit from funding education indirectly. The plumber they hired to fix their sink or the nurse that looks after them when they’re sick were taught in a school somewhere. Regardless of whether you have kids or not, we all benefit from being an educated society and therefore we should all share the cost

 

[Christopher Buttersnip]

Is it a supplement for funding education at private schools to allow children from lower economic tiers to attend private schools, or are there a significant amount of private schools that are only financially viable due to the government funding + fees?

Is there a conversation to be had from the other direction: if you've a school that would not survive without both private and public funding, is that school truly considered a long term proposition? Is it a worthwhile investment compared to - say - improving a government school or schools to the point where both from a capacity and an educational perspective that it/they can accommodate the students from said private school without undue negative educational outcomes?

We should move in a graduated way from using taxpayers' funds being directed for private education and opulent infrastructure and repurpose it to public schools. I was talking to a principal of a private school mid-year. That school has gone through massive redevelopment over two years. I said to him jovially 'have you finished as developers'. At that time he said yes. Over the holidays I noticed more of the old school being demolished. So when I saw him last week I said I thought you were finished with development. His response was the Feds offered the money and I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Essentially, if you want to send your kid to a private school its user pays, which is the reactionaries policy when it suits.

I went to a private school and my parents agree with my stance.

 

[Evolved1]

Is it a supplement for funding education at private schools to allow children from lower economic tiers to attend private schools, or are there a significant amount of private schools that are only financially viable due to the government funding + fees?

Is there a conversation to be had from the other direction: if you've a school that would not survive without both private and public funding, is that school truly considered a long term proposition? Is it a worthwhile investment compared to - say - improving a government school or schools to the point where both from a capacity and an educational perspective that it/they can accommodate the students from said private school without undue negative educational outcomes?

The closest we have to supplementing children from lower economic tiers to attend private schools is through scholarships.

The ideal is to bring public schooling up to a standard at which the private system becomes obsolete. I'm sure you'd agree we're far from that goal.

In the meantime, the top priority should be allowing parents choice in respect to education. There's a massive divide between quality of schooling in the public and private sectors, especially so in outer suburbs, and much of that comes down to culture. Parents from lower SES backgrounds often don't care about education in the way that middle-class and educated parents do. Without fixing heavily ingrained cultural and societal issues, I don't see how it's possible to improve the lesser government schools over the short term.

Removing funding from the private system would push many children back into the public system, which also comes at a higher cost to the taxpayer.

Our governments fund private businesses, healthcare, even religion. Why oppose private education?

 

[Donakebab]

Surprised this analysis hasn't been shared already. It is utterly disgraceful that the divide between the have's and have not's is widening on the back of the taxpayer.

Rich school, poor school: Here's where 8,500 schools rank on the income ladder

Exclusive school finance figures reveal four elite private schools spent more on new facilities than the poorest 1,800 schools combined. This is Australia's great education divide.

www.abc.net.au

Australia's four richest schools spent more on new facilities and renovations than the poorest 1,800 schools combined.

The richest 1% of schools spent $3 billion. The poorest 50% spent $2.6 billion combined. The poorest 50% of schools teach nearly five times as many students.

Half of the $22 billion spent on capital projects in Australian schools between 2013 and 2017 was spent in just 10 per cent of schools

These schools are the country’s richest, ranked by average annual income from all sources (federal and state government funding, fees and other private funding) over the five-year period. They teach fewer than 30 per cent of students.

They also reaped 28 per cent (or $2.4 billion) of the $8.6 billion in capital spending funded by government.

 

[Gethelred]

The closest we have to supplementing children from lower economic tiers to attend private schools is through scholarships.

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.

The ideal is to bring public schooling up to a standard at which the private system becomes obsolete. I'm sure you'd agree we're far from that goal.

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.

In the meantime, the top priority should be allowing parents choice in respect to education. There's a massive divide between quality of schooling in the public and private sectors, especially so in outer suburbs, and much of that comes down to culture. Parents from lower SES backgrounds often don't care about education in the way that middle-class and educated parents do. Without fixing heavily ingrained cultural and societal issues, I don't see how it's possible to improve the lesser government schools over the short term.

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.

Removing funding from the private system would push many children back into the public system, which also comes at a higher cost to the taxpayer.

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.

Our governments fund private businesses, healthcare, even religion. Why oppose private education?

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.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Private schools might soon fall out of favor with the Liberals because much of the heat in its heartland is coming from private school types wanting action on climate and other issues.

Ha it’s a good point. Things are flipping. The modern LNP don’t want people educated. Bloody facts.