Public vs Private School funding

[Sttew]

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.

He does!!!

 

[Gralin]

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.

So you agree the LNP isn't a legitimate political party?
Welcome to the revolution comrade

 

[randyzany]

One of the few instances that I agree with Ghost Patrol. The more exclusive the school (fees of upwards 20k a year, some as much as 50k apparently) the less funding it should receive or ideally none at all.

It's obscene and insulting in the extreme that institutions that children of millionaires (or at the very least comfortably well off to be able to throw around tens of thousands of dollars per year on just school fees, much less other expenses required to raise a child) attend should receive any kind of taxpayer funding. Certainly no wage earner is able to cough up the equivalent of what they earn in a year to send their children to one of those schools.

A distinction should be made between private schools that are more or less glorified public schools that charge a few thousand dollars per year, compared to the toffs schools of choice that charge an exorbitant amount (for most people) not just to fund the state of the art facilities that would make small Melbourne footy clubs envious but also as a buffer to keep the riff raff out.

The attraction of your typical relatively cheap Catholic schools is that disruptive morons who don't want to learn anything at school can be kicked out, unlike public schools that have to tolerate them, so students in classes actually have an opportunity to learn. So I have no issues with some sort of of funding for these schools, as long as it's proportional to their needs and not more than what public schools get.

You could apply a threshold similar to how income tax is worked out, for example anything beyond 10k a year should receive absolutely nothing as the parents (the vast majority besides a handful of desperate social climbers who want their little darlings to start networking with the well heeled as early as possible) enrolling their children there are clearly not in any sort of financial need.

 

[Bombermania]

One of the few instances that I agree with Ghost Patrol. The more exclusive the school (fees of upwards 20k a year, some as much as 50k apparently) the less funding it should receive or ideally none at all.

It's obscene and insulting in the extreme that institutions that children of millionaires (or at the very least comfortably well off to be able to throw around tens of thousands of dollars per year on just school fees, much less other expenses required to raise a child) attend should receive any kind of taxpayer funding. Certainly no wage earner is able to cough up the equivalent of what they earn in a year to send their children to one of those schools.

A distinction should be made between private schools that are more or less glorified public schools that charge a few thousand dollars per year, compared to the toffs schools of choice that charge an exorbitant amount (for most people) not just to fund the state of the art facilities that would make small Melbourne footy clubs envious but also as a buffer to keep the riff raff out.

The attraction of your typical relatively cheap Catholic schools is that disruptive morons who don't want to learn anything at school can be kicked out, unlike public schools that have to tolerate them, so students in classes actually have an opportunity to learn. So I have no issues with some sort of of funding for these schools, as long as it's proportional to their needs and not more than what public schools get.

You could apply a threshold similar to how income tax is worked out, for example anything beyond 10k a year should receive absolutely nothing as the parents (the vast majority besides a handful of desperate social climbers who want their little darlings to start networking with the well heeled as early as possible) enrolling their children there are clearly not in any sort of financial need.

The parents that send their kids to the elite schools are unlikely to send their kids to the local state school and in many cases the local state schools are amongst the best state schools yet toffs as you put it prefer to send their kids to the private ones. Mates that went to the elite private schools have said that for many of these kids its about status not value for money or public versus private because they see it as an investment in their future networks which is fine and some people will favor people for their school tie but for most people it doesn't matter.

 

[randyzany]

But all that would happen with your higher taxes is more money would be funneled into the private system.

Feds don't want to fund tertiary education or public education but do want to fund private and catholic education, what does that tell you about their motives?


on the contrary I think education is extremely important and I think what we are seeing in this thread is that people who go private think public education is sh*t and don't really care what happens to it as long as the gravy train for private school isn't interrupted

To be fair to the Libs unis and public school staff are littered with LWNJs, people that have a pathological hatred of the Liberal party in general and would never in a million years vote for them. Making matters worse staff in these institutions make a concerted effort to indoctrinate students with left wing ideology with many students eventually becoming very anti conservative. So it should come as no surprise that Libs are very reticent to funnel funds in their direction.

Whereas the parents of private and catholic schools students are far more likely to vote for the Liberals, and while it doesn't make it right it's understandable why the Libs pork barrel in this way. Let's not pretend it's just the Libs though, the Labor party pork barrels as well spending a huge amount of money in areas where they think there are votes to be had.

 

[Bombermania]

To be fair to the Libs unis and public school staff are littered with LWNJs, people that have pathological hatred of the Liberal party in general and would never in a million years vote for them. Making matters worse staff in these institutions make a concerted effort to indoctrinate students with left wing ideology with many students eventually becoming very anti conservative. So it should come as no surprise that Libs are very reticent to funnel funds in their direction.

Whereas the parents of private and catholic schools students are far more likely to vote for the Liberals, and while it doesn't make it right it's understandable why the Libs pork barrel in this way.

That is the impression believed by many conservatives however I'm not sure that is how its playing out because many so called "leftist" issues seem to be driven by people from private school backgrounds.

 

[Gough]

The balance has shifted too far in favour of private education. My private schooling in the 80s meant turf wickets and a few extra curricular trips away, the facilities certainly weren't a long way different from public schools at the time. Since Howard the same school has bathed in rivers of gold and is almost unrecognisable from the one I went to while most public schools have to fight for every penny.

 

[Gralin]

To be fair to the Libs unis and public school staff are littered with LWNJs, people that have a pathological hatred of the Liberal party in general and would never in a million years vote for them. Making matters worse staff in these institutions make a concerted effort to indoctrinate students with left wing ideology with many students eventually becoming very anti conservative. So it should come as no surprise that Libs are very reticent to funnel funds in their direction.

Whereas the parents of private and catholic schools students are far more likely to vote for the Liberals, and while it doesn't make it right it's understandable why the Libs pork barrel in this way. Let's not pretend it's just the Libs though, the Labor party pork barrels as well spending a huge amount of money in areas where they think there are votes to be had.

Excusing this ****ery because of politics is rank.

 

[randyzany]

That is the impression believed by many conservatives however I'm not sure that is how its playing out because many so called "leftist" issues seem to be driven by people from private school backgrounds.

Really?

I was under the impression that it came mainly from tertiary institutions. I wasn't aware that private schools were significant players in driving social issues such as trans gender identity, the 'wage gap', etc, etc, etc,.. and influencing governments and the private sector to introduce policies that promote their agendas.

 

[Gralin]

Why is the wage gap in quotes?

 

[randyzany]

Excusing this f***ery because of politics is rank.

Not excusing it just pointing out that both Labor and Liberal target funding in a manner that is beneficial to them.

 

[Gralin]

Not excusing it just pointing out that both Labor and Liberal target funding in a manner that is beneficial to them.

You're excusing it based on unrelated but laybah that you couldn't even give an example of.

Not that I want one as it's got nothing to do with this thread

 

[randyzany]

Why is the wage gap in quotes?

It's against the law to pay someone less based on their gender. Women earn 'less' because they usually work in lower paying fields (their choice) and take time off from work for the birth of a child. Claiming there's some sort of deliberate discrimination going on against female employees is disingenuous. If anything is unqualified women who are on the receiving end of positive discrimination with the introduction of quotas that forces employers to hire women over men to satisfy these discriminatory requirements.

 

[Gralin]

It's against the law to pay someone less based on their gender. Women earn 'less' because they usually work in lower paying fields (their choice) and take time off from work for the birth of a child. Claiming there's some sort of deliberate discrimination going on against female employees is disingenuous. If anything is unqualified women who are on the receiving end of positive discrimination with the introduction of quotas that forces employers to hire women over men to satisfy these discriminatory requirements.

Oh right your one of those types.

 

[Mick F]

Not excusing it just pointing out that both Labor and Liberal target funding in a manner that is beneficial to them.

So funding underesourced schools, in lower scocio-economic areas, enables Labor to ‘capture’ traditional Liberal electorates!

 

[Gough]

Better drugs at private schools for the kiddos too, they pinch from their parent's stash.

 

[Bombermania]

Really?

I was under the impression that it came mainly from tertiary institutions. I wasn't aware that private schools were significant players in driving social issues such as trans gender identity, the 'wage gap', etc, etc, etc,.. and influencing governments and the private sector to introduce policies that promote their agendas.

When it comes to the voice or teals, many of their candidates and supporters are from private school backgrounds.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

To be fair to the Libs unis and public school staff are littered with LWNJs, people that have a pathological hatred of the Liberal party in general and would never in a million years vote for them. Making matters worse staff in these institutions make a concerted effort to indoctrinate students with left wing ideology with many students eventually becoming very anti conservative. So it should come as no surprise that Libs are very reticent to funnel funds in their direction.

Whereas the parents of private and catholic schools students are far more likely to vote for the Liberals, and while it doesn't make it right it's understandable why the Libs pork barrel in this way. Let's not pretend it's just the Libs though, the Labor party pork barrels as well spending a huge amount of money in areas where they think there are votes to be had.

Quite the Connoisseur of bad takes, aren't we?

 

[Donakebab]

I am yet to see a conversation on here with old mate randy where he hasn't resorted to attacking lefties, progressives or Dan.

 

[Deliverance]

Why did we start a new thread for this?

Private Schools

With all the drama over schools funding recently, got me thinking. I'd be all for the extra money for private schools if it produced better students. But it seems a worldwide trend that private school kids do no better at school compared to public school kids of similar socioeconomic backgrounds...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Crankyhawk]

Ah yes, lose argument then call everyone a leftie.

The snowflakery of pretend centrists never ceases to amaze me.

Tbf at least the proposal to defund private schools is actually a left wing idea not a moderate right wing idea being called left wing.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Gralin it is difficult to argue rationally with someone who holds the view that a family who pay their full measure of tax should be penalised because they choose to send their children to private school.

How long would it take for governments to build schools for the $1M+ students currently attending private schools IF the private schools didn't exist. The same applies to private hospitals.

This country is built on a combination of publicly and privately funded core services. If you don't like that then frankly, maybe China or North Korea may be best suited to you?

Hate private hospitals. Useless parasites not doing their share of work during covid, and always quick to dump their complications onto public system.

 

[Gralin]

Why did we start a new thread for this?

Private Schools

With all the drama over schools funding recently, got me thinking. I'd be all for the extra money for private schools if it produced better students. But it seems a worldwide trend that private school kids do no better at school compared to public school kids of similar socioeconomic backgrounds...

www.bigfooty.com

Because you posted in the Andrews thread instead of your own thread that nobody had been in for over 6 months?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The balance has shifted too far in favour of private education. My private schooling in the 80s meant turf wickets and a few extra curricular trips away, the facilities certainly weren't a long way different from public schools at the time. Since Howard the same school has bathed in rivers of gold and is almost unrecognisable from the one I went to while most public schools have to fight for every penny.

And an equal funding arrangement per student no matter where it comes from (mandatory fees or govt funding) would return things to more like this balance.

Anybody who thinks private schools still wouldn’t be ahead in areas like facilities in kidding themselves. They'd still raise money from donations etc.

It's why they pour so much effort into old boy's networks etc, basically to maintain engagement and convince the alumni that they owe some of any success they have to their school and should repay it. When in reality, their success is basically because they're smart or their parents made it for them, and their old classmates' failures are because they're not so smart, etc. Even though both went to the same school.

 

[Kram]

The commies out in force I see!

The real problem out my way is kids from a young age simple not even attending school but there seem to be no ramifications for the parents just letting this happen...