Public vs Private School funding

[Gruffles]

So the government has been funding them so these assets could sit idle when? It just doesn't sound like good management.

I mean, the private schools in Brisbane are WAY over funded, and ridiculously over developed. It's a non-stop rort from what I've seen. This is mainly why I'd shut them down tomorrow and put the land and facilities in state hands.

Qld Ed already runs selective entry schools, with large specialised facilities. They can do it, and sounds like with much better use of the assets than the private organisations.

I mean the assets aren't sitting idle, they are being used by the schools. But I'm not and have never denied that there's been a serious issue with education funding historically. But also don't forget that there is different types of funding and what it can be used for, but I don't think we need to dive down that hole again.

The funding is being looked at and some positive changes have been decided upon. I don't necessarily think it's enough but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Which, to my mind, should be: you get the proper amount next year and we are putting in laws and rights of action to stop this rip off happening in future.

That part is absolutely up for debate, though having been involved in school finances I believe that this is impractical so disagree.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Not necessarily. It doesn't matter what school you are (independent or not), you've done budgeting based on financial forecasting. If you suddenly had funding removed then the only logical way to recuperate that sudden loss is to significantly raise fees, which is where I'd see the sudden loss of students.

If it was gradual then schools can adjust their forecasting to take this into account and potentially find alternative revenue sources so that the loss of funding isn't fully incorporated into fees. Sure, fees will likely rise, but not as much. Some students will leave, but not as many and in a more gradual and controlled fashion.

Absolutely nailed it...

 

[Carn The Berries]

perhaps rather than only raising fees, cut back on the opulence and concentrate on the necessities?

This belief that all non-government schools have been gold-plating their facilities is simply inaccurate. Yes, the ones at the top end have more than they need, but you can't just apply that theory across the board.

 

[Not Important]

This belief that all non-government schools have been gold-plating their facilities is simply inaccurate. Yes, the ones at the top end have more than they need, but you can't just apply that theory across the board.

agreed! i was drawing your attention to increasing fees being the only way to ease withdrawing funds from private schools.

withdrawing taxpayer funds would be done over time with the top end, and there are many, having their taxpayer subsidies reduced at a faster rate.

the powerful and influential private school lobby has a playbook they reference. a significant part of that is the falsehood that its parents who fund the profligacy of the wealthy schools - particularly infrastructure. i know from well-placed sources that without the billions tipped in by governments, they would not be able to spend on opulence. one private school, and it’s not one normally mentioned among the big end, has properties they lease.

 

[Gruffles]

agreed! i was drawing your attention to increasing fees being the only way to ease withdrawing funds from private schools.

withdrawing taxpayer funds would be done over time with the top end, and there are many, having their taxpayer subsidies reduced at a faster rate.

Just to clarify my point, I was saying that increasing fees would be the most obvious need if funding was INSTANTLY pulled, as suggested by chief. If funding was gradually phased out then fee rises wouldn't be the only way to readjust.

 

[Not Important]

Just to clarify my point, I was saying that increasing fees would be the most obvious need if funding was INSTANTLY pulled, as suggested by chief. If funding was gradually phased out then fee rises wouldn't be the only way to readjust.

thanks. withdrawal of funds from private schools would have to be planned and systematic - that doesn’t mean drawn out - if only to allow the state schools time to build up their infrastructure to cope with the probable influx of students.

there may even be some property/infrastructure for sale.

depressingly, those of us who see the unfairness/ privilege know the withdrawal of public funds from private schools to the point no public funds are going to private schools - so they are genuinely private - is a pipedream due to the powerful and influential private school lobby. the reactionaries are more likely to increase funding while labor is weak on the matter. public pressure might see a fairer distribution under a progressive government.

 

[Gruffles]

thanks. withdrawal of funds from private schools would have to be planned and systematic - that doesn’t mean drawn out - if only to allow the state schools time to build up their infrastructure to cope with the probable influx of students.

there may even be some property/infrastructure for sale.

depressingly, those of us who see the unfairness/ privilege know the withdrawal of public funds from private schools to the point no public funds are going to private schools - so they are genuinely private - is a pipedream due to the powerful and influential private school lobby. the reactionaries are more likely to increase funding while labor is weak on the matter. public pressure might see a fairer distribution under a progressive government.

Well, acknowledging the unfairness of the current funding model doesn't automatically mean you necessarily agree with no public funding going to private schools. In fact, a fair chunk of the countries around the world have public funds going to their private schools. Generally it revolves around ensuring private institutions are teaching the national curriculum.

Think of it as akin to Medicare covering some of the cost of private hospital patients for approved procedures.

 

[Not Important]

Well, acknowledging the unfairness of the current funding model doesn't automatically mean you necessarily agree with no public funding going to private schools. In fact, a fair chunk of the countries around the world have public funds going to their private schools. Generally it revolves around ensuring private institutions are teaching the national curriculum.

Think of it as akin to Medicare covering some of the cost of private hospital patients for approved procedures.

wow! equating medicare with private school funding gives a whole new meaning to false equivalence.

if a matter is unfair it’s more than sufficient reason to change it. unfairness is a root cause of many of the world’s problems. as is apathy.

i can’t readily think of another developed nation that funds private schools as we do.

 

[Gruffles]

wow! equating medicare with private school funding gives a whole new meaning to false equivalence.

if a matter is unfair it’s more than sufficient reason to change it. unfairness is a root cause of many of the world’s problems. as is apathy.

i can’t readily think of another developed nation that funds private schools as we do.

I was using Medicare as an example of where public funding goes to private institutions.

I've said multiple times that the historic funding model has been unfair. It's also been finally recognised as that with a shifting model being put in place as we speak. Do I think the final position of this will be completely fair? No, I don't, but we're heading in the right direction.

There are a number of countries that provide public funds to subsidise private education, whether that be direct to the school or to the parent - e.g. USA, France, Switzerland, Aus. There are other countries that FULLY fund private schools (meaning parents don't pay fees to go there) - e.g. Canada, Belgium, New Zealand, Finland

 

[Gralin]

wow! equating medicare with private school funding gives a whole new meaning to false equivalence.

if a matter is unfair it’s more than sufficient reason to change it. unfairness is a root cause of many of the world’s problems. as is apathy.

i can’t readily think of another developed nation that funds private schools as we do.

i mean from the perspective that we have a two tier health system where we subsidize the rich and let the public system suffer because "people can pay for better" its a pretty good comparison

the constant erosion of public services where there there are private services that also receive public funding is pretty consistent

people who have a vested interest in this continuing will also always talk about how fixing it would be bad

like the gambling lobby saying sport can't survive if they can't advertise

or the housing market would be worse without landlords getting hand outs etc

 

[RedStarUncle]

i mean from the perspective that we have a two tier health system where we subsidize the rich and let the public system suffer because "people can pay for better" its a pretty good comparison

the constant erosion of public services where there there are private services that also receive public funding is pretty consistent

people who have a vested interest in this continuing will also always talk about how fixing it would be bad

like the gambling lobby saying sport can't survive if they can't advertise

or the housing market would be worse without landlords getting hand outs etc

Conservatives will always talk about "we believe in equal opportunity... the left believe in equal outcome" all the while happily stacking their deck with private schools, private health, tax benefits for property owners, etc. etc.

And deny that any of those systems stack opportunity in their favour, and fight against any attempt to make those systems more fair.



Private schooling in Australia is the epitome of that mentality.

 

[Not Important]

I was using Medicare as an example of where public funding goes to private institutions.

I've said multiple times that the historic funding model has been unfair. It's also been finally recognised as that with a shifting model being put in place as we speak. Do I think the final position of this will be completely fair? No, I don't, but we're heading in the right direction.

There are a number of countries that provide public funds to subsidise private education, whether that be direct to the school or to the parent - e.g. USA, France, Switzerland, Aus. There are other countries that FULLY fund private schools (meaning parents don't pay fees to go there) - e.g. Canada, Belgium, New Zealand, Finland

i took you at your word - that word being ‘medicare’

i think you’ll find that in most countries where education is publicly funded, the taxes are commensurately high. i’m not opposed to that so long as it’s regulated.

it seems our percent funding is at the high end here and in many countries adhering to government standards is a requirement. that is one key difference between education and health here. health is regulated whereas private school funding is not.

the opulence of some private schools funded bc of tax subsidies is obscene

as someone who is privately insured only bc the health system is not up to par i’m for putting money into public health to lift the standards and withdrawing subsidies to private health companies over time.

 

[Gruffles]

i took you at your word - that word being ‘medicare’

I clearly was associating the situation where Medicare funds some private patients - "Medicare covering some of the cost of private hospital patients for approved procedures". Focusing on one word in the sentence completely misses the context.

i think you’ll find that in most countries where education is publicly funded, the taxes are commensurately high. i’m not opposed to that so long as it’s regulated.

it seems our percent funding is at the high end here and in many countries adhering to government standards is a requirement. that is one key difference between education and health here. health is regulated whereas private school funding is not.

It's undeniable that our percentage funding is on the high end and is unfair. I've acknowledged that. However, that is starting to be rectified and is going to drop to closer to what many other countries distribute. It doesn't seem that many here are acknowledging that fact.

Also, I'm not clear on what you are meaning around your statement re: adhering to government standards is. Private schools here need to adhere to the national curriculum and their senior state curricula and are audited on this all the time.

So just to clarify where you said this "i think you’ll find that in most countries where education is publicly funded, the taxes are commensurately high. i’m not opposed to that so long as it’s regulated." You would be fine for higher taxes and private school's to be fully funded by the government?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I mean the assets aren't sitting idle, they are being used by the schools. But I'm not and have never denied that there's been a serious issue with education funding historically. But also, don't forget that there is different types of funding and what it can be used for, but I don't think we need to dive down that hole again.

The funding is being looked at, and some positive changes have been decided upon. I don't necessarily think it's enough but it's a step in the right direction.

we've been taking minuscule steps in the right direction for 40 years and look where we are. The problem is neither major party wants to piss off the private school voters. They have successfully made themselves our version of the NRA. Even Gillard went weak at the knees when the polls were put under her nose. We need the most courageous of leaders to extract us from this ongoing rort.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I clearly was associating the situation where Medicare funds some private patients - "Medicare covering some of the cost of private hospital patients for approved procedures". Focusing on one word in the sentence completely misses the context.



It's undeniable that our percentage funding is on the high end and is unfair. I've acknowledged that. However, that is starting to be rectified and is going to drop to closer to what many other countries distribute. It doesn't seem that many here are acknowledging that fact.

Also, I'm not clear on what you are meaning around your statement re: adhering to government standards is. Private schools here need to adhere to the national curriculum and their senior state curricula and are audited on this all the time.

So just to clarify where you said this "i think you’ll find that in most countries where education is publicly funded, the taxes are commensurately high. i’m not opposed to that so long as it’s regulated." You would be fine for higher taxes and private school's to be fully funded by the government?

i can't stand these weasley defences of a policy atrocity. The patronising is vomitous.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

There are other countries that FULLY fund private schools (meaning parents don't pay fees to go there) - e.g. Canada, Belgium, New Zealand, Finland

By definition then they are NOT private.

 

[Gralin]

we've been taking minuscule steps in the right direction for 40 years and look where we are. The problem is neither major party wants to piss off the private school voters. They have successfully made themselves our version of the NRA. Even Gillard went weak at the knees when the polls were put under her nose. We need the most courageous of leaders to extract us from this ongoing rort.

Andrews tried to increase taxes against the elite schools in Vic and walked that back within a week of announcing it

not the usual result for him when he said he was doing something publicly

he resigned about 3 months after that

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Andrews tried to increase taxes against the elite schools in Vic and walked that back within a week of announcing it

not the usual result for him when he said he was doing something publicly

he resigned about 3 months after that

exactly right. don't underestimate the clout of the Catholic Education office in Victoria. They also work hard to be exempt from fair employment laws with the bizarre rationale that THEIR freedom is being compromised by them. You'd have thought their name would be mud in this state after all the abuse but apparently, all is forgiven.

 

[RedStarUncle]

exactly right. don't underestimate the clout of the Catholic Education office in Victoria. They also work hard to be exempt from fair employment laws with the bizarre rationale that THEIR freedom is being compromised by them. You'd have thought their name would be mud in this state after all the abuse but apparently, all is forgiven.

That's kind of their thing, right?!

Turning any "attack" on the church itself into a perceived attack on anyone practicing that faith has been a pretty successful strategy for any number of religious organisation for any number of decades... centuries even... maybe millennia.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

That's kind of their thing, right?!

Turning any "attack" on the church itself into a perceived attack on anyone practicing that faith has been a pretty successful strategy for any number of religious organisation for any number of decades... centuries even... maybe millennia.

exactly. abusers who contrive to be seen as victims. Its extraordinary. Like the "white racism" bullshit. A tactic that work as long as the audience is thick enough.

 

[Gruffles]

By definition then they are NOT private.

And yet they are privately owned.

In any case. I'm happy to have these discussions with people on here but not with people who are just outright aggressive and rude. I'm not attacking anyone in here, why attack me? For instance...

i can't stand these weasley defences of a policy atrocity. The patronising is vomitous.

I've said repeatedly that the policy is not enough.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

And yet they are privately owned.

In any case. I'm happy to have these discussions with people on here but not with people who are just outright aggressive and rude. I'm not attacking anyone in here, why attack me? For instance...


I've said repeatedly that the policy is not enough.

Your gentle criticism of the policy is not enough I'm afraid. Its not "imperfect". Its corrupt. And don't care if you dont wan't to debate me. After 40 years in public education, I just call out anyone who puts up even a whiff of defence of the private school funding rort that millions of Australian children are robbed by.

 

[Gruffles]

Your gentle criticism of the policy is not enough I'm afraid. Its not "imperfect". Its corrupt. And don't care if you dont wan't to debate me. After 40 years in public education, I just call out anyone who puts up even a whiff of defence of the private school funding rort that millions of Australian children are robbed by.

Once again, I'm not actuslly defending it. You keep putting that up when it's not true. We both have extensive years in education, I've worked multiple years within both systems. You've clearly had a negative experience and that is understandable and valid, but it doesn't mean you have to treat everyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with your perspective as the enemy.

What's your opinion on other nation's funding models where public funds are allocated to private institutions? How do you feel about the countries that fully fund private institutions? What would you want to see done here and how do you see it working? I'm genuinely interested in this stuff.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

but it doesn't mean you have to treat everyone who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with your perspective as the enemy.

I wouldn't use the word enemy but on this issue, I choose to reject even the slightest defence or acceptance of the current system which is nothing less than government-supported educational apartheid. As a retired education professional (and former private school student) I reject what's happening with school resourcing with my every atom. Passing off what is currently happening as any form of fairness equality or choice is appalling. You won't get any compromise out of me. But at least you're well-mannered. That's a nice change.