Public vs Private School funding

[Not Important]

How dare people seek the best for their kids. What horrible people!

only private school propagandists put this nonsense. no one is stopping you from sending your kids to whatever school you want. your choice, you pay for it - all of it.

and how about the kids of those who aren’t sufficiently affluent to attend private schools not getting the best for their kids, bc their schools are deprived of the funds necessary to give them the best? due to the money going to private schools often for lavish infrastructure. and please don’t post the practised nonsense that it’s parents who pay for these things, bc i know that without the billions of taxpayer funds allocated to private schools, such infrastructure could not be afforded.

it’s interesting how the reactionaries have deserted the user pays principle that served them so well - when it suited them.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Not all private schools are the domain of the rich. I see the main benefit of private schools as cultural, not better facilities. I don't think there's any real benefit in terms of teacher quality either. You can find the same thing at selective entry public schools and nobody seems to care.

People generally want the best for the kids in all facets of life and that shouldn't be demonised.

Its not. But the government funding model is simply wrong. btw select entry schools are wrong too BUT they are hardly any of them -so its a shit analogy.

 

[evolved2]

only private school propagandists put this nonsense. no one is stopping you from sending your kids to whatever school you want. your choice, you pay for it - all of it.

and how about the kids of those who aren’t sufficiently affluent to attend private schools not getting the best for their kids, bc their schools are deprived of the funds necessary to give them the best? due to the money going to private schools often for lavish infrastructure. and please don’t post the practised nonsense that it’s parents who pay for these things, bc i know that without the billions of taxpayer funds allocated to private schools, such infrastructure could not be afforded.

it’s interesting how the reactionaries have deserted the user pays principle that served them so well - when it suited them.

I'm yet to see anyone propose a means of ensuring an equitable education for all within the public system. People buy houses within zones to ensure their kids have access to the best public schools.
Not all government schools are equal, are they?

You'd be best to focus on inequalities within the public system before moving onto the private system.

 

[evolved2]

Its not. But the government funding model is simply wrong. btw select entry schools are wrong too BUT they are hardly any of them -so its a shit analogy.

I can agree that government schools should get better funding. No problem there. Where I disagree is that funding should be removed from private schools.

 

[Gruffles]

It is exactly the point. It is about seeking an advantage for your offspring and at the same time not giving 2 s about whose you disadvantage. Not seeing that requires social blinkers.

Nope. That's an outcome, but it's not the point of private schools. Seeing its purpose any other way is just being emotive. Be real, do you think the decision to privatise a service is to create advantage/disadvantage?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I can agree that government schools should get better funding. No problem there. Where I disagree is that funding should be removed from private schools.

why not when the funding in many of those schools is completely unwarranted and un-needed.?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I'm yet to see anyone propose a means of ensuring an equitable education for all within the public system. People buy houses within zones to ensure their kids have access to the best public schools.
Not all government schools are equal, are they?

You'd be best to focus on inequalities within the public system before moving onto the private system.

Thanks for the advice. Your understanding of the funding models is extraordinary

 

[Gralin]

Privatisation was never about better outcomes for the public

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Nope. That's an outcome, but it's not the point of private schools. Seeing its purpose any other way is just being emotive. Be real, do you think the decision to privatise a service is to create advantage/disadvantage?

in this case thats the way its evolved. Sure some started out with a goal to indoctrinate 5 years olds in some grotesque religion but now their schools are half filled with people who couldn't give a shit about that who actually get their kids christianed for the admission. Crazy stuff.

 

[evolved2]

Thanks for the advice. Your understanding of the funding models is extraordinary

Wasn't talking about funding models.

 

[Gruffles]

in this case thats the way its evolved. Sure some started out with a goal to indoctrinate 5 years olds in some grotesque religion but now their schools are half filled with people who couldn't give a shit about that who actually get their kids christianed for the admission. Crazy stuff.

Great, so cutting through the now characteristic emotive nonsense you agree with me. It wasn't the point/purpose of privatisation, but it has been an outcome.

You still can't seem to accept that we actually agree on most of what's being said and instead see this as some sort of argument.

transition a reduction to all non-govt schools until all govt schools are fully funded. Go slow if you are scared but go forward.

Case in point... this is very close to what I've suggested multiple times in this thread, but you continually ignore it and go on the attack.

 

[Chief]

Non-government schools are audited annually. Part of the audit is verification that funding has been appropriately categorised and used. If you can't show that public funding has been used in accordance with the regulations you don't get your audit signed off.

I'm not sure how much more enforcement than that could be expected?

What the issue might be is the government funding just frees up money for extravagant landscaping and ex-professional sports people to coach the footy team.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Nope. That's an outcome, but it's not the point of private schools. Seeing its purpose any other way is just being emotive. Be real, do you think the decision to privatise a service is to create advantage/disadvantage?

Of course privatised health exists because it grants access to better healthcare!

The inequality is the point... the supposed government savings are the side-effect that justifies the continuation. You're back-to-front.


The fact that there's probably no actual tangible benefit to the government doesn't stop the lobbyists pushing that line with no proof. Which has got us to the point where now it is almost impossible to plot a way back to fairness.




The fact it (probably doesn't, but might) save the government money doesn't make it fair.
The fact it's too hard to change doesn't make it fair.
It's point is to not be fair.

 

[Gruffles]

Of course privatised health exists because it grants access to better healthcare!

The inequality is the point... the supposed government savings are the side-effect that justifies the continuation. You're back-to-front.


The fact that there's probably no actual tangible benefit to the government doesn't stop the lobbyists pushing that line with no proof. Which has got us to the point where now it is almost impossible to plot a way back to fairness.




The fact it (probably doesn't, but might) save the government money doesn't make it fair.
The fact it's too hard to change doesn't make it fair.
It's point is to not be fair.

You're redefining the word "point" to suit an emotive stance. It's not the point, it's what it's become over time.

I've never said it's fair, in fact, I've repeatedly said it's not.

I've never said it's too hard to change (I've suggested my thoughts on what/how to change it before) and, in fact, we're seeing change happening right now. It is changing!

 

[Reg Grundy35]

You're redefining the word "point" to suit an emotive stance. It's not the point, it's what it's become over time.

I've never said it's fair, in fact, I've repeatedly said it's not.

I've never said it's too hard to change (I've suggested my thoughts on what/how to change it before) and, in fact, we're seeing change happening right now. It is changing!

So its not just me who you label "emotive"? Ever stopped to wonder why people feel emotive about this issue? And then to be told "Well its "not really fair" but its "what it is" so lets just "move forward as best we can". The whole process that has played out over the past 20-30 years does make me emotional. I dedicated my entire working life to providing the best outcomes for all kids regardless of their parents means, circumstances or parenting capacity. We watched as policy mechanisms were put in place and progressively expanded to ensure govt education dollars went to where they were needed far less than our schools with the ultimate insult that this was about "equality". Has there ever been a govt policy that has resulted in LESS equality. So yes, I'm upset by it. I'm also upset that there appears that there is no obvious way out, the designers of the travesty successfully welding it to the election booth. So do us us favour and don't pretend we are emotionally inferior. Look - your side won. You genuinely appear to be a bit embarrassed by the means. Doesn't and won't change a thing. Keep an eye on the student outcomes that result in the government school system over the next 20 years and never forget how they came about and the justification for the pillage.

 

[The Punter]

only private school propagandists put this nonsense. no one is stopping you from sending your kids to whatever school you want. your choice, you pay for it - all of it.

and how about the kids of those who aren’t sufficiently affluent to attend private schools not getting the best for their kids, bc their schools are deprived of the funds necessary to give them the best? due to the money going to private schools often for lavish infrastructure. and please don’t post the practised nonsense that it’s parents who pay for these things, bc i know that without the billions of taxpayer funds allocated to private schools, such infrastructure could not be afforded.

it’s interesting how the reactionaries have deserted the user pays principle that served them so well - when it suited them.

Some around here are advocating not for a private education where the entire cost is borne by the users but no private education at all.

And I would have thought capitalism was also predicted on the idea that if you want something better, you can pay for it.

 

[Carn The Berries]

What the issue might be is the government funding just frees up money for extravagant landscaping and ex-professional sports people to coach the footy team.

In the case of the "elite" non-government schools absolutely! But we're talking about between 5% and 10% of schools that would fall into that category.

I saw it first hand playing in the Ammos... Blokes coming straight out of AFL and being "hired" as "PE teachers". They just also happen to really want to play for the School's C grade footy team... I have no doubt that the funding from the government helps enable stuff like that.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Some around here are advocating not for a private education where the entire cost is borne by the users but no private education at all.

And I would have thought capitalism was also predicted on the idea that if you want something better, you can pay for it.

yeah you can, no worries. But that is a long way from what we've got. Most private schools now get more $ from govt than customers. I'd have thought that was the exact opposite of capitalism.

 

[The Punter]

yeah you can, no worries. But that is a long way from what we've got. Most private schools now get more $ from govt than customers. I'd have thought that was the exact opposite of capitalism.

And yet, those private schools save the taxpayers money because they spend less per child on them than they do children educated in government schools. Taking every kid out of Catholic primary schools and putting them in government primary schools would be a fiscal disaster, if you care about that sort of thing.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

And yet, those private schools save the taxpayers money because they spend less per child on them than they do children educated in government schools. Taking every kid out of Catholic primary schools and putting them in government primary schools would be a fiscal disaster, if you care about that sort of thing.

at least come up with some original BS.

 

[The Punter]

at least come up with some original BS.

You first. I'm not going to take lectures from banging on about the same thing from one of the best exponents around here of doing exactly that.

In the last analysis, private education and how it is funded ain't going anywhere. Have an excellent day.

 

[Gruffles]

So its not just me who you label "emotive"? Ever stopped to wonder why people feel emotive about this issue? And then to be told "Well its "not really fair" but its "what it is" so lets just "move forward as best we can". The whole process that has played out over the past 20-30 years does make me emotional. I dedicated my entire working life to providing the best outcomes for all kids regardless of their parents means, circumstances or parenting capacity. We watched as policy mechanisms were put in place and progressively expanded to ensure govt education dollars went to where they were needed far less than our schools with the ultimate insult that this was about "equality". Has there ever been a govt policy that has resulted in LESS equality. So yes, I'm upset by it. I'm also upset that there appears that there is no obvious way out, the designers of the travesty successfully welding it to the election booth. So do us us favour and don't pretend we are emotionally inferior. Look - your side won. You genuinely appear to be a bit embarrassed by the means. Doesn't and won't change a thing. Keep an eye on the student outcomes that result in the government school system over the next 20 years and never forget how they came about and the justification for the pillage.

Please point out where I've said the above bolded things, or indicated embarrassment, or shown that I'm on a "side" (if anything... I'm actually on your side but you just refuse to see it).

You've once again completely ignored everything I've said about the current funding model and what I think it should be to just attack.

 

[RedStarUncle]

You're redefining the word "point" to suit an emotive stance. It's not the point, it's what it's become over time.

I've never said it's fair, in fact, I've repeatedly said it's not.

I've never said it's too hard to change (I've suggested my thoughts on what/how to change it before) and, in fact, we're seeing change happening right now. It is changing!

If refusing to admit unfairness is the point is what helps you justify to yourself believing nothing should be done about... great for you... but it's not emotive or a matter of opinion to say it's the point.

Why would a private school exist, except to benefit kids over those who don't have the opportunity to go to those same schools? Every argument for private schools, at it's root, is advantage.


Better facilities and teachers = advantage
Looks better on a resume = advantage
Better chance, purely by the numbers, of getting into uni = advantage
"Culture of success" facilitated by excluding those who don't come from successful backgrounds = advantage

The only point I could concede is if you genuinely wanted your kids to go to a religious school purely for religious reasons rather than any of the other associated benefits. And then we could have a conversation around government funding of religion as an institution instead.


If you want to argue that, philosophically and economic reality aside, private schools are a good thing... then by all means justify that the advantage to some is a good thing for society. I'm open to that argument if you've got one. But don't argue that the advantage is not there or somehow just a coincidental side effect.

 

[RedStarUncle]

And yet, those private schools save the taxpayers money because they spend less per child on them than they do children educated in government schools. Taking every kid out of Catholic primary schools and putting them in government primary schools would be a fiscal disaster, if you care about that sort of thing.

Competitive private industry models simply don't work here just like they don't work for most government-run industries that have been privatised over the years.

Even if we accepted that there was some fundamental efficiency in private school education over government-administered schools (I don't)... that's not even the only thing that should be considered when weighing up whether privatised is the right model.

Can schools genuinely compete and drive efficiency innovations without compromising overall quality of education and conformance to a universal fundamental curriculum?

Is it sustainable for poor-performing schools to simply go bankrupt and shut down? What happens to the kids in those schools if the school goes bankrupt?

Is it ok that parents' means to provide an advantageous education for their children be a reason for those kids to have that advantage, regardless of any other merit or credential associated with the child?

Is it of benefit to society to selectively form communities for them in an educational sense, rather than having a uniform cross-section of society as a core principle for each school?



Maybe it's a good thing if we pay a little bit more per student through the education system to fix some of the problems directly caused by private schools.



And yes... at heart... that's a debate about whether private schools should even exist at all. That, to me, is an interesting debate and one with no clear answer.

But any debate about whether private schools with any significant level of private funding should also be publicly funded while public schools scrape together what's needed for the most basic of educations should not even be a debate.

 

[Gruffles]

If refusing to admit unfairness is the point is what helps you justify to yourself believing nothing should be done about... great for you... but it's not emotive or a matter of opinion to say it's the point.

Why would a private school exist, except to benefit kids over those who don't have the opportunity to go to those same schools? Every argument for private schools, at it's root, is advantage.


Better facilities and teachers = advantage
Looks better on a resume = advantage
Better chance, purely by the numbers, of getting into uni = advantage
"Culture of success" facilitated by excluding those who don't come from successful backgrounds = advantage

The only point I could concede is if you genuinely wanted your kids to go to a religious school purely for religious reasons rather than any of the other associated benefits. And then we could have a conversation around government funding of religion as an institution instead.


If you want to argue that, philosophically and economic reality aside, private schools are a good thing... then by all means justify that the advantage to some is a good thing for society. I'm open to that argument if you've got one. But don't argue that the advantage is not there or somehow just a coincidental side effect.

I'm starting to think that people aren't actually reading what's written in front of them.

Once again:

• show me where I've said "nothing should be done"
• show me where I've said "the advantage is not there"

If you aren't going to read what I've written, what's the point of this whole conversation?