Public vs Private School funding

[RedStarUncle]

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?

You haven't... others have. The only thing you've said that I take issue with is to deny that the actual point of private education is to advantage the kids who go there. My point is that is the primary reason it exists, and also the primary reason why lobbyists for it want it to continue.

I can see that, for most of your posts, your focus is on how we could sustainably and reasonably move to a fairer model rather than just some sort of "blanket ban" overnight on private schools. Which is fine.


What do you think should be the end aim of any process to do something to address the problems caused by Australia's multi-tiered education system?

 

[The Punter]

If no non-government school received taxpayer funding, but a discrepancy between government and non-government schools still existed in terms of educational outcomes, would that be classified as a problem?

Because the answer to that question goes to the heart of the debate on here, keeping in mind the thread title specifically mentions funding.

My point of view is this: there will always be non-government schools in Australia, and they will receive some level of taxpayer funding. This is not only because of a political consensus (outside of the Greens Party) but due to a wide level of public support for the status quo.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

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.

you're right about that

If no non-government school received taxpayer funding, but a discrepancy between government and non-government schools still existed in terms of educational outcomes, would that be classified as a problem?

Because the answer to that question goes to the heart of the debate on here, keeping in mind the thread title specifically mentions funding.

My point of view is this: there will always be non-government schools in Australia, and they will receive some level of taxpayer funding. This is not only because of a political consensus (outside of the Greens Party) but due to a wide level of public support for the status quo.

in other words, the beneficiaries of the policy have the numbers so GAGF.

 

[The Punter]

you're right about that

in other words, the beneficiaries of the policy have the numbers so GAGF.

Labor had the numbers at the last election, and I didn't go all Trump and act like it was stolen. We live in a democracy, and if enough people cared deeply enough about changing the system, the system would get changed.

You are of course free to try to convince as many people as possible of your point of view, although my advice would be to be a little less hostile if you want them to shift to your point of view.

 

[Gruffles]

You haven't... others have.

So, if you want constructive discussion, next time can you please actually read my posts before accusing me of saying/doing things I haven't. There's no way that you can claim that the following statements in your reply aren't directed at me, given what you were replying to.

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.

I'm open to that argument if you've got one. But don't argue that the advantage is not there...

Now, to say that the POINT of privatising the education system was to create an unfair system is not a matter of opinion is just ridiculous. It is a matter of opinion. It seems we're arguing semantics here, but the point (purpose) of privatising education was not to create disadvantage. However, that has been an outcome of the system. All that is achieved through arguing that the POINT was otherwise is that you drive up an opinion that all private schools, their staff, and their students should be seen as 'bad people', which is just incorrect and, to be honest, I feel is what is driving the attacking responses sometimes seen on here from people who aren't actually reading what is being said.

I can see that, for most of your posts, your focus is on how we could sustainably and reasonably move to a fairer model rather than just some sort of "blanket ban" overnight on private schools. Which is fine.

What do you think should be the end aim of any process to do something to address the problems caused by Australia's multi-tiered education system?

We should definitely be working towards a model that creates a much more fair spread of funds across all schools in the country. This should start with fund distributions being properly means tested looking at factors such as parent income information (basically fixing up how SRS funding is calculated... which they have begun looking at, FYI).

 

[Not Important]

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.

it was predicated on that t.p. i can recall the reactionaries screaming from the tree tops when labor was providing support for some companies going through hard times. it now seems to be a liberal policy.

if one wants a private school education then one should pay for it. the only way to lift the standard of government schools is to re-direct funds to them. who knows, if state school standards rise peeps might be more amenable to sending their kids to them. even the kids of some plutocrats.

 

[RedStarUncle]

So, if you want constructive discussion, next time can you please actually read my posts before accusing me of saying/doing things I haven't. There's no way that you can claim that the following statements in your reply aren't directed at me, given what you were replying to.

Fair. Sorry if my response felt personal / attacking you directly. I consider your answers reasonable - I just think there's a fundamental to the private school problem (if you see it as a problem) that tends to get excused away. And I think accepting that excuse creates a lot of the grey in other aspects of the conversation.

Now, to say that the POINT of privatising the education system was to create an unfair system is not a matter of opinion is just ridiculous. It is a matter of opinion. It seems we're arguing semantics here, but the point (purpose) of privatising education was not to create disadvantage. However, that has been an outcome of the system. All that is achieved through arguing that the POINT was otherwise is that you drive up an opinion that all private schools, their staff, and their students should be seen as 'bad people', which is just incorrect and, to be honest, I feel is what is driving the attacking responses sometimes seen on here from people who aren't actually reading what is being said.

It probably is semantics. I still think it matters though. And I really do think the inherent purpose for private schools to exist is to construct inequality in society.

The only reason I can think of for sending kids to a private school, other than because it advantages them to do so, is religion. And separately we can debate government funding of religion.

But once we accept that private schools exist with the purpose of creating advantage, and the means by which that advantage is controlled (i.e. primarily by fees only affordable to some), I think the "too hard to fix" argument (I know this isn't your argument) goes out the window.

Hence why I think the semantics of whether private schools exist to create advantage, or whether they just happen to cause advantage as a side-effect or whatever, is relevant.

We should definitely be working towards a model that creates a much more fair spread of funds across all schools in the country. This should start with fund distributions being properly means tested looking at factors such as parent income information (basically fixing up how SRS funding is calculated... which they have begun looking at, FYI).

My only concern here is that I really have no trust in anyone involved in creating the roles for means testing and evaluation to do anything other than cave to the private school lobby and create a system that allows them to keep creaming government funds on top of their other sources of funds while public schools continue to remain underfunded.

And because that system is broken, even if a government wanted to do something to fix public school fundings... they're going to end up massively spending on private schools as well that don't need it all to satisfy the perceived "fairness" that private school parents pay taxes and don't want that only funding other people's kids.



I'll happily admit I'm not an expert in the actuals of how funding works. I just can't understand how we have got to a point where public schools can barely sustain themselves, yet the government is actively engaged in protecting funds for schools which in many cases have enough money to fund stuff that is off-the charts unnecessary.

 

[RedStarUncle]

If no non-government school received taxpayer funding, but a discrepancy between government and non-government schools still existed in terms of educational outcomes, would that be classified as a problem?

In my opinion, yes.

Because the answer to that question goes to the heart of the debate on here, keeping in mind the thread title specifically mentions funding.

I guess it's a case of if there's not enough pie to go around, maybe we should stop worrying about whether a fair share is going to the ones who already have a big slice of cheesecake.

My point of view is this: there will always be non-government schools in Australia, and they will receive some level of taxpayer funding. This is not only because of a political consensus (outside of the Greens Party) but due to a wide level of public support for the status quo.

True. Labor and Libs have the numbers and want to run the show the same way. Doesn't mean they've got it right, and I think this is one topic the 1-in-3 Australians who voted for someone else should be making noise about to start getting change.

 

[The Punter]

In my opinion, yes.

I guess it's a case of if there's not enough pie to go around, maybe we should stop worrying about whether a fair share is going to the ones who already have a big slice of cheesecake.

True. Labor and Libs have the numbers and want to run the show the same way. Doesn't mean they've got it right, and I think this is one topic the 1-in-3 Australians who voted for someone else should be making noise about to start getting change.

So how would you fix that problem? Make sure the government schools were teaching the same stuff as the private schools? Either mandate marble line swimming pools for all schools or prohibit private schools from building them?

Labor and Libs have the numbers because 2 out of every 3 people voted for them. The 1 in 3 can make as much noise as they want, but if the 2 in 3 like things just the way they are, then it is likely that's how it is going to stay.

 

[Gruffles]

The only reason I can think of for sending kids to a private school, other than because it advantages them to do so, is religion. And separately we can debate government funding of religion.

But once we accept that private schools exist with the purpose of creating advantage, and the means by which that advantage is controlled (i.e. primarily by fees only affordable to some), I think the "too hard to fix" argument (I know this isn't your argument) goes out the window.

Hence why I think the semantics of whether private schools exist to create advantage, or whether they just happen to cause advantage as a side-effect or whatever, is relevant.

Firstly, on my phone so apologies if this multiquote reply is a little clunky...

School selection can be based on advantage whether it's private or public. Public schools that are found in affluent areas are mostly better resourced than those found elsewhere. Property prices in those areas are unaffordable for most but people who can afford it often buy to access those schools. In saying this, I'm not denying the advantage that is attached to many private schools, I'm just pointing out the inequity that's across all areas of education.

My only concern here is that I really have no trust in anyone involved in creating the roles for means testing and evaluation to do anything other than cave to the private school lobby and create a system that allows them to keep creaming government funds on top of their other sources of funds while public schools continue to remain underfunded.

And because that system is broken, even if a government wanted to do something to fix public school fundings... they're going to end up massively spending on private schools as well that don't need it all to satisfy the perceived "fairness" that private school parents pay taxes and don't want that only funding other people's kids.

Firstly, I don't share the lack of trust, I'm not exactly sure why, but the way I look at it is 'if it can be achieved elsewhere, why not here?'. Now maybe there's a touch of naivety here, but the fact some changes are being worked through is promising.

Separate to this, I'll always support education funding, which means funding for ALL Australian students. That allows some level of curriculum control and development, which I see as important.

I'll happily admit I'm not an expert in the actuals of how funding works. I just can't understand how we have got to a point where public schools can barely sustain themselves, yet the government is actively engaged in protecting funds for schools which in many cases have enough money to fund stuff that is off-the charts unnecessary.

Last thing, statements like these are based on the poles at the end of the education spectrum. E.g. saying that many have money to fund off the charts unnecessary stuff is being blinded by the ultra elite schools (which I will never defend). There is a whole spectrum in between. Struggling private schools that end up closing down (probably not to the sadness of many here, which is fine) and public schools that are doing more than fine.

Trying to get all of that to a reasonable equilibrium should be our goal, in my opinion.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Firstly, on my phone so apologies if this multiquote reply is a little clunky...

School selection can be based on advantage whether it's private or public. Public schools that are found in affluent areas are mostly better resourced than those found elsewhere. Property prices in those areas are unaffordable for most but people who can afford it often buy to access those schools. In saying this, I'm not denying the advantage that is attached to many private schools, I'm just pointing out the inequity that's across all areas of education.


Firstly, I don't share the lack of trust, I'm not exactly sure why, but the way I look at it is 'if it can be achieved elsewhere, why not here?'. Now maybe there's a touch of naivety here, but the fact some changes are being worked through is promising.

Separate to this, I'll always support education funding, which means funding for ALL Australian students. That allows some level of curriculum control and development, which I see as important.


Last thing, statements like these are based on the poles at the end of the education spectrum. E.g. saying that many have money to fund off the charts unnecessary stuff is being blinded by the ultra elite schools (which I will never defend). There is a whole spectrum in between. Struggling private schools that end up closing down (probably not to the sadness of many here, which is fine) and public schools that are doing more than fine.

Trying to get all of that to a reasonable equilibrium should be our goal, in my opinion.

Hate to be negative but this is nice thinking but education funding in this country isn't nice - its downright cruel. The winners are far too invested now to give ground - its their right!!!

Hate to say it but The Punter is right. The people have spoken - they don't have a problem with the way the cake is divided. They don't give a rat's about fairness for all kids. They are perfectly comfy with the divide. Save your breathe.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Firstly, on my phone so apologies if this multiquote reply is a little clunky...

School selection can be based on advantage whether it's private or public. Public schools that are found in affluent areas are mostly better resourced than those found elsewhere. Property prices in those areas are unaffordable for most but people who can afford it often buy to access those schools. In saying this, I'm not denying the advantage that is attached to many private schools, I'm just pointing out the inequity that's across all areas of education.


Firstly, I don't share the lack of trust, I'm not exactly sure why, but the way I look at it is 'if it can be achieved elsewhere, why not here?'. Now maybe there's a touch of naivety here, but the fact some changes are being worked through is promising.

Separate to this, I'll always support education funding, which means funding for ALL Australian students. That allows some level of curriculum control and development, which I see as important.


Last thing, statements like these are based on the poles at the end of the education spectrum. E.g. saying that many have money to fund off the charts unnecessary stuff is being blinded by the ultra elite schools (which I will never defend). There is a whole spectrum in between. Struggling private schools that end up closing down (probably not to the sadness of many here, which is fine) and public schools that are doing more than fine.

Trying to get all of that to a reasonable equilibrium should be our goal, in my opinion.

Cap on spending to kill off the elitest of elite private schools and greater restriction of religious influence in all schools whether public or private would do me as a compromise solution.

At least then maybe the level of inequality would be roughly in line with most of the rest of Australia's institutions, instead of one of the greatest.

 

[Gruffles]

Hate to be negative but this is nice thinking but education funding in this country isn't nice - its downright cruel. The winners are far too invested now to give ground - its their right!!!

Hate to say it but The Punter is right. The people have spoken - they don't have a problem with the way the cake is divided. They don't give a rat's about fairness for all kids. They are perfectly comfy with the divide. Save your breathe.

Are you going to reply to any of the questions I've asked you?

Next one... have you read the QSP or Better and Fairer Schools agreement?

 

[Gruffles]

Cap on spending to kill off the elitest of elite private schools and greater restriction of religious influence in all schools whether public or private would do me as a compromise solution.

At least then maybe the level of inequality would be roughly in line with most of the rest of Australia's institutions, instead of one of the greatest.

Will always agree on separation of religion and education. Yes yes yes.

Can I clarify what you mean by 'cap on spending in your first paragraph?

 

[RedStarUncle]

Will always agree on separation of religion and education. Yes yes yes.

Can I clarify what you mean by 'cap on spending in your first paragraph?

I'll leave the details to the wonks . But something like saying a school's total expenditure per student should be less than $AAA per year or averaged over 5 years or whatever. Take out government-approved buildings and capital expenditure if you must. I don't know I'm neither in education nor finance.

Cap can even be generous to start with... pick the top quartile private school's current number to start with maybe. It'll have no effect on public schools I guess but still iron out the very elite schools so they don't get to spend on the hyperbolic gold toilets and Scottish castles (oops that one's real).

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Are you going to reply to any of the questions I've asked you?

Next one... have you read the QSP or Better and Fairer Schools agreement?

no but I read all the prequels that amounted to nothing or worse. Gonsky was my fave.

 

[Gruffles]

no but I read all the prequels that amounted to nothing or worse. Gonsky was my fave.

Ah OK... so you are literally doing the old man yelling at clouds routine. Got it.

Happy to complain about nothing changing... not happy to find out what's actually changing.

 

[Gruffles]

I'll leave the details to the wonks . But something like saying a school's total expenditure per student should be less than $AAA per year or averaged over 5 years or whatever. Take out government-approved buildings and capital expenditure if you must. I don't know I'm neither in education nor finance.

Cap can even be generous to start with... pick the top quartile private school's current number to start with maybe. It'll have no effect on public schools I guess but still iron out the very elite schools so they don't get to spend on the hyperbolic gold toilets and Scottish castles (oops that one's real).

Interesting thought and not one that I'd considered before.

Would that potentially result in excess funds heading into pockets rather than school facilities though?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Ah OK... so you are literally doing the old man yelling at clouds routine. Got it.

Happy to complain about nothing changing... not happy to find out what's actually changing.

pretty much, thats what I do yeah. Because its about as effective as all the other strategies we've been offered. Konsky sold me - i bought it and think the guy was genuine. The Libs found a way to reverse his policy and reverse the target somehow and the handouts got even bigger!. . ive been around long enough to know that despite all the good intentions, there is always one non-negotiable in these ventures. No private school is ever allowed to come out worse off. Its a fundamental law, apparently. This will apply regardless of how advantaged they may have been in the past. Failure to adhere to this will result in marginal seats being targeted.

If I'm wrong I'll shout the bar but I wont be.

 

[Gruffles]

pretty much, thats what I do yeah.

Cool. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Chief]

Cap can even be generous to start with... pick the top quartile private school's current number to start with maybe.

Added bonus, that number becomes widely known and very real to everyone.

 

[evolved2]

I'll leave the details to the wonks . But something like saying a school's total expenditure per student should be less than $AAA per year or averaged over 5 years or whatever. Take out government-approved buildings and capital expenditure if you must. I don't know I'm neither in education nor finance.

Cap can even be generous to start with... pick the top quartile private school's current number to start with maybe. It'll have no effect on public schools I guess but still iron out the very elite schools so they don't get to spend on the hyperbolic gold toilets and Scottish castles (oops that one's real).

Putting a cap on education expenditure at private schools is going to be viewed as class wars. I wouldn't vote for that.

Parents should be able to spend whatever they want on their childs education.

It's fine to be ideological, but as others have said previously - you need to convince a majority of the voters to accept your proposal.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Interesting thought and not one that I'd considered before.

Would that potentially result in excess funds heading into pockets rather than school facilities though?

Possibly yes. The point is to bring the top schools and bottom schools closer together in terms of outcomes for kids (such as the education they receive and facilities they have access to).

If elite schools want to keep charging huge tuition fees to line their own pockets knowing they can't spend it on the kids... I guess they can do that and be honest to parents about it and see if kids still get enrolled there. Probably they will, because they'll still offer the "old school tie" network advantages. But at least they won't have a castle library while the public school 2 suburbs over has to cardboard up the broken windows.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Putting a cap on education expenditure at private schools is going to be viewed as class wars. I wouldn't vote for that.

Parents should be able to spend whatever they want on their childs education.

It's fine to be ideological, but as others have said previously - you need to convince a majority of the voters to accept your proposal.

Cool. I'll get my blank placards out and start my campaign. Class war sounds better and better as inequality grows and grows... I'll throw inheritance tax and 80% tax on every dollar over $1,000,000. Then we can call the Greens the centrist party of Australian politics.

 

[Gralin]

The saving tax payers money argument is a funny one

I don't recall getting a discount on my tax based on the percentage of students in the private system

Currently the money being spent on education in totality is not enough to fully fund both systems

And currently the private system in getting funded more fully than the public system

This is a fault of both state and federal governments but also shows the advantage the private system has in being able to exert external pressure on the government

something the public system cannot do

it is not a level playing field and inequity exists because of this

inequity that would not be able to exist without public funds going to private schools

the private schools also give governments an out for properly servicing the entire country

this is not fair or equitable

this produces worse outcomes for the majority