Public vs Private School funding

[Reg Grundy35]

What's having a conversation to you then? Asking a question, getting an answer and then stopping? I was curious as to how people might see that happening and wanted to flesh out answers in more detail.

But no. You DECIDE there's alternate motivations instead of taking the conversation on face value.

I genuinely want to see improvements to the education funding situation. I've shown that multiple times here. But apparently that's not good enough for you.

You're just dishing up the same old crap we've heard for years. Expressing dismay at the plight of government schools but falling back on the assumption that chaotic disaster would prevail if the imbalance were corrected. This old chestnut overlooks parents' key motivation for choosing non-Gov education - CLASS. Don't underestimate how much they would be prepared to pay to keep their kids segregated. Some then have the gall to suggest that addressing funding disparity by reducing top-end funding would be considered a "class war". WTF?

You also run with the trope that the wealthy private schools that are over-funded are "outliers". Sure, they are the most flagrant examples of the rort, but ALL private schools are over-funded by the current model compared to government schools - it's built into the policy. At the lower end, we've seen the rise of weirdo Christian churches all over the place enabled by this disgusting funding model. There was a time when state schools were the heart of Victorian education. Now they are basically residual for those who can't afford or are not welcome in these taxpayer-funded private enterprises. Hiding behind bibles and old-school ties, they must be pissing themselves laughing at how the politicians have looked after them. Howard's loathing of government schools was a huge turning point, but let's not let Whitlam off the hook with his commencement of the handouts in the 70s trying to stitch up the Catholic vote. It's been downhill since then as the segregators realised the power of the ballot box.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Anyway...

Yes it can be done. Access to money is not the issue.

We have to want to do it. Governments don't want to.

exactly. one of the few things we seem to have have bipartisan agreement on is maintaining the education funding gulf.

 

[Gruffles]

Expressing dismay at the plight of government schools but falling back on the assumption that chaotic disaster would prevail if the imbalance were corrected.

Show me where I've said this. My comment about chaos was directly related to going to 0 funding immediately for the non-government system. Meanwhile, I've repeatedly stated support for correcting the imbalance, to the continual ignorance of you and others, and trying to map out how that can happen without significantly impacting the education of a significant number of students.

This old chestnut overlooks parents' key motivation for choosing non-Gov education - CLASS. Don't underestimate how much they would be prepared to pay to keep their kids segregated. Some then have the gall to suggest that addressing funding disparity by reducing top-end funding would be considered a "class war".

I never said or agreed with this.

You also run with the trope that the wealthy private schools that are over-funded are "outliers". Sure, they are the most flagrant examples of the rort, but ALL private schools are over-funded by the current model compared to government schools - it's built into the policy.

I've never denied the excess of funding going to non-government education. Once again - you are ignoring that I'm calling for the imbalance to be corrected. You are also ignoring that there is current change being implemented. What I'm trying to do is reduce the sweeping generalisations that are made in here, which just continually breaks down any meaningful discussion.

At the lower end, we've seen the rise of weirdo Christian churches all over the place enabled by this disgusting funding model.

I've repeatedly expressed that religion and education should not be linked and I will forever say this.

Howard's loathing of government schools was a huge turning point, but let's not let Whitlam off the hook with his commencement of the handouts in the 70s trying to stitch up the Catholic vote. It's been downhill since then as the segregators realised the power of the ballot box.

Yes, yes. We all know the errors of the past.

I'm trying to talk about how these can now be rectified. Again, changes are being implemented, but people refuse to acknowledge or even look into what they are! I posted links to the relevant government agreements.

Look, I'm trying to get out of the echo chamber of back slapping for all that just scream 'the funding model is bad!' and actually have some meaningful discussion on what we do from here. Some people are seeing this is a polarised argument of "eliminate private education vs don't", but it's a hell of a lot more nuanced than that. There is a spectrum from no privatisation to full privatisation and it's a big one.

I just can't see there being an elimination of private education completely, it's a pipe dream. In my eyes the government would see the cost as too much, meaning either significant budget cuts from other areas or significant tax increases for us. The amount I mentioned from the Grattan Institute was purely for setting up the new schools the country needs, not for taking on the ongoing costs for all the non-government schools that are already out there. In my eyes we need to transition slowly but steadily to a fairer model where all students are funded based on a properly means tested SRS, which involves a plan for a gradual influx of student to government institutions as private fees rise.

But hey, tell me how I've said otherwise again.

 

[Chief]

In my eyes the government would see the cost as too much, meaning either significant budget cuts from other areas or significant tax increases for us.

I think the government uses the cost argument when they have a policy they don't want to really put into explicit words in front of a journalist.

It's not the cost. $350b. on submarines proves that.

They want:

Religious votes (or not to drive them away) and vocal public support through bribery of all kinds, to religious groups of all kinds.
Less blow back on ministers - they can wash their hands of it if there is a private layer between them and the service: education, health, whatever.
Free stuff for their kids schools.
Back-scratching for donations from rich people whose schools get the free stuff.

It's a political problem, not a financial problem.

So asking "where will the money come from" papers over all of the real reasons these schools exist.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I think the government uses the cost argument when they have a policy they don't want to really put into explicit words in front of a journalist.

It's not the cost. $350b. on submarines proves that.

They want:

Religious votes (or not to drive them away) and vocal public support through bribery of all kinds, to religious groups of all kinds.
Less blow back on ministers - they can wash their hands of it if there is a private layer between them and the service: education, health, whatever.
Free stuff for their kids schools.
Back-scratching for donations from rich people whose schools get the free stuff.

It's a political problem, not a financial problem.

So asking "where will the money come from" papers over all of the real reasons these schools exist.

I think that's what I've been trying to say, only far more succinct and less emotive. There is no will to fix this. There's always a paper floating around expressing the need and commitment to do so. Always hand wringing and motherhood statements. The actual outcome is generally that the gap gets bigger. Private lobbyists refuse to remotely entertain the smallest of haircuts. It would be a "class war" apparently forgetting that they've pretty much already won that.

 

[Gruffles]

I think the government uses the cost argument when they have a policy they don't want to really put into explicit words in front of a journalist.

It's not the cost. $350b. on submarines proves that.

They want:

Religious votes (or not to drive them away) and vocal public support through bribery of all kinds, to religious groups of all kinds.
Less blow back on ministers - they can wash their hands of it if there is a private layer between them and the service: education, health, whatever.
Free stuff for their kids schools.
Back-scratching for donations from rich people whose schools get the free stuff.

It's a political problem, not a financial problem.

So asking "where will the money come from" papers over all of the real reasons these schools exist.

I can agree with a fair bit of this. For mine though, it's not as easy to just say 'the money is there'.

The $350b to nuclear submarines was an absolute dismal decision. But defence is an important part of a national budget and always carries a significant cost. I don't necessarily agree with the amount allocated to it though, so this is definitely an area where I feel we could source a chunk of the necessary funds.

It also kills me that religious groups still have so much influence in government and education. I wholeheartedly agree that there is significant negative influence at play here that is slowing down any progress we are making in this sphere. And that absolutely sucks.

The main area where we are differing, from what I can see, is looking at the situation through a utopian lens vs looking at it through a 'where we are now' lens. Maybe I'm a pessimist on this point, but I don't see the changes needed to result in sudden shift in the education model. However, I do see the potential (and the fact that it's beginnings are there) for a change to a fairer system.

 

[Gruffles]

There is no will to fix this.

I don't agree with this. There is 'some' will, if you'd just read the agreements you'll see that.

There is no argument that there could be a greater will, though.

 

[Not Important]

Anyway...

Yes it can be done. Access to money is not the issue.

We have to want to do it. Governments don't want to.

sadly, this is so. which is why the snout in the troughers have nothing to worry about.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I don't agree with this. There is 'some' will, if you'd just read the agreements you'll see that.

There is no argument that there could be a greater will, though.

Question for you. Would you approve of all private schools having a reduction in their govt funding based on an assessments of assets and investments to ensure every government school is funded at the minimum level. Surely you would. ?

 

[Gruffles]

Question for you. Would you approve of all private schools having a reduction in their govt funding based on an assessments of assets and investments to ensure every government school is funded at the minimum level. Surely you would. ?

Is that not what I've basically already said here:

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).

and here:

In my eyes we need to transition slowly but steadily to a fairer model where all students are funded based on a properly means tested SRS, which involves a plan for a gradual influx of student to government institutions as private fees rise.

and here:

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

and countless others earlier in this thread.

Increase the total level of education funding, send it all to the public system using means testing so the ones that truly need it get it. Reduce the funding to the upper echelon of non-government school using means testing data. Reach a much fairer level of funding across schools, where every student receives some level of funding.

 

[Chief]

Reduce the funding to the upper echelon of non-government school using means testing data. Reach a much fairer level of funding across schools, where every student receives some level of funding.

My view is reduce it to nothing and take over all of those private school facilities one by one.

 

[Gruffles]

My view is reduce it to nothing and take over all of those private school facilities one by one.

And this is where we disagree. And that's totally fine.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Is that not what I've basically already said here:

and here:

and here:

and countless others earlier in this thread.

Increase the total level of education funding, send it all to the public system using means testing so the ones that truly need it get it. Reduce the funding to the upper echelon of non-government school using means testing data. Reach a much fairer level of funding across schools, where every student receives some level of funding.

Fair play to you - you have suggested a cut! I fear this is where it comes unstuck. Though as history tells us all private schools and their professional organisations will demand not a cent in reductions but rather an increase for the "disadvantaged". You would have to prise every taxpayer dollar from their vaults whether they need it or not.

 

[Gruffles]

Fair play to you - you have suggested a cut! I fear this is where it comes unstuck. Though as history tells us all private schools and their professional organisations will demand not a cent in reductions but rather an increase for the "disadvantaged". You would have to prise every taxpayer dollar from their vaults whether they need it or not.

Again, there is already work in play to bridge the gap in education, which is resulting in a reduction in SRS funding to certain schools (but again, it's not enough in my eyes).

I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement though, but I'm not sure it matters. A follow on question though:

If education funding rose and it all went to government schools in a way that resulted in them being adequately funded, with some reduction in non-government funding, would you approve?

 

[Kram]

More money never hurts but I don't think funding is really that much of a problem for our school, it's a high % badly behaved kids which I guess goes with being in a low socio economic area.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Again, there is already work in play to bridge the gap in education, which is resulting in a reduction in SRS funding to certain schools (but again, it's not enough in my eyes).

I'm not sure what you mean by your last statement though, but I'm not sure it matters. A follow on question though:

If education funding rose and it all went to government schools in a way that resulted in them being adequately funded, with some reduction in non-government funding, would you approve?

depends on the reduction and the relative levels of funding. Obviously, we can no longer eradicate private schools (or cane toads). Too many people believe that the alternative is distasteful. If there was a serious attempt to redistribute some of the millions wasted on top end private schools to the government sector. It would be a good start and something to build on. It would require a fundamental shift in the social DNA of the country though. Those folk don't like having things taken off them.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

More money never hurts but I don't think funding is really that much of a problem for our school, it's a high % badly behaved kids which I guess goes with being in a low socio economic area.

if you're talking about a Govt school it goes with being required by law to provide any education for all children. Private schools can choose and can also change their minds about an enrolment. Enrolment management is as great a gift as the funding. You're right.

 

[Gruffles]

depends on the reduction and the relative levels of funding.

Wait... did we just reach a level of agreement on this??

/thread?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Wait... did we just reach a level of agreement on this??

/thread?

partly - but if the reductions are token we aint

and only because there is no other choice now. The invasion has gone too far.

 

[Gruffles]

if you're talking about a Govt school it goes with being required by law to provide any education for all children. Private schools can choose and can also change their minds about an enrolment. Enrolment management is as great a gift as the funding. You're right.

I personally would've gone with 'obvious troll is obvious' to the original post.

However, to reply to you - I would suggest that the public schools in Melbourne's eastern suburbs don't have much of an issue with discipline. This is where better calculated SRS would help as it would increase the funding more to the lower socio-economic areas as they are perpetually under-funded.

 

[Gruffles]

partly - but if the reductions are token we aint

and only because there is no other choice now. The invasion has gone too far.

I wouldn't want token reductions. Rather properly means tested funding.

Seems we agree? This is new ground so I'm actually unsure.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I personally would've gone with 'obvious troll is obvious' to the original post.

However, to reply to you - I would suggest that the public schools in Melbourne's eastern suburbs don't have much of an issue with discipline. This is where better calculated SRS would help as it would increase the funding more to the lower socio-economic areas as they are perpetually under-funded.

hope you're not talking about simply moving it from the eastern privates to the western ones? need a bigger change than that

 

[Gruffles]

hope you're not talking about simply moving it from the eastern privates to the western ones? need a bigger change than that

No... I specifically said 'public schools' in my post.

Sorry... I really need to take a break from the screen. I've been chipping away at my work all day with this on screen 2. I think my eyes are about to explode.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I personally would've gone with 'obvious troll is obvious' to the original post.

However, to reply to you - I would suggest that the public schools in Melbourne's eastern suburbs don't have much of an issue with discipline. This is where better calculated SRS would help as it would increase the funding more to the lower socio-economic areas as they are perpetually under-funded.

lets be clear , I not talking about an improved SRS. I'd want a fundemental commitment to ensuing that ALL govt schools are funded in line with the SRS before funding is distributed to non - gov school. After all - it is their ONLY source of funding. Schools cannot be thought of as the same. You comfy with that?

 

[Chief]

When the overfunding has been fixed, will the private schools pay back the money they were incorrectly allocated in past years?