The coming Oz election thread ...

my parents have to pay tax as well, they have to pay extra for schooling, they have to pay for public education as well....

Of course your parents taxes should only be used to fund your private education shouldn't they? Because unlike us mere mortals, they should be able to decide exclusively how their taxes are used.

Hope you enjoy the education we're paying for. Then you can grow up to be a good Liberal voter.

The Truth about Private School Funding

Wilso,

Shut up, you do damage to the cause.

MC,

You are fortunate to be one of those who attends the best school in Sydney (whichever that is) but perhaps you are taking the advantage for granted. I too attended private schools, catholic schools from 1953 to 1964. My experience was not an advantage, these schools were destitute. Classes were often taken by untrained and incompetent teachers (members of religious orders dragooned into the job). In those days there was no state funding for private schools rich or poor. I attended a State HS in fifth year and was amazed by how well equipped it was and how effective in imparting knowledge and aiding understanding a competent teacher could be.

The root cause of the remarkable contrast was funding. The Catholic school system did not have resources to employ trained teachers, to purchase adequate and suitable equipment, to provide heating, cooling and other necessities. To a large extent this was true in State schools also.

At this time there was another group of schools operating and doing very well. This group would surely include that which you describe as the best in Sydney. Wealthy parents place high value on good connections, places in Universities, business contacts, an old school tie network and will pay a premium for such assets. These schools were never cash strapped. Even before state aid they enjoyed the benefit of employing the cream of teachers trained at state expense and the benefit of land grants which had appreciated immensely in value.

It is the latter group which will lose funding. I think they will manage.

Yes, I think they'll manage, too, gozmo. :wink: Watching the press reaction to the threat of government funding cuts to the very wealthiest schools is very interesting .... but hardly surprising. Personally, I don't think the advantages to the most cash-strapped schools go nearly far enough. But then, the media loves a bit of class warfare, don't they?

I HATE the suggestion that parents who don't pay the extra $$$$ to provide their children with "the best" education are slackers & don't care! I've seen many, many examples of parents who struggle to pay even the minimal school fees at public schools. I've seen students who can't afford the costs of school excursions, or miss out on a school camp because the money isn't there. Students who go without lunch, breakfast ... Kids whose families can't afford the school uniform. I've also seen examples of students who succeed in spite of ignorant, boorish parents who couldn't care less about them, say nothing of their education. I could go on & on & type a very long list of disadvantage I've personally witnessed, but I won't ... The point is, it's deeply offensive to label those parents who don't pay extra to put their children through private schools as non-caring.

Incidentally, I've seen some extraordinarily non-functional PRIVATE schools & found myself wondering: Your parents actually PAID to send you here? Private does not automatically mean better, I can assure you!

(Good morning from America. So its all coming down to "the economy" isn't it--although I detect something more deeply rooted. I hope yall will try to be nice with each other). johnboy

Good morning. rjh.
I think we'll manage. We're a pretty civilized lot!

Actually, the school funding arguments you're witnessing aren't actually about what the Budget will or won't allow, financially. We're talking about the same amount of education $$$ in the federal education budget, but Labor is proposing redistributing it differently, in favour of poorer schools (public, Catholic & independent.) It is only the very wealthiest of private schools who will lose money. Under the past 8 years of Liberal government funds to private schools have increased dramatically. Labor is attempting to redirect funding to the neediest schools, that's all. In my opinion the redistribution does not go far enough. In most western countries private schools aren't subsidized by government taxes, it's "user pays". In Oz it's different. Amazing the passion this debate inspires, isn't it? It's one of those Oz hot potato political issues.

gozmo wrote:

My experience was not an advantage, these (Catholic) schools were destitute. Classes were often taken by untrained and incompetent teachers (members of religious orders dragooned into the job). In those days there was no state funding for private schools rich or poor. I attended a State HS in fifth year and was amazed by how well equipped it was and how effective in imparting knowledge and aiding understanding a competent teacher could be.


I remember these schools well, gozmo. I was sent to one for a short period, to make my first holy communion, in year 3. I couldn't believe it! Huge classes, over-stressed, cranky nuns, poor teaching ... & praying, praying, all the time praying! It nearly drove me crazy!

In my case I went to a very established, conservative public school in the country ... with a "strong academic & sporting tradition." But hey, I learned a lot! It was just like being in England! To this day I can sing Land of Hope & Glory, word for word! ... Didn't learn too much about Oz, but learned just about everything there was to be known about GB ! My, how times have changed!

And look!

She's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

.... But back to the fallout from Labor's education policy:

Today's AGE editorial:

Gains outweigh pain in schools policy
September 16, 2004

Labor has had the courage of its convictions in so clearly basing funding on school needs.

Responses to Labor's schools policy tell us a lot about how notions of equity have been distorted under the Coalition. Of the nation's nearly 10,000 schools, Labor says about 9400 would get more money to achieve significantly higher per student benchmarks by 2012. Over the next five years, an extra $1.9 billion will go to state schools, which in the past four years have had nothing like the increases afforded to affluent private schools - above 100 per cent for 40 of them. About 2500 independent schools assessed as needy will get an extra $520 million from cuts for the 67 wealthiest schools, while 111 others' funding will be frozen.

The reported response? The criticisms "unfair", "politics of envy", "19th-century view of class warfare" and "robbing Peter to pay Paul" figured prominently. But what if Paul's need is much greater than Peter's?

Dr Timothy Hawkes, principal of The King's School in Sydney, which Labor cited as an example, had the integrity to admit: "There's no way that I'm going to argue that we need this money. I've got colleagues and friends in the state sector and other schools which are very poorly resourced and they desperately need more money."

There is confusion at the top end of the private system between need and want: competing schools want extra programs and facilities - everything from sport facilities such as pools and gyms to studios, auditoriums and rural retreats, all advertised at some expense - while taking for granted resources that others simply lack. Private schools do have a vital role: they cater for cultural and religious diversity; they save governments money; they offer an alternative that ensures state education does not become state indoctrination.

A good school, public or private, is of immense public benefit. A good government, however, must govern for the greatest good. That means ensuring that the majority of children who have no choice but to attend state schools get an education that lives up to the democratic standard of equality of opportunity. It was under the 19th-century class system that an elite few enjoyed high-quality schooling; the establishment saw no need to tutor the masses beyond basic competency, if that. For a nation that aspires to have a 21st-century "knowledge economy", high-quality education must be available to all.

Long-term neglect of state schools (for which the states, too, are culpable) has driven the flight to private schools. The principals of such schools speak of the sacrifices parents make to pay fees. There is confusion here between the financial status of the institution, on which public funding must be based, and parents. Although their sacrifices are real, the greater outrage is that parts of the state system have declined so badly that parents on moderate incomes are not happy to send their children to schools already paid for by their taxes.

While the overall funding pool should increase, because Australia has underinvested in education, urgent needs must be met first. Labor has also adopted a provocative political strategy by clearly identifying "losers". Conventional wisdom on electioneering may question such boldness, but no one can accuse Labor of wimping it, nor can voters complain of lacking a real choice in this election.

Whaddaya mean "She's back"?????


Where? How????

Damn...

Yep, she's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

& running for the Senate!

Hope I didn't ruin your lucnch, Rabbity person!

That is siiiiiick!

For Queensland?

here you are, Deb:

Hanson back and aiming at Senate

Pauline Hanson, putting a jail sentence and her previous abandonment of politics behind her, will stand as an independent for the Senate in Queensland.

This will pit her against the One Nation party she founded ....

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/15/1095221665441.html

bloody hell! not hanson again!!! that rascist b*tch doesn't deserve to be in politics, maybe the KKK but not politics.

I don't go to a Catholic school or a religious school of any sort, the school I go to the motto should be "If you aren't going to get 90 in your HSC, get out!" Which is actually true... . Anyhoo this school hires only the best (some of the lowest classes have teachers with Dr. as their title) and it's definitely worth it. Does anyone actually know how much school fees (for private schools) will actually rise? I've heard someone say 3 grand, and someone else say 8 grand but no one actually knows.

Just wanted to add two of my cents: i am just appalled that your government pays one red cent to privately owned institutions charging tuition--many others than myself have seen this sort of thing here as the thin end of the wedge, and the general attitude in the various states is that you earn no entitlement by voluntarily taking your children out of public schools to put them in private schools--you still owe your legitimate taxes. Generally, until the Idiot in Chief over here started his hypocritical, unfunded "no child left behind" program, the Feds were not at all involved in the cost or the curriculum of schools. Quite a lot of loud objection has been raised here against the Federal program as well.

There is a principle operative in most tax jurisdictions in this country (school taxes are often levied by the individual districts, with school bond issues appearing on the ballot) to the effect that a good public school system is an advantage to all citizens, whether or not they have children in the schools--so shut up and pay your property tax. At the same time, taxpayers frequently reject the bond issues on the ballot, and the short-fall is made up by the state governments, which then increase taxation by other means. Everyone pays, one way or the other.

Yep - in its foundation, our system's catch-cry was "free, secular and universal".

I personally have no special problem with the state assisting the more impoverished sectors of the private system - but I have always thought it wicked that elite schools get a penny.

When I got sent to one of them they got nothing - that is how it should be.

you seem to be forgetting that my parents pay taxes as well. Also, the HSC results are much better at private schools, tuition is better, facilities are better, and the success rate of getting a well paid job after private schooling is considerably higher. THIS COSTS MONEY!!!!!The general feeling I've been getting is that private schools just steal everyones tax dollars for their own fiendish purposes, ever thought that perhaps it is for improving the quality of the school? To make the children there do better in their final exam?

Could someone please give me a solid reason for private schools not getting any money without emotional outbursts?

PS. What country are you in Setanta?

I am in the United States. The principle which you either ignore or are unaware of is that it is a responsibility of the state to assure an informed electorate, which is accomplished through public education. The decision to take one's child from a public school to put them in a private school is an arbitrary personal choice, which does not diminish the responsibility of the taxpayer to assist in the support of a universal system of education monitored by the state--the benefits of which are given above. You might decide that you would be better protected by hiring private bodyguards. That does not entitle you to government funding for the purpose, nor to withhold that portion of your tax dollars which support the very necessary state function of policing.