The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australia near bottom of the class in government school funding > Comments

Australia near bottom of the class in government school funding : Comments

By Lucas Walsh and Barbara Lemon, published 17/9/2010

A recent report highlights the dangerous trajectory on which Australian public education is heading in relation to its OECD counterparts.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
There was a major review of QLD education, because it had fallen below many OECD standards.

That review did not recommend increased spending on education to bring it up to OECD standards. Instead, it made recommendations such as

“This review has recommended that, as in other professions, aspiring primary
teachers be expected to demonstrate that they meet threshold standards of
readiness for practice – in this case, readiness to teach literacy, numeracy and
science.”

And

“Clear standards also are proposed for students’ literacy, numeracy and
science achievements, with standardised testing every two years.”

http://education.qld.gov.au/mastersreview/pdfs/final-report-masters.pdf

So, more taxpayer money could be handed over to the education system, which simply spends it on increased wages or purchases imports from another country (and show me a teacher who places any priority on purchasing something from Australia), or the recommendations of the Masters report are carried out, and no more taxpayer funding needs to be spent.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 17 September 2010 8:28:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What rubbish.

Having read the link, Australia is above average for funding per student.

The funding per student (all students) for public schooling is lower probably because of the high proportion of kids not in public schooling.

This entire post is based on selectively excised statistics, and many conclusions pop out from nowhere with no logical support.

ie. private schools receive govt funding, therefore must accept all students. Why?

My 14 year old daughter could provide a more cogent argument than this.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 17 September 2010 3:43:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ShadowMinister, then listen to your daughter!

"ie. private schools receive govt funding, therefore must accept all students. Why?

My 14 year old daughter could provide a more cogent argument than this."

Seemingly, all logic and common sense escape you today, so I will explain...

Strangely, people that fund private education...taxpayers...believe that they should have access to what they fund. However, understandably, greedy selfish elitists believe not.
Posted by MindlessCruelty, Saturday, 18 September 2010 11:59:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blame it on the Howard Government, blame it on the Gillard Government, blame it on our growing selfishness and "me, me, me" culture - but public funding for well-resourced, non-government schools just doesn't make one bit of sense.

I have no problem with providing public funding to non-government schools (as long as they're not run by some cult) but when you have some private schools that get millions of dollars in public funding, charge around $20,000 per student/year and have all the facilities you could imagine: swimming pools, cricket ground, rugby field, running track, rowing shed, tennis courts, library, computers galore etc. it boggles the mind.

What's next for the elite schools: ski resort, chartered jetliner, moon excursion trip??

Sadly, both major parties are useless on this issue and as far as I know the Greens just come up with the "its unfair" mantra but don't show us how they would change the funding model.

Someone should do a photo tour showing how much public money is used in all our schools and the results they bring. Or, to be fair we should start giving public money to all private businesses.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Saturday, 18 September 2010 12:49:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funny, jorge - you just provided quite a good inventory of the facilities at the state school I used to work at. The private school that now employs me is slowly catching up.

MINDLESCruelty, let's not forget that private school parents pay taxes as well. They just pay a little more on top to get what they believe is best for their kids. From experience, they aren't always richer or more privileged. They just have different priorities.
Posted by Otokonoko, Saturday, 18 September 2010 1:31:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko, true, some state schools are very well resourced. But they don't charge such hefty fees. Some state schools do charge some fees if you are in the concert band, rugby team etc but not to the extent of the most expensive non-government schools.

Admittedly not all families who send their children to non-government schools are wealthy. But my concern is that we are using public money to create an inequality in our society. Not all state schools are under-resourced, just as not all private schools are over-resourced.

Do we want a future Australia where private school=good education and public school=bad education?

http://currentlgobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Saturday, 18 September 2010 1:52:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another consequence of pursuing a policy of high population growth. The cost of building new infrastructure and maintaining existing infrastructure accounts for about one quarter of government spending. Governments can delay things for a while with heavy borrowing as many have been doing, but this adds debt repayments to the equation, which further reduces the ability to provide services like education.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 18 September 2010 2:02:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article from Jul shows how skewed federal funding for schools is:
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/research-points-to-unfair-school-funding-20100728-10vfs.html

As with all things from the media, it should be taken with a grain of salt as it doesn't show the funding that the States provide to schools. Nonetheless, the increase that was reported doesn't seem to make sense.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Saturday, 18 September 2010 2:39:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Otokonoko, “let's not forget that private school parents pay taxes as well. They just pay a little more on top to get what they believe is best for their kids. From experience, they aren't always richer or more privileged. They just have different priorities.”

I take your point. What you say is basically true. My comment was in reference to the question of why the general public may feel resentful at times as to why private schools receive disproportionate funding and expect access…especially since the Howard regime raped the public education system, and was guilty of elitism…plus the attitude that it’s tough enough competitively in the real world, without having up-starts from the suburbs ALSO competing for positions with my children. It’s as much a form of protectionism, as it is elitism. So they raped the public system, and further feathered the private system to the point of it now being grossly disproportionate.

But further to that, what Howard did was to favour the schools of the captains of industry. Even in the allocation of the funds to the private system, Howard displayed elitism. I went to a relatively prestigious private school, and one of my class-mates is now the vice-principal of that school, and he explained some of the funding arrangements to me.

Personally, I’m more egalitarian, and so believe in equal opportunity for all, and so believe in an equal distribution of funding to both private and public, saving exceptional specific circumstances of a particular school, I don’t believe in favouring either, but of ensuring the provision of as a high a standard as possible for all. Personally, I would like to see education as a fixed percentage of GDP, for example, removing it as a political football.

Finally, the government of a “democracy” whether left wing or right wing, theist or not, should provide equal opportunity for all, for is that not the basic tenet of “democracy”? And generally speaking, that also means equal access, does it not?
Posted by MindlessCruelty, Saturday, 18 September 2010 6:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It costs about $15,000 to educate a child each year.

Public schools receive $15,000 per child from governments.

Private schools receive about $5,000 per child from governments.

I tend to think that the concentration on funding of private schools is removing attention from the real issues.

Education standards have been declining for many years in both private and public schools.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 18 September 2010 7:38:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm pleased to see some quite intelligent discussions going on in here - even when I disagree, I can always count on OLO to offer some balanced and thought-out arguments that get me thinking.

I agree, MindlessCruelty (and sorry for butchering your name before with weird capitals and a missing letter), that it would be good to see education receiving a fixed share of GDP - or at least having some parameters to prevent governments from throwing money at it, to be used up as quickly as possible, around election time - then tearing it away over the next few years.

I think also that our governments need to look to the long-term with education. Even in my short teaching career, I have seen so many 'initiatives' put in place then cancelled shortly after. We juggle three or four programs at a time, each aimed to 'improve' schools, but none implemented appropriately. The result is a government that claims to be on the cutting edge as far as education is concerned, and an education leader with so many new ideas and award-winning programs, but no improvement actually takes place. Educational policy is disposable, used for political gain and ignored. To boost standards, we need to address that.
Posted by Otokonoko, Saturday, 18 September 2010 9:27:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko, NAME the public school that has all these facilities, including the rowing shed please - I am sure there are many parents who would love to know the school's name so they can send their children there.
If you won't name it, then stop posting nonsense. In NSW, there is a single (yes 1) public school that has a swimming pool - it is Hurstville Agricultural High School - the pool was built about 1946 (and yes it hasn't been rebuilt since, either, just maintained), and was an innovation which was never repeated in the NSW public school system.
Where I live in Sydney, I would estimate about 50% of the local private schools have swimming pools, not to mention music centres etc etc.
Posted by Johnj, Saturday, 18 September 2010 9:44:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko,

"it would be good to see education receiving a fixed share of GDP"

That’s actually a very good idea. If the education system can boost productivity, then the education system gets more money.

The education system would have to work with the country, and not be a constant drain on the economy.

Unfortunately, there is less and less chance of the education system boosting productivity, with maths and science now at critical levels, and the level of innumeracy and illiteracy in the workforce at quite high levels. Added to this is the constant importation of almost everything the education system uses, and the education system is not helping the country in the slightest.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 19 September 2010 7:51:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@vanna, “Added to this is the constant importation of almost everything the education system uses, and the education system is not helping the country in the slightest.”

I just want to be a bit pedantic about the last part of that statement about the education system not helping. I consider myself a harsh critic of the education system, but on this issue, I can’t blame them, but governments of all political persuasions in the past 30 years, and our social expectations.

Firstly governments…education and health have always been political footballs with differing governments favouring one sector or the other, but raping one to feed to the other, creating inconsistencies in funding and the inability for administrators to plan ahead further than a government change.

Our social expectations…there’s a multitude of things that have changed, some of which include;

*We don’t like to grade “A’s” and “B’s” because we are concerned about the feelings of the students that gain lower grades;

*We don’t like the word “competition”, for it shouldn’t be about competition. It certainly shouldn’t be that way, but hey! Welcome to the real world, it’s a competitive rat-race out there. Better to get used to that fact in school, than be disenchanted when you’re an adult. It’s called “growing up”; which also happens to mean growing-up emotionally, and being able to accept that you are not the best at something, or everything or anything, but it’s all about striving for personal improvement, not whether Freddy is brighter than Johnny. The world needs social workers just as it needs quantum physicists.

*Everyone screams rights, with only a few speaking of responsibilities;

*The abolishing of corporal punishment. I’m not entering into debate about its pro’s or con’s, just noting the change amongst many others;

*Political correctness…we’re creating a society of litigation-crazy wusses that are precious, but more than able to meat-out their own form of financial terrorism, should you happen to look at them the wrong way;

TBC...
Posted by MindlessCruelty, Sunday, 19 September 2010 9:52:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*The Internet has been the greatest tool to disinformation and propaganda in human history;

*The need for both parents to be in the workforce, combined with the technology available, has made nanny’s out of TV, video/DVD and computers…we’re breeding the characters of day-time soap operas and box-office crap. And add to that the amount of homes that have TV’s in the kid’s bedrooms;

*Computers and VCR’s/DVD’s in bedrooms have made us isolationists. The family unit of 4, for example, is now more so than in the past, 4 individual and alone units, not a unit of 4 components. Not a family of 4, but 4 people with the same surname living under the one roof, but living different lives. It’s not all, but it’s far more common, and becoming more and more common;

*And in the past 9-10 years, the combination of 9/11, the GFC and Sub-Prime Loan fiasco, has made the social focus on security and economic rationale, not on the staples of health and education that have been raped to feed the former mentioned.

The education system is a victim of our governments and of our own collective social lowering of expectations…we expect politicians to lie and break promises, we expect built-in redundancy and to up-grade…that nothing will last a month past its warranty. How can we possibly expect “tradition” or consistency when we expect change and shoddy workmanship? We make no demands of government to stop making health and education political footballs, so how can we expect them to stop doing that? We’re too busy arguing over a NBN to download our porn quicker!! That money can be far better spent! It’s BS. It’s a distraction.

As I have said, make health and education a percentage of GDP that gets reviewed every 5 years, or something of that nature, and allow administrators to plan ahead. But it’s up to us as the public to voice this demand and voice it loud!
Posted by MindlessCruelty, Sunday, 19 September 2010 9:52:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnj,

I will NOT name the school at which I used to work, as I have a right to maintain a degree of anonymity on line. That doesn't make what I say 'rubbish'. There are quite a few state schools in Queensland with pools, including Springwood State High School and Wishart State School in Brisbane and Kirwan State High School in Townsville. It should be noted that neither of the high schools listed is a 'school of privilege': SSHS draws 53% of its students from the bottom quarter of the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (according to ACARA's MySchool website) while KSHS draws 72% from the bottom quarter. My point is simple: there are very well-resourced state schools and poorly-resourced private schools. There are also poorly-resourced state schools and well-resourced private schools. To draw a distinction between state and private as a boundary between opportunity and lack thereof is simply unfounded. One needs only to look at Brisbane State High School ("State High" to those in the know) to see that its facilities, resource and socio-economic catchment outshine almost every private school in Queensland.
Posted by Otokonoko, Sunday, 19 September 2010 12:47:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is at least one other public high school in central QLD that has a pool. It also has air-conditioning in every room, and carpets on the floor in many rooms.

The marks of the students at this school are mediocre, with boys marks probably below national average.

Interestingly, it doesn’t have a hat or sunglass policy, yet it is located in what is called the “Skin cancer capital of the world”, as the town has the highest rates of skin cancer of any town in the world. No one in the school seems to care about this.

Grade 10 science students at this school were being taught without a textbook, and had to rely on hand written notes from the teacher. One teacher with a thick Scottish accent. The students couldn’t understand the teacher, and seldom could they read his hand written notes.

The Biology master actually told grade 11 students that he wouldn’t recommend that they do biology, because the biology teachers couldn’t understand the curriculum, and didn’t know what they were supposed to be teaching.

The school was notoriously feminist, and the English teachers named the grade 12 Shakespeare subject “Just Dead White Males” not realizing this would be highly offensive and off-putting to the male students.

This public school was awash with government money, but the above would be some of the reasons why parents in the town choose to send their children elsewhere.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 20 September 2010 9:49:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gosh MC we don't always agree but I do wholeheartedley on your education analysis so I won't repeat the esentails of your already well articulated argument.

We stopped being about education when we got into competition between schools and then to top it off later on the corporatisation of the tertiary sector.

It is dressed up as quality assurance and only serves to futher disadvantage schools in lower-socio economic areas and there are far better ways to ensure funding to those disadvantaged schools and where there is a greater need for assistance for teachers dealing with large class sizes and remedial demands.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 20 September 2010 10:10:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mindless,

"Strangely, people that fund private education...taxpayers...believe that they should have access to what they fund. However, understandably, greedy selfish elitists believe not."

Perhaps these taxpayers should believe that their learning disabled children should have equal access to fully taxpayer funded institutions such as the selective schools, the Newington performing arts school and the top tier universities.

Most independent schools only receive a portion of their costs from the state, and modifying their facilities to cater for special needs would cost vastly more than the subsidy for the child concerned. Add to this, the additional facilities for which the schools charge fees are generally of a nature for which the "special" needs children cannot take advantage.

Most taxpayers are not such idiots. I am prepared to debate the point, but would expect more than a simplistic "it is self evident" motivation.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 20 September 2010 11:15:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shadow Minister, you’re mixing apples with oranges. We’re talking about education in general, and the funding disparity between private and public schools. We’re not talking about people with Disabilities. That’s a totally different issue. I work in that area, and I suspect that the you raise this issue because you are a parent of a child with a disability, or have another family member with one. Is that correct? If you wish to specifically talk about Disabilities, then I suggest you initiate a thread about the topic.

At the moment, we’re wasting hundreds of millions on Disabilities…please do not misunderstand that comment…I’m not suggesting that there should be less or no funding, I’m saying that the monies are inappropriately spent, wasted and that the overall level of care has diminished since 1984 and the advent of “deinstitutionalization”. I’m one of the last formally qualified people in Disabilities in the State, and there hasn’t been anyone trained since 1984. Nor in Mental Health (I fluctuate between the two fields, sub-contracted to an agency).

So if you want to hear someone vent their spleen on bureaucrats, incompetence, mismanagement, corruption and a lowering of service levels at increased costs, just talk to me. But I warn you, the picture I will paint will be dire…only because the services are dire.

Oh, and about the average tax-payer…yes they are that dumb. You DID use the word “average”, and the average person doesn’t understand a great deal about funding/finance, politics or business, and how they interrelate. And the proof in the pudding is the fact that 60% of all new small businesses fold within 3 years of opening their doors….the average person thinks all they have to do is open their doors for business and they will be rich, or at least “successful”….60% of them!! The remaining 40% become part of the 10% or so that are in business, while the rest don’t even attempt it. So yes, they are unfortunately that dumb. The easiest part of business is opening your doors. The hard part is keeping them open.
Posted by MindlessCruelty, Monday, 20 September 2010 3:51:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MC

Private schools do generally take in kids from all different abilities. Most have feeder junior schools with no testing which provide about 70% of the children. Another 10% have academic and other scholarships from different walks of life, and the final 20% to 25% vying for the last few senior school places are filled on merit. The bottom streams of each year are definitely not genius material.

Most kids do have access to these schools, the main factor is whether their parents are willing or able to pay the fees.

With regards the funding disparity, Private schools get about 50% to 80* of the funding of public schools. The rest is made up from fees. This in reality frees up funds for public schooling as about 75% of independent schools would close if not for the partial subsidy from the state.

Even the labor government recognises that independent schools cost the state less per child and they get a education that is at least as good as the public schools.

The debate over funding private schools is driven not by economics, but by envy. Equality should be achieved by bringing the public schools up to the independent schools levels, not tearing down the achievers to the public school levels.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 5:49:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shadow Minister, “The debate over funding private schools is driven not by economics, but by envy. Equality should be achieved by bringing the public schools up to the independent schools levels, not tearing down the achievers to the public school levels.”

I understand and agree with all you have said. Correct me if I’m wrong, but under Howard, he raped the public school system and fed just a few of the private schools that catered to the captains of industry. This is the disparity I am referring to.

I have no problem with private schools being funded, and understand how the fee structure works, but my understanding is that under Howard, they were funded disproportionately. I’m not aware of the Rudd government correcting that disparity, though of course it may have occurred. (My kids are grown-up now, so I don’t follow this as closely anymore).

I totally agree that there shouldn’t be a “tearing down the achievers to the public school levels”. I am not advocating that at all. I’m just suggesting there should be greater parity and that education (along with health) should not be used as political footballs.
Posted by MindlessCruelty, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 9:19:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Pelican, thanks mate. It’s nice to be able to find agreement as well as disagreement with the same people, isn’t it? As an aside, I once met a guy that was the same age, had basically the same background as me, and saw the world in an identical manner as myself. It was a little eerie, actually. We were both intrigued initially, and for the next few weeks talked about life, the universe and everything. Then one day we parted, seemingly both knowing that we would not see each other again, though nothing to this effect was said.

We had nothing to talk about. It was like talking to ourselves. Well, at least it proved to me that I’m not a COMPLETE narcissist.:-) :-) :-)
Posted by MindlessCruelty, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 9:31:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MC

"Correct me if I’m wrong, but under Howard, he raped the public school system and fed just a few of the private schools that catered to the captains of industry."

Actually you are wrong. Under Howard the public school funding per pupil in real terms (above inflation) increased by an average annual rate of 1.6%

The funding per pupil in independent schools increased more dramatically, but is still substantially less than public school per pupil funding. As a result, there has been a boom in independent schooling as parents now have more choice.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 21 September 2010 1:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Shadow Minister, though the average may have gone up, I think you would find that a few private schools were funded more favourably than others. Averages are averages and do not note specifics. Can you tell me where you found your figures, as I searched the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and couldn’t see anything pertaining to this discussion, and I concede that I’m only running off memory from some news reports of 6-8 years ago.
Posted by MindlessCruelty, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 9:23:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MC,

To be perfectly honest I am quoting from memory from a couple of months ago when spent some time reading on this issue.

But the gist of the funding issue is:

* Public schools get funded at a set rate per pupil, though some schools may vary based on need. This is increased at an annually determined indexing.

* Independent schools get a proportion of this based on the average income of the area, where the wealthier areas get a smaller proportion. (typically the wealthier schools get less per child)

* Additional grants may be applied for on an ad hoc basis for capital projects (public schools) or a contribution to capital projects (private schools)

* Roughly 50% of high school students are independently educated.

In essence, an independent school in the outer suburbs that charges $8000 per annum might get $10 000 p.a. in subsidy which makes them slightly better off than the $15 000 p.a. public schools.

The wealthy schools charge $25 000 p.a. and get $5000 p.a. in subsidy, but are substantially better off than either the public schools or the smaller independent schools.

So when the idiots call for the end to government subsidies of private schools, the schools that suffer are the lower fee independent schools which educate the vast majority of independent pupils. The result would be that the small independents close, hitting the state with hugely increased costs to educate them, and the wealthy schools increase their fees a relatively small amount.

The state pays much more, and thousands of pupils are stripped of a choice in education, and independent schooling is now available only to the elite.

I could not find anything to support the myth that some private schools get more than the public schools. I stand to be corrected, but I spent a lot of time looking.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 12:39:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy