Reducing funding for private schools is one of the few Green policies that actually makes sense. As a recent Herald article revealed, some private schools are getting rich out of the taxpayer's pocket.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/elite-schools-reap-solid-profits--with-the-help-of-public-funding-20110725-1hx7f.html

But the issue goes beyond money: by encouraging a two-pronged education system the government does all it can to lock in privilege and wealth to the moneyed classes and keep the children of the poor out of the running. Cut government funding for private schools, and we can genuinely teach the values of egalitarianism and equal opportunity which our school curricula pretend to endorse.

I'm not saying that private education should be banned; merely that the people who use it should pay for it. With 'user-pays' in force for so many other government services, it's hypocritical to make an exception for those who prefer not to use the free State school system provided for everyone's benefit.

Greens are spot on about public funding of schools. I for one don't think nongovernment schools should even be allowed let alone funded.

Yes, well - for once I agree with Jon J too.

This article is a well-written exposition of the self-interest of the IEU, written by its General Secretary. No harm in that, but it brings to mind Mandy Rice-Davies' famous comment over the Profumo affair, that "he would say that, wouldn't he?".

To correct the more obvious spin - nothing in those Greens policies in any away removes "choice" from parents. Rather, if parents choose to send their kids to private schools, then they oughtn't expect the rest of us to subsidise them.

That's just a little oversimplified, morganzola.

>>To correct the more obvious spin - nothing in those Greens policies in any away removes "choice" from parents. Rather, if parents choose to send their kids to private schools, then they oughtn't expect the rest of us to subsidise them<<

This assumes that there will still be the same demand for places at these schools at the higher price level - PED<1, as the economists would put it.

I beg to differ.

At least three-quarters of the parents I know who send their kids to private school are working two jobs plus overtime to keep them there. This is the "choice" that is involved, the choice to make financial sacrifices in other areas, in order to give your children the best education available.

If you withdraw the government's contribution to private schools - which after all is less than the cost of supporting those same students withing the public system - a significant number of families will be priced out of the market. The public system will have to absorb them (where will the premises and teachers come from, do you think?), leaving only the super-rich able to use the private schools. Which will become even more elitist than they are today.

Good plan.

These are policies that haven't been thought through, except at the most superficial, social-engineering level - and even that aspect of it isn't going to have the desired effect.

Much the same arguments apply to Private Health Insurance, which the Greens also want to destroy, where the money put into the private sector by both government and families takes financial and capacity pressure off the public system.

Choice is being limited in a real way, through rendering it financially out of reach.

So morganzola, would it be correct to assume that those parents who choose to send their kids to private schools should receive a tax reduction so they don't have to subsidise parents who opt not to pay any meaningful school fees?

I'd be willing to bet you think they should subsidise public schools on top of paying for their own kids education don't you?

All part of so called "social equity/justice" and the resultant wealth redistribution the left so desperately craves. In reality all they want is control. Control of the money, the media, the school curriculum, what people are allowed to think, and how they should live their lives.

@ Jon J: "by encouraging a two-pronged education system the government does all it can to lock in privilege and wealth to the moneyed classes and keep the children of the poor out of the running."

Yeah yeah, class warfare, blah blah blah. Typical socialist rubbish.
I work in the investment banking sector, and there are plenty of individuals in the upper echelons who went to public schools. They know that success requires hard work and persistence. Not whinging about how someone had a better chance because of the school they went to.

cont'd...

...cont'd

That's a cop out from those who think society owes them something. An attitude which is encouraged and espoused by socialists.
In fact, from the team of 20 odd people I work with, only three of us went to private schools.
BTW I've worked for 5 different banks, and it's generally the same across the board, so the team I work with is not an isolated occurrence.

Comes down to hard work and intellect. You see most businesses value those attributes over old school ties, since they are run as a meritocracy. They have to be to ensure profitability, unlike organisations such as the unions, ALP, and the Greens. All these organisations are full of people who have little to no concept of what it means to make it in the real world, yet somehow think they were born to rule, and know better than the people who do live in the real world.

Thanks for demonstrating that tall poppy syndrome is alive and well though. Retarding national progress by taxing so heavily hard work is not worthwhile, and moving overseas is often the only real option for our best and brightest.
Nice.