The article’s reference to “the funding model that will have to replace the existing socioeconomic status (SES) model, due to expire at the end of 2013” implies that the SES model will end, but the Gonksi report, though widely applauded by those who condemned the Howard government’s education policies, recommends continuing that flawed funding arrangement. Labor people who pay attention know that this would be a great mistake and hope that the delay in the government’s response is due to work being done on replacing the SES model with something more logical.

The Howard and Gonski models both support funding schools on the basis of the socio-economic status of the people who live near the students, the difference being that the latter would use a smaller area. Both ignore the school’s own income and are thus very bad for low-fee private schools. Both give more money to high-fee private schools that take well-off students from poor areas than to low-fee private schools that take poor children from well-off areas.

The SES model is so irrational that half of the private schools in the country have to get compensation to be as well off as they were under the previous Labor government’s model.

We need to return to a system that gives more money to low-fee schools and less money to high-fee schools, as we did in the 1990s. As more than 80 per cent of the core recurrent costs of a school are teacher employment, the standard amount of money should be based on a staffing formula, which is what the Victorian Labor government based its 2005 system on.

See:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14221&page=0

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14073&page=0

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/576719.aspx?PageIndex=1

Of course as someone associated with the Liberal party and the usual so called conservative suspects who are all completely committed to the dismal world-view created in the image of scientific materialism, and who (contrary to all of the hype) effectively believe that the primary purpose of "education" is to train people to become unconscious robotic cogs in the industrial machine, and to do what they are told by those in power, Kevin does not have any ideological axe to grind, or barrow to push, does he!

He sees reality true, completely unencumbered by any unconsciously held presumptions about what we are human beings.

The purpose of old-style "education" was to create grey-flannel suited dreadfully sane one dimensional robots who were unquestionably faithfull to the system. And to produce programmed robots who would "volunteer" to march off and be slaughtered in their millions in the never-ending imperial/colonial wars.

Except for the fortunate few, the system inevitably and deliberately squashed or extinguished any kind of imaginative creative impulse or curiosity in the masses altogether. Such was also the case with old-style child "rearing" practices.

In short its purpose was to create the dreadfully sane one-dimensional man/woman as described by Marcuse in his book One Dimensional Man. Or to put everyone in little boxes made out of ticky-tacky, all the same. See the lyrics of the 1960's song by Malvina Reynolds titled Little Boxes.

The normal person, then or now, was/is supposed to work, eat junk "food", watch TV and stay tuned for the latest "news" (propaganda). And, more importantly to be very ENTHUSIASTIC about all of the latest advertised products and "vow" experiences and to thus drive on down to the local Cathedral (mega-sized shopping mall) of the now dominat religion of consumerism to dutifully purchase the said products.

Such chutzpah! This article demonstrates how entrenched the sense of entitlement in regard to middle class welfare has become.

The solution is simple, the so-called "independent" schools should not receive a cent of taxpayers' money, if parents want their children to be educated at an independent private school they should pay for it. It's not the government's business to fund private education.
Their little Emmas, Jeremies, Fionas (and Dr Donnelly) would be then free from the pernicious influences of Social Democracy and the 21st century.

Good point, Mac!

I agree, but have 3 comments:

1) To the extent and portion that private schools do teach the same content (eg. math, science, English, etc.), what logic is there to hand the same middle-class parents government subsidies if they send their children to public schools but not to private ones? Surely if they aren't entitled, then they aren't entitled either way!

2) I do hope that you sincerely mean it and your government will indeed allow the Emmas, Jeremies and Fionas to be free from the pernicious influences of Social Democracy and the 21st century. Shutting them up with 30 pieces of silver to redeem one's childrens' freedom is the best possible investment a parent can make.

3) One other benefit which you seem to have omitted, is that those children will no longer learn to steal. Stopping to take money from the government, which in turn was taken from people without their consent (how are such acts normally called?), will stop turning those children into accomplices in crime.

Yuyustu,

I don't understand your first comment, the following might help to explain my position.

Although my perspective is from the left of the political spectrum I generally don't support government subsidies of private discretionary expenditure, which includes taxpayer supported private education and the monumentally harebrained " baby bonuses", for example. It's a particularly corrosive form of middle class welfare, so I agree with you for much the same reasons, although I'm sure we'd disagree with the disbursement of the savings from ending the subsidies.

Re (2) and (3) What I meant was that supporters of private education can't have it both ways, they can't be independent and sponging off the taxpayer at the same time. If they want to promote their favourite educational ideologies they shouldn't expect the government to pick up the tab.

It's pretty simple what he's saying Mac. If you're against subsidies to the rich then you will be opposed to them getting any subsidy towards their children's education, and they should be made to pay for the education they get in state schools.

The current system discriminates against those wealthy people who choose not to send their kids to state schools.