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 > I feel guilty my son is at a public school > Comments

I feel guilty my son is at a public school : Comments

By Leslie Cannold, published 8/11/2007

Why do only the wealthiest parents in the community, and the most religious, deserve a real choice about where they educate their kids?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
The solution is not to have "equal govt spending across the board", but to privatise all schools.
Posted by volition, Thursday, 8 November 2007 9:19:54 AM
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
Let's start by getting the facts right. What was said about Federal school funding is correct. However it ignores state government funding, which goes exclusively to government schools. This changes the divide between public and private schools considerably.

Let's also discuss the reasons parents pay considerable amounts of money to send their children to private schools. One of the main ones is that the private schools can expel disruptive students who can destroy the educational experience for the whole class. Ideological attitudes by the Teachers federation and Labor state governments preclude any effective action against these students, and so we have a flight from government schools.

The first thing that would be needed to restore public confidence in government schools would be for the government to open a series of borstals for disruptive students, who could be taught about the meaning of the term "Botany Bay Dozen". Until something of this sort happens, we will see a continuation of the trend where the government school acts as a "remainder" school for all the difficult students.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 8 November 2007 9:57:06 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
I find it amazing that a Doctor (I assume a PHD) has chosen to deliberately lie about school funding or at best to skew a portion of the facts to facilitate a perception of school funding that favors privates schools.

The facts are that the total bucket of funding for schools in NSW is $10.42 billion of which government schools recieve 78.2% and non-government schools receive 21.8%. Now how is this fair when 33% of students attend non-government schools. The facts are, government schools are better funded than most non-government schools.

The non-government schools survive on other sources of income which include school fees. Many parents make great sacrifices to send their children to non-government schools and many of these are not well off. They do so I believe because they want their children to receive an education, not spend their time writing Howard hating banners for the Teachers Union.

Dr Leslie Cannold, it is disgraceful to blame the Federal government whilst completely ignoring the neglect that State Labor governments have for years foisted upon government schools for which it is there main responsibility.

You would have more credibility if you argued for greater funding for all children, regardless of where they attend school.

The source for my figures come from the Productivity Commission (Australia), Review of Government Service Provision, Report on Government Services 2007, Volume 1, Part B 'Education', published 31 January 2007. I note you have note sourced your figures.
Posted by Chris Abood, Thursday, 8 November 2007 10:23:06 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 state provides an education system, if you don't like it you should pay your own way.

From The Age yesterday
"In 2004-5, Victorian government schools received $4.5 billion from the federal and state governments. Victorian independent schools received $1.57 billion. Each state-school student costs the two governments $9700 annually, while an independent-school student cost them $4547. Sorry to spoil a good story for you.

Robert Bradshaw, Melton West"

A rational person will only send their children to private schools that are better than the state school. If you have strong state schools then you will have a strong school system. If you have run down state schools you will have an expensive and weak education system as many baby boomers who went through secondary school in Victoria in the 1960s can attest.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 8 November 2007 10:27:58 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
Quote "ideological resistance persists to catering for kids who need extension rather than remediation."

Granted, this is a problem where it exists. But how is it related to the question of whether a school is private or public?

And why does she think it would be less common in public schools if there were no private schools?

What really puzzles me is that (as I gather from the general tenor of the article) she would object even more strongly if governments made it possible for her son to attend such schools, eg if they were fully funded and free to all, as in some overseas countries. (Of course this only applies to schools which can operate within the same funding constraints as public schools do).

According to the figures of the two previous posters, government funding provides 57% per private school student of what it does per public school student (Chris Abood's figures), or 47% (billie's figures).
Since 33% of students attend private schools (Chris Abood's figures),
this means that government provides 86% or 82% of the cost of educating all students (that is, under the assumption that private school students cost the same as government school students).

If there were no funding of private schools then government would pay the cost of educating 90 to 95% of all students. Does Ms Cannold think her son would be better off if governments assumed this greater burden?

She doesn't tell us much about private schools A, B or C, but for the record, the average amount spent per student in private schools is (depending on whose figures you believe) somewhere between slightly less and slightly more (ie only a few percent different) from the amount spent per student in public schools. "gardens, swimming pools, music rehearsal rooms, dining areas, grassy quadrangles etc" aren't the norm at private schools.
Posted by jeremy, Thursday, 8 November 2007 11:08:15 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
This from a lady who recently wrote that she had spent money on Botox injections and is considering cosmetic surgery and has the hide to complain that she cannot afford private school fees. And you people reckon John Howard has lost touch. Get a grip.
Posted by bookman, Thursday, 8 November 2007 11:13:13 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 state governments also support private schools.

State Aid to private schools was going great guns while Labor were in Federal control. State Labor governments (well, in Victoria at least) are quite supportive of private schools.

The theory that private schools save money is completely wrong and based on bodgy figures that leave out completely the (substantial) capital grants given to them.

Read for yourself at http://adogs.info/pr219.htm
Posted by petal, Thursday, 8 November 2007 11:15:29 AM
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
My general observations have been that the public schools have normally better facilities than the private schools. The private schools often advertise their facilities in newspapers, but the public schools normally have those facilities already.

In fact I know of a public high school that has so many facilities that a student could go through 5 years at the school and only use some of the facilities, because there is so much at the school.

Facilities are not everything, but there could be an audit done to determine what a child needs to get a reasonable education, and then all schools are brought up to that standard, and that standard is paid for by the taxpayer.

If a parent wants to pay extra to go above the standard, then they can be entitled to do so.

In the past, Leslie Cannold has written that she is a “feminist teacher” and for her to misrepresent the truth would be par for the course.
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 8 November 2007 11:27:25 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
A few comments on both the article and some of the previous comments.
It is entirely wrong to refer to 'Independent' schools. It is simply an untrue description because almost all of the 'Independent' schools are in fact religiously based. A far better and more accurate description is 'Sectarian' schools. They are most certainly NOT independent.
Irrespective of what school a student attends they all have to follow the same syllabi for all subjects and use the same assessment systems. Those are determined by the relevant Board of Study (under whatever name).
Research by ACER showed beyond any doubt whatsoever that the most important determinant of final Tertiary Entrance Score (again under whatever name) is performance in literacy and numeracy in Year 9. Numeracy having the greater influence in all States. Well behind that influence is Individual school. Far even behind that, a veritable also ran, is School type.
Of course if the writer has only one Public school she has no choice within the public sector. She must live in a most abnormal area if there are three sectarian schools and only one public school.
There are hidious problems in education in Australia and the cause of that problem is the various Boards of Study. It is beyond doubt that maths standards are way down especially up to year 10 exit. It is a scandal that Australian students do not even get into the first division in maths as measured by the internation TIMSS studies.
By the way it is impossible to judge 'how good' a school is by their TE scores. Until there is a valid 'Value added' system we can never know how 'good a job' a school has done.
Posted by eyejaw, Thursday, 8 November 2007 11:29:36 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
I agree with Petal that the figures I quoted do not take into account the capital grants funding available to private schools. Private schools like Geelong Grammar and Melbourne Grammar are absolutely awash with money and are able to rebuild their South Yarra campuses. In contrast Melbourne Girls Grammar is falling apart at the seams.

If HRS visited the leafy eastern suburbs of Melbourne he would see that parents can chose Camberwell High School or Carey, Xavier, Trinity, Camberwell Grammar for their boys.

If HRS lived in Brighton his daughter could attend Brighton High School as featured in Summer Heights High, or Firbank see "We Could Be Heroes". The contrast between the facilities as shown on TV is quite sharp but the contrast is really sharp if you can tour both schools.

HRS needs to remember that Victoria got its first state secondary school in 1910, NSW established state high schools in 1884. The growth in Anglican schools in Victoria in 1910 was probably not repeated until 2000 when the Anglican Church started buying K12 independent schools.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 8 November 2007 11:47:22 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
The dishonesty in the figures quoted in this article are unbelievable. The cost to Government (the taxpayer) for a State student is approximately $10000 per year compared to approx $6500 per year for a private student. The Productivity Commission came up with these figures. Also as one closely related to a private school I can confirm this. The fact that many parents sacrifice and work second jobs because of the failed State system somehow creates a great deal of envy in others. The Greens and Democrats would be happy to bring everyone back to the lowest common level. Leslie's claim of victim status is typical of the socialist attitude. It is probably more the success of the philosophies of the private schools that irk Leslie more than her extremely dubious figures. Mr Rudd knows that as much as anyone.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 8 November 2007 11:56:56 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
Like Leslie I have little "choice" about where to send my daughter, though for different reasons. My daughter has Asperger's Syndrome and is currently in a support class with a maximum of 7 students. This will end next year when she returns to the mainstream, but we have been promised adequate classroom support. Time will tell on the follow-through on this, though before the support class she was receiving up to 15 hrs per week of teachers-aide assistance. She is in the public system.

I have talked to other parents with special needs kids. Most are in the public system but the few with experience in the private system are rarely satisfied with the level of support they have received. For most of them, the extra teaching resources in public schools outweigh any advantages that the private sysem may offer. Of course the stresses of having a kid with special needs mean that marriage breakdown and/or part-time work is pretty common, so most can't afford private schools anyway. So much for choice.

I don't know where you live HRS, but the large private school near me has a 50m heated indoor pool, performing arts centre, art gallery, manicured grounds, extensive sports fields etc etc (and fees of $16,000 per annum). The public school opposite hasn't even got a roof that keeps the rain out. Private affluence and public squalor.
Posted by Johnj, Thursday, 8 November 2007 12:31:00 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 for one, object to my taxes being diverted to subsidise parents who have chosen to educate their children outside the Public system.

I recognise their right to go to a private system but they should be prepared to pay the FULL difference in cost and not take away funds that have been intended for the public system.

For example, I may choose to buy a Rolls Royce but I don't think it's fair to have all the Toyota owners chip in to help me pay for it.
Posted by wobbles, Thursday, 8 November 2007 12:33:40 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
Wobbles

Don't forget that those taxes are also paid for by the parents of those in private schools. The only difference is that they don't get as much back as those in the public education system. The Greens and Democrats have this mantra that choice is good but somehow destroy their own arguements by making up porkies about funding. My 15 year old son got up at 5am before school for months in order to help finish off a building at private school. The end result of the school was not nearly as good as the public school next door fully paid for by Government taxes. All those in the private system ask for is a bit of honesty and not the usual socialist victim mentality distortions.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 8 November 2007 12:48:31 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
I'm surprised this issue hasn't surfaced earlier. The comments take the lid off the simmering ideological stew that has so unfortunately opened up on this issue. My kids went mostly to public schools, but one, for a period, to a private school. I've chaired a State High School Council, and volunteered at the private school, so I've had to think about this.

Australia is almost unique in accepting the public subsidy of private education, and it IS a subsidy. On the other hand, it also LEVERAGES additional, private investment. So I think it's justified up to a reasonable level.

What is NOT justified, in my view, is the absence of proper accountability for that public money, and - at least for selective private schools - the absence of responsibility to educate the remote, the poor, and the disabled, and even the local populace, which remains the responsibility of the public system, so of course the costs are high. Slamming public education is just wrong. Even if a person never directly uses it, their mechanic, solicitor, nurse and aged-care provider will probably have had their start in life in it.

I advocate increased accountability of ALL schools to their local communities, and far greater autonomy for State schools, as ways of reducing the gulf that has so regrettably arisen. The complacency of the Coalition and the timidity of the ALP on this issue astound me.

Charles Worringham
Independent candidate for the Federal seat of Ryan
Posted by Charles Worringham, Thursday, 8 November 2007 1:34:05 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
Johnj
“a 50m heated indoor pool, performing arts centre, art gallery, manicured grounds, extensive sports fields etc etc “

The only difference between this and the public high school just down the road from where I live is that the pool is 25m, and it is shaded and not heated.

As well they have rock climbing equipment, video equipment, an inhouse cafe run by the students, extensive libaries, and over 400 computers in the school. They teach everything from marine studies to robotics, and they even have a barbecue so home ed students can practice cooking at a barbecue.

Does this create better students?

Somewhat doubtful as there can be so much going on in the school that the students can lose track of the 3 R's, and I understand that a considerable number of school principals now want greater emphasis on the 3 R's, rather than all the other paraphernalia that is now accompanying the school system.
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 8 November 2007 1:43:55 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
Regardless of how much money schools are getting, I completely disagree with the implicit assumption of this article – and many of the comments here – that public schools provide an inferior education to private schools. I have been a student and a teacher at both types of institutions, and I have never found the quality of education to be any better at private schools.

This is a huge generalisation but, if anything, I have found the education in private schools to be compromised by too much of an emphasis on school prestige, religious activity, competitive sport, stifling conservatism and too much same-sex company.Whatever public schools may lack in ivy-league resources is more than made up for in their more relaxed, no-nonsense approach to life and learning.

My husband and I can afford to send our kids to private schools, but we (and they) opted for the public system. None of us have regretted the decision. As for the $300,000 we’re saving in tuition fees, that’s flagged for their first-home deposit or business – sometime down the track, when they really need it.
Posted by MLK, Thursday, 8 November 2007 2:00:55 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
MLK

'Regardless of how much money schools are getting, I completely disagree with the implicit assumption of this article – and many of the comments here – that public schools provide an inferior education to private schools.'

At last someone with the commonsense and decency to recognise the effect of the thoughtless criticisms in the article and of other posters.

Well said MLK.

My experience was as a single custodial parent, who was educated in private schools, but because of a 'broken' business venture, found I had no alternative but to send my two children to public schools.

Both are remarkable successful with one playing music in the best state representative bands and now happily playing for her own and her dad's enjoyment. She's always had a good income either through permenant work or operating her own busines. The other is starting work experience, with a major and renowned consulting engineering firm, 4/5ths of the way into his double degree in Applied Science (Math) and Engineering (Electrical and Computer).

In the latters case all of his cohort are Public School educated, there are no-longer any private school students. All had the classic English Liberal education of Maths B, Maths C, Physics, Chemistry, English and Latin. Some studied German where Latin wasn't available. All have current GPA's of close to six or more. All are really decent youngsters...and fun.

I love the public education regime regardless of it's critics for I have seen it produce some truely remarkable results.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 8 November 2007 2:26:44 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 am concerned at the trend towards greater federal funding for private schools. Public schools teach almost 70 per cent of the kids but now only receive 35 per cent of Federal education funding.

Yes, the state governments are responsible for funding government schools, but they also fund private schools. In SA this means that they pay for the School Card (subsidy for school fees), for fee remissions (picking up the tab for non-payment of fees by non-School card parents), contribute towards boarding costs, pastoral care for boarders, Aboriginality, index of rurality for country schools, funding per student based on an index of disadvantage, special needs funding, plus a per capita grant.

Independent? No. Private/sectarian? Yes.

Surely the only obligation on government, as an executive of social responsibility, is to provide quality public schools throughout the community. If people wish to opt out of this, let them do so at their own expense.

Unfair? Hardly - or at least no less unfair than the social responsibility of governments to provide quality public roads.

No-one suggests that private roads be built at taxpayer expense for the drivers of luxury imported cars, or for left-hand drive vehicles, roads from which the Private Roads Board could exclude Toyota drivers and Datsun drivers. And imagine the public derision - comparable to that directed at the bunyip aristocracy in colonial times - that would erupt if our elite and sectarian car owners did start to duplicate the public road system!

But we let it happen with schools - the very institutions in which we impart our values of fairness and equity. And the real losers? Amongst others, and ironically, those very parents who succumb to the ideologies of "private is better" and "choice above all", and who pay, on top of their taxes, fees of hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be better spent, as someone pointed out, on helping children getting a start with a house or a career.

What a shameful con job is "private" education. And how contrary to the ideals of the great country I'm still proud to call "home"!
Posted by mike-servethepeople, Thursday, 8 November 2007 3:30:50 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
"No-one suggests that private roads be built at taxpayer expense for the drivers of luxury imported cars, or for left-hand drive vehicles"

True. However, next time you see a road being built (or repaired), have a good look at who is building it (this will often be indicated on the road-builders' vehicles). Chances are (this may depend on where you live) it will be a private company. Of course, that's no reason why drivers who choose to use that road should be charged even part of the cost of building it. And since they're not charged for using that road, it will be a road for everyone, not just those who can afford luxury imported cars.
Posted by jeremy, Thursday, 8 November 2007 4:00:42 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
What no one has mentioned here is the importance of where public schools are located. Public schools in wealthy areas are generally very good. Parents are very involved and donate extra funds to the school. I know quite a few wealthy professionals who send their kids to such public schools (at least in the primary years).

On the other hand, most public schools in poor areas and ethnic ghettoes are, frankly, not fit to board your dog in.
Posted by grn, Thursday, 8 November 2007 4:17:40 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
Well said MLK.

Dr. Cannold, when your bright child attends university, you will see the wisdom of your decision to send him to a public school. Having saved countless thousands of dollars, you will then be in a position to help him pay for his doctorate, which he will most likely obtain due to his ability to work independently, an attribute not so readily acquired at a private school.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 8 November 2007 4:29:03 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 is all too typical of the diatribe offered by people for whom the facts are not as important as their preconceived notions. As has been stated by many respondents to the article there has been considerable bias in the presentation of the information, which only falls slightly short of downright deception. The least sense-check would show that private schools are not Government-funded to the extent that public schools are; if that were the case public schools would not need to charge the fees that they do.

What is remarkable about the responses to this article is that I find myself on the same side of the argument as runner (may his chosen deity smile upon him), which must be a first!
Posted by Reynard, Thursday, 8 November 2007 4:39:40 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
The thread so far would give the perception that most parents of children at independent schools are wealthy, this is absolutely incorrect.

My wife and I both work and scrimp and save to send our kids to private schools, the cost is that we cannot afford to buy a house or new cars, but from having our kids in public schools we can see a massive difference, mostly in attitude to learning and competitiveness in achieving.

This makes it worth our sacrifice. If the subsidy was stopped, the number of children that could no longer go to the private schools would swamp the public schools which would be forced to take them, and the state goverments would face massive costs in funding the extra places.

Those that say we don't deserve to get any of our tax back are either jealous and vindictive or guilty about the life choices they have made and want to impose their choices on us.

The problem is not that the private schools are so good, it is because the public schools are so constricted by regulations and unions that teaching suffers. This is from my wife who has taught for a short time in one of the "better" public schools.

The tall poppy syndrome is alive and well and trying to stop all those that do not conform to the herd.

I don't tell others what choices they must make and I resent others telling me what choices I must make especially for my children.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 8 November 2007 4:46:18 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
In the 80's I sent my kids to a public school. I was living on the widow's pension. I had no choice.

They took spelling out of the curriculum. They took out grammar. They took out tables. My protestations fell on deaf ears. My precious, smart little kids grew up feeling ignorant and stupid.

In the noughties, my circumstances have changed. I now have a choice. I can shop around for the education most suitable for my individual children.

I have a disabled daughter who attends the most wonderful special school in the public system.

I have another child who attends a small, single-stream private school where every staff member knows the name of every child in the school community: from 3-year-old Pre-school to Year 10.

This child had attended both a private and a public school previously, and was miserably bullied at both, but particularly the latter.

Her new school is far more dilapidated than the public schools in our area, with far less resources across the board. We don't have any of the facilities mentioned in the article.

What matters to me is her personal happiness, and placing her in an atmosphere that is smaller and more intimate and safe like a family.

Every child is unique, and choice is important.

When the Catholics closed down their schools and dumped their students into the public system, it was massively unprepared to deal with the crisis.

Parents who bear a large part of the cost of educating their children should not be ostracised, but encouraged.

Similarly, those who cannot afford to choose should receive the benefit of a quality education for their children.

As has been pointed out, this is not necessarily achieved by throwing money at a school. However, one school, whether public or private, should not have to suffer leaky roofs while others are purchasing their 40th Apple Mac.

What I resent in this article is the divisive wedge tactics employed by the author, which only serve to polarise the community not to unite. Her "break out the guillotine" attitude is not at all helpful.
Posted by 61, Thursday, 8 November 2007 6:02:48 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
I can understand the guilt. When my children started in the public school we believed that the school would provide for their needs. Our children were very highly intellectually gifted and extremely advanced and we believed the school when they said that every child worked to his or her own ability. What they didn't say that it was within the constraints of the worksheets, grade and classroom.

The children suffered a lot not wanting to attend school, having migraines, stomachaches, and anxiety related issues that impacted on their health. The school didn’t want to know about it they blamed resources and funding. By Year 3 our daughter suffered a severe depression and we made some public complaints about the neglect of the education of gifted children and the treatment of our children. Since that date our children have been targeted, bullied and victimized as the public system tries to discredit them and me so as to justify not addressing our complaints and so as to present the children as not as smart as I say that they are and me as a pushy mother.

For over 7 years our 4 children have been marked down, put down, humiliated and our complaints covered up and ignored. Our children have been denied access into the schools that they desperately needed to meet their identified intellectual needs by actions of bias and gross misconduct by the Selective Schools Unit. All this was payback for having dared to speak out against the public school system.

When you speak out against the Public School system be prepared to hang on to your hat.

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better
Posted by Jolanda, Thursday, 8 November 2007 6:58:11 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
The fact remains that the taxpayer contributes more dollars for each individual private school student than for each public school student.

Therefore within limited budget constraints, public schools are actually subsidising private schools at their own expense.

If the selection of schools is a matter of choice then, like everything else in a free-market society, it should be on a user-pays basis.
Posted by wobbles, Thursday, 8 November 2007 7:23:56 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
Jolanda, why do you not take your children out of the school system altogether and teach them at home? If they are as smart as you perceive them to be, this should not be a problem to them. There are probably plenty of people out there who can give you good advice for this option.

Good luck.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 8 November 2007 9:49:27 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 can be an excellent solution. I home-schooled one of my children for a year.

The down side for me was that I found myself working full-time as a teacher without pay. Not everybody can afford to do this. Also, there can be behavioural issues, if the child is strong-willed, in the absence of a traditional teacher-student separation.

I agree, the very best of luck Jolanda.

: )
Posted by 61, Thursday, 8 November 2007 10:54:24 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
David, at the moment two are in the Catholic high school system and one is moving to the Catholic primary school next year. Two have been accelerated. One is stuck in the public school.

As the kids got older I was able to return to part time work so we could move our kids out of the Public School system when necessary, it was just really difficult when they were younger as we didnt' have the money.

We tried homeschooling but the kids were not the type of gifted children who have passions in any particular academic area they were across the board gifted, they just wanted to be presented with work suitable to their ability and need as otherwise they thought they were wasting their time and that the days were long and draining year after year. They are also very competive in the sport department and very social and I am not academic at all and I found their questions frustrating and they didn't want to spend their whole day at home alone with me stressed out when I just couldn't be involved with their studies as I found it hard to understand. They chose to be at school and changed schools many times looking for a better learning environment. They wanted to mix with society and they actually enjoyed the social aspect of school for the most part. They had good friends it was the adults that were the problem.

A parent shouldn't have to teach their children at home, not when there are schools that should be capable of catering for their needs, or at least treating them with respect and without bias and discrimination.
Posted by Jolanda, Thursday, 8 November 2007 10:54:35 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
Sacrificing for your children is all well and good, but such assertions detract from the real argument - that public education is for the public good and is the cornerstone of democracy.

"Going without" so that your children can attend a "good" private school is your business. What about those children whose parents, whether by accident or by design, are unable to enjoy a stable and supportive home environment?

Is it the fault of those children that they cannot attend a good school? Should we be saying to those children "Tough!"?

And enough of the ridiculous argument that subsidising private schools saves the taxpayer money. Such arguments are spurious and based on misleading statistics, as I asserted above. If you bother to read the link I provided above, you will be able to read one calculation which shows that by directing the current government subsidies back into the public system (where they belong), the taxpayer would be better off by 2 billion dollars per year.
Posted by petal, Friday, 9 November 2007 7:49:05 AM
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
There are arguments to be heard and debates to be had for all aspects of the public vs. private debate. Over time my views have changed considerably and no doubt, should I ever become a parent, may well again.

I went through the public system at a variety of schools. It is often observed that more private school students gain university places- well of course they do. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to justify their fees. What schools fail to measure is life outcomes. Yes, I am the only person from the school which I was enrolled in for the majority of high school that has gone on to further education, but my best friend laughs at me through each exam period and states that 'I will retire by the time you get a real job'. I have no doubt that this is true. He is happy and successful business and home owner but still can't spell and spent year 12 in juvenile detention.

My friends who all went to private schools did all indeed go onto university- most have ended up as teachers, but acknowledge that this was never their burning desire, nor do they feel literate or knowledgeable. A close friend who graduated year 12 with the Premier's award in science failed the first semester of her science degree. Another asked me recently a question about politics and followed the question with "I know it sounds really stupid, but I am ignorant. I spent my life sheltered in my private school world". The look on her face was saddening.

So yes, if you measure a school's success on university degrees or swimming pool lengths, private schools will win hands down. But one must realise that you cannot measure how equipped your child is for life and post- secondary education or employment until they are thrown in it. University is one option from many, but we must be conscious of the inherent values we place when measuring success.
Posted by Kathryn D, Friday, 9 November 2007 9:07:14 AM
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
To me, it seems there's a simple solution that's fair to both parties.

Absolutely equal funding from the government purse based on student numbers, coupled with rules regulating whether private schools can pick and choose students. Unless a child has a very extensive history of disruption and more than one expulsion, they shouldn't be able to reject their entry.

I guess some parents will cry foul that their kids are being made to learn alongside more difficult students, but quite frankly I don't have all that much sympathy for them. The most disruptive students won't be admitted (there needs to be some alternative education model for these delinquents anyway) and I think that learning to cope with difficult people is a key part of the education process anyway.
Besides, all parents have a blind spot when it comes to their own children versus what's best for society, and that's as it should be.

If parents want to send this kids to private schools, then fine. The private schools can use the tuition fees to improve the school how they see fit - private schools will still have additional funding because they're receiving additional investment from parents who should be allowed to make that choice. In this manner, parents can still have that choice to invest in their children's education if they genuinely believe it is going to make a difference.

This would also ensure that public schools aren't hobbled - if private schools are made to educate all students (bar the small percentage of genuinely disruptive as opposed to troublesome students) then it will square the ledger somewhat.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 9 November 2007 10:51:10 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
“But the truth is that there is something horribly rotten going on in my personal world and - because the personal is political - this nation.”

That is a bit of indulgent projection of self onto the rest of us, who also comprise “this nation”.

I would suggest, put yourself in context, this (nation) is not all just about you!

I would suggest anyone who can state “I feel guilty my son is at a public school”
Is advertising the possibility that they cannot deal with the “ethicacy of their actions” in other words, their own hypocrisy.

Which makes the authors “effectiveness” in her position as “medical ethicist at the Centre for Gender and Medicine at Monash University” difficult to comprehend.

Personally, I have no problem supporting the “ethics” of the views I hold, the choices in make or the actions I pursue.

I have no problem in parents deciding to support their children in their developing years (schooling) and beyond. I only hope such assistance does not smite the recipient of such largesse with complacency, indolence or unreasonable expectations of what they “deserve”.

I have no problem accepting that the world is not always a fair or righteous place. However, I am not responsible for the hypocrisy of others or their inability to align their actions with they ethics.

We live in a world of personal choice. The worst thing is when the state is empowered to make the choices for us and we are, in turn, disempowered.

As dearest Margaret (who introduced the voucher process into UK education system) wrote

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state. “

Buying one’s child an education really does exemplify another of Margaret’s famous statements

“There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 9 November 2007 11:30:38 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
Reading Leslie Cannold's article is depressing in so many ways. She presents a very common middle class mantra which is 'My child is too bright/sporty/senitive/artistic for a govt secondary school'. The default is I want to/can not afford to send him to a private school with a myriad of resources and programs- what she does not say is that she means elite private schools($17K + pa)-she does not mean low fee Catholic schools who often have poorer facilities than the equivalent govt school and worse VCE results. Govt high schools in Melb(where the author lives) are split between those usually inner & eastern suburbs who are moderatley resources but highly supported by middle class families with long waiting lists and many govt schools in outer areas that the middle class have deserted. Many other govt high schools are undergoing transformations as educated professionals move into areas and send their kids to these schools-guess what standards improve. Leslie is talking about inner bayside Melb where fairly wealthy professionals have almost totally abandoned stae high schools-Albert Park closed last yaer with less than 200 students. Untill the middle class make a stand and decide to send their kids to the local high school these schools will get worse and worse-then again maybe they just love to spend $17k+ pa on natty uniforms, green sports ovals and very expensive ads on the sides of Melb trams.
Posted by pdev, Friday, 9 November 2007 2:21:11 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
I congratulate you on a well written piece that sums up how many of the silent majority feel about public education. It is a shame that voters can't shake the two party mindset. We could be a great nation if our priorities were right. Education, health, housing, environment, public transport. So basic yet because most people don't vote reflectively or for the common good, the wealthy or religious will prosper and our society will continue to split into the haves and have nots. It's criminal because the children - our future are suffering. Now if only people will forget about the exact amounts of funding and focus on the fact that the public schools don't get enough. To sum up, please make public education an issue in the upcoming election. Give parents a real choice.
Posted by lispy, Friday, 9 November 2007 5:25:49 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 know of a public school where every teacher is about to get a free lap top, and the ratio of computers to students is about 1:2, but the student marks are gradually declining.

The P&C has spent nearly $1,000,000 in 10 years on the school, but the student marks are gradually declining.

There are numerous murals and sculptures right throughout the school, but the student marks are gradually declining.

There are landscaped gardens between every building, but the student marks are gradually declining.

There is a irrigation facility for the oval that incorporates recycled water, but the student marks are gradually declining.

Every room is now air conditioned, but the student marks are gradually declining.

The school runs fashion festivals, art festivals and food festivals, but the student marks are gradually declining.

In grade 10 a student can choose between 25 possible subjects, and in grade 12 a student can choose between 41 possible subjects, but the student marks are gradually declining.

And so on.

I would think there are 2 reasons why the student marks are gradually declining

1/ The school has become an entertainment center rather than a place where the students actually learn something.

2/ The teachers have a totally dismissive and feminist attitude towards the boys, and the boys have become so demotivated, that their marks are continuously falling, and this brings down the overall marks of the school.

In fact, out of about 100 grade 12 boys, that school is now lucky to get more than 10 boys in grade 12 going on to university each year.
Posted by HRS, Friday, 9 November 2007 7:54:07 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
No Statistics, percentages, or Liberal/ Labor blame.
I went to a private/ catholic school as a child and sent my children, granted, because of financial constraints to Public School. They are now about to go into years 10 and 12 and I and my wife could'nt be prouder of them, there efforts, there teachers and the School. Support your child morally, give them as much time as you can possibly afford and ensure their teacher's are aware that you care about your child's grades and future. Sad but true, if they (teacher's) know you care, more effort will be applied to your child's education. An education earn't will always outweigh an education bought. Hold your head high!
Posted by POO, Friday, 9 November 2007 8:58:57 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
Given Leslie's advocacy on abortion I am pleased she has the problem. The ACT Labor Minister for Education who is very anti the private education sector managed to significantlty increase parents interest in private schools recently by announcing that she thought the Government should provide condoms to year six because, "lets face it they are sexually active". A great turn of for parents who actually care fortheir children.
Posted by Paulo, Friday, 9 November 2007 9:20:52 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
HRS, maybe girls were ALWAYS smarter than boys, and its just paternalistic attitudes that held them down in the past :)~

As someone who has been to uni, may I suggest that it is far from the be all and end all. In fact between myself and my two siblings, the one earning the highest income was the one that didnt go to uni (the pay difference is around $15,000 pa). And not wasting all that money on HECS....

I do agree though that facilities are not everything. A few basics like airconditioners go a long way (particularly out in the western division). More emphasis needs to go back on the basics of learning, as this is what everything else can be built from .
Posted by Country Gal, Friday, 9 November 2007 10:41:15 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
Country Gal
Sorry to disappoint you, but although there are now more girls going to university, girl's marks have only improved about 0.1% over the last 30 years, according to benchmark tests.

Boy's marks have declined about 4-5% in that time period, and in some of the more feminist schools, the decline is much greater.

I have personally heard the most denigrating and discriminatory remarks said about boy's by various teachers, but those remarks do not motivate the boys, and it is probably one of the reasons why so many boys do not want to go onto university, or pursue higher education.

However the idea that you do not need higher education is not correct. If someone wants an upward career path, then they will eventually need higher education.

I would also agree that facilities are not everything, and some schools are beginning to realize this.

I know of a number of public schools in QLD that were offered large grants from the state government, but the schools declined those grants, because they had enough in the school already, and the schools wanted to concentrate more on actual school work, so as to improve the student marks.

If the students wanted to do extra, such as some artwork or some extra curriculum activity, they could do that outside of school hours.

Those are the clever schools.
Posted by HRS, Saturday, 10 November 2007 12:18:55 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
Thank you Dr Cannold for posting your ‘Age’ column here.

Your item raises two critical issues not yet addressed by others:
1. If the private school sector delivers a notionally ‘good’ education for $18-25,000 annually (fees $12-18,000 plus $6-7,000 State and Federal government subsidies), then Australia is seriously deprived when our Governments only provide $10,000 for ‘State’ education. This situation has to be redressed ASAP by our next Government – whatever its colour – and at whatever cost. Education is our right – it is not a privilege.

2. There are private schools in Australia with waiting lists approaching their current enrollment.
Since the private sector currently educates about 33% of our students, this situation means that it is approaching the potential to educate 66%. This, of course, means that the State system will then only service the lower ends of the wealth or intelligence spectrums and remote localities. This is a truly frightening prospect. State education will become just a ‘safety net’ - but not even a good one, after the private sector has offered scholarships to the ‘best’ students and extracted the best teachers from the ‘State’ system, often induced by zero fees for any children. And if students don't meet benchmarks, teacher salaries will be in jeopardy and then, who would want to teach! Is this the real hidden agenda behind Mr Howard’s privatised education plans – a two tiered system of very disparate qualities; real Dickensian stuff of earlier centuries. Tax deductions for school fees would only accelerate this trend. Other Nations, including the USA, would not tolerate such a system.
Posted by Beef, Monday, 12 November 2007 2:08:18 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
Leslie Cannold is described at the end of her opinion piece (The Age.. 5.11) as an “author, ethicist and researcher”. She wrote of feeling guilty about her son being in a public school.

Does she, as a researcher, not know that the federal money for primary and secondary education is combined with state money and that no principal of any non Government school receives 100% of the money given to children in state schools. Every child who attends a non Government school releases money to be spent in Government schools. Parents of these children are not discriminated against by the Taxation Department. As an ethicist, does she think it right that they not receive equivalent funding for the school of choice for their children?

Leslie spoke also re students needing specialist teachers. In non government schools the proportion of public money, in comparison with state schools, is even more unequal. I have spent thirty years in education of deaf students and spent most of my time begging for the money that is available simply by census statistics for state schools or units for similar students.

Sr Joan M Winter OP
Posted by joanw_op, Monday, 12 November 2007 2:13:43 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
joanw_op

We know that federal money for primary and secondary education is combined with state money. Fact.

We know, too, that no non-Government school receives 100% of the money given to children in state schools. Fact too - on a per capita basis at least.

But your claim that, "Every child who attends a non Government school releases money to be spent in Government schools" is misleading.

Another way of putting it would be to say that every child who attends a non-Government school attracts money that might otherwise be spent in Government schools. Every dollar spent by governments on non-government schools is a dollar that government schools won't get.

The notion of 'choice of schools' is dishonest, Sister Joan. The overwhelming majority of parents have no choice as to which school their children will attend. They simply don't have the money, notwithstanding government subsidies allegedly meant to reduce fees but which do nothing of the sort.

The concept of choice is used as a subterfuge that allows conservatives to redistribute funds away from the needy to those who are, in the vast majority of cases, already exceptionally well-off. It's scandalous that you have to beg for funds for needy students while governments subsidise affluent schools who can think of nothing more educational than more swimming pools, theatres, boat sheds and rifle ranges.

Rather than hiding behind the concept of 'choice' the fairest method of applying taxpayers' funds to education would be to employ the principle of real need - as opposed to the current SES formula which is a transparent farce.

Under the real needs principle, your deaf students would be much better off than they are now.

The average per capita cost of schooling in both the public and non-government sectors is around $10,000. Many schools charge twice that amount and still say it's necessary - for the sake of 'choice' - to put their hand out for taxpayer subsidies. Many private schools receiving generous taxpayers' subsidies are already operating at three times the resource levels of government (and some poorer Catholic) schools.
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 12 November 2007 2:58:06 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
Leslie's misplaced guilt would be better turned to trying to mend the broken system which has led to masses of parents voting with their money and feet. Paulo points out just one issue of the many failed social engineering philosophies prevalent in the State schools. He/she writes
'The ACT Labor Minister for Education who is very anti the private education sector managed to significantly increase parents interest in private schools recently by announcing that she thought the Government should provide condoms to year six'

Again your lack of money to send your child to a private school should not cause you guilt but more your backing and championing of failed philosophies.
Posted by runner, Monday, 12 November 2007 3:56:08 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
Um, regardless of my personal opinions about the ACT Minister for Education, I do feel compelled to point out that Andrew Barr, MLA is in fact a male.
Posted by 61, Monday, 12 November 2007 8:03:16 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
61,
If he is male, then he should be sacked, because he is male.

And all the boys in the schools should be thrown out as well, because they are male.

They should be doing someting more worthwhile, such as working so that they can be pay more tax to support the education system.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 12 November 2007 8:40:22 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
'The ACT Labor Minister for Education who is very anti the private education sector managed to significantly increase parents interest in private schools recently by announcing that SHE thought the Government should provide condoms to year six'

I was actually correcting a mistake in the above quote from runner and paulo, where they called the Minister "she", that's all. I'm afraid I don't really know what you're talking about.
Posted by 61, Monday, 12 November 2007 8:54:29 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
61, My apologizes.

I thought you might be someone who doesn't like something, so they refer to it as being “male”. The author would know about this, as so many of her sisters at universities and quite a few teachers will carry this out.

It is interesting how so many of them do it, but they never refuse money from men
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 5:57:39 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
Frank says ‘But your claim that, "Every child who attends a non Government school releases money to be spent in Government schools" is misleading.

Another way of putting it would be to say that every child who attends a non-Government school attracts money that might otherwise be spent in Government schools. Every dollar spent by governments on non-government schools is a dollar that government schools won't get.’

And if everyone of the students attending non Government schools presented to their local state school, who would be better off? Where would all that extra funding come from?

Sr Joan M Winter OP
Posted by joanw_op, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 5:44:56 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
Sr Joan

The 'threat' of the prospect of all the students who attend non-Government schools presenting at their local state school is an old and discredited debating trick in the schools funding controversy. I'm surprised you rehash it.

You and I both know that that scenario is never going to happen even if all funding to private schools were cut to nought.

However, to indulge you for a moment: if it were to come to pass, I'd make a pretty safe bet that government funding for government schools would improve dramatically because those who now exercise so-called 'choice' would be appalled at the condition of these schools and would demand that improvements be made forthwith. (I believe the same thing would happen if all schools except local parish schools were closed.)

Parents who send their children to affluent schools are inoculated against the poverty of government schools. Powerful parent advocates are lost to the schools who need them most.

However, leaving that hypothetical aside, I note that you do not try to rebut my point about the majority of families having no choice of schools as things stand. Choice is no more than government rhetoric and ideology.

Nor do you take up my point about real needs. This surprises me because I would have thought that poor Catholic schools and schools for the disabled would be immeasurably better off under a real needs funding model than under the current SES funding formula which is a sham.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 10:34:13 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
Frank,

You say, "You and I both know that that scenario is never going to happen even if all funding to private schools were cut to nought."

Maybe not, but it did once in the Canberra Diocese and that was the beginning of 'state aid'.

I have sat on the Board of one of our secondary schools for nine years since retiring from special education and the fees are between $6000 and $7000 per year. A lot of money yes, but the tens of thousands referred to earlier are still a long way off.

I think that I am now retiring from this discussion as my knowledge of the intricacies of general funding is out of date since my retirement because of illness.

Best wishes,

Sr Joan
Posted by joanw_op, Tuesday, 13 November 2007 10:52:59 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
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A150589b.htm

"In January 1951 O'Brien was made an auxiliary archbishop in the archdiocese of Sydney. On 16 November 1953 he was appointed archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn. He was enthroned twice on 28 December, first at the cathedral of St Peter and St Paul, Goulburn, and later at St Christopher's Pro-Cathedral, Canberra. In 1955 he moved to Canberra and designated St Christopher's co-cathedral for the archdiocese. During his term the number of Catholic parishes in the Australian Capital Territory increased from one to ten, placing strain on finances and personnel.

"After lobbying for assistance, O'Brien accepted the Federal government's offer in 1956 to subsidize interest on money borrowed to build or extend church secondary schools in the A.C.T. Pressures on the New South Wales Catholic school system led to the 'Goulburn School Strike' in 1962, during which O'Brien's auxiliary bishop John Cullinane and a lay committee closed Catholic schools in that city. O'Brien publicly gave his support, emphasizing the right of Catholics to take action as private citizens. Privately he wavered. The schools reopened after five days, but the incident accelerated action to provide state aid for all church schools."

http://www.igoulburn.com/browse.asp?cid=761&sid=14&caid=0&cpid=0

"Toilets at St Bridgids School

"Significant in Australian history are the unassuming toilets at the former St Brigid’s school (next to St Peter and Paul’s old cathedral) in Bourke Street.

"They were the reason for the great Goulburn Catholic school strike in 1962.

"The toilets at St Bridget’s were deemed inadequate by the Education Department, who insisted that they be upgraded or the school would be closed.

"As there was no money available for an upgrade Bishop Cullinane informed the Government that if St Bridgids was closed all the Catholic Schools in Goulburn would be closed and all the students would be sent to Government schools.

"True to his word, all the Catholic schools were closed for a number of weeks with all the students descending on the Government schools.

"The system couldn’t cope and State Aid, for non-Government schools was set in motion."
Posted by 61, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 1:06:26 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
Sr Joan

You say: "I think that I am now retiring from this discussion as my knowledge of the intricacies of general funding is out of date since my retirement because of illness." Thank you for your forthrightness. I wish you well.

Talking of forthrightness, OLO posters may have seen comments today from principals of wealthy private schools critical of Howard Government election promises of education tax rebates to all parents regardless of income level. The richer you are the more taxpayers' funds are rebated to you within the scheme.

These private school principals acknowledge that education grants should be means-tested and based on real need.

If these principals can see it, why can't the Howard Team?

It's not a matter of envy; it's an issue of need.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 8:48:15 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
Frankgol, we don't generally seem to be on the same side, but in this case i am with you, except on the last point.

It is the handouts they think will gain the most votes that drives Little Johnny's policies. It is a pity that the other mob have been such poor money managers in the past, otherwise it would be no contest.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 10:03:56 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
Howard and Rudd are funding their porkbarrelling with GST funds that have been held back from the states. Remember that GST taxes were to be raised by the federal government and the moneys distributed to the states so the states could retire stamp duty, land tax and payroll taxes. The states have been starved of funds needed to operate public schools, hospitals, build roads and provide public transport.

Howard tossed money at orangutans, obviously he thinks they are more valuable than Dr Cannold's pride and joy.

The federal government will fund private schools with 12 students indefinitely, but states have to close public schools that have less than 20 pupils.

There is a fear that the Howard pork barrelling will encourage the flight of middle class parents from the public school system, leaving public schools without an active parent base to provide the facilities like toilet paper, soap, working bees that public schools need to survive.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 10:29:35 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
My previous post mentioned my personal reasons for choosing independent schools, and the consequences to our standard of living because of this. The reasons are far deeper than the facilities offered, and in fact the school my son is at has fewer facilities than the one my daughter is at, but better results.

The main reasons for the difference compared to public schools are:
- The teachers are more accountable for the results,
- The fact that sacrifices have been made to attend generally ensures active participation by the parents, and they generally strive to get the most out of it.
- The pupils and parents are aware that attendance at the school is not a right so disruptive children are more easily controlled. This enables the teacher to spend his time in teaching not in crowd control.

And these apply to the $2000 p.a. church schools and the $20 000 p.a. top of the range private schools.

Those that want to force the independent schools to:
- take disruptive children
- not to pay teachers more
- stop scholarship schemes for the disadvantaged bright children,
are not trying to improve the public system or provide opportunities but simply trying to drag down the independent schools.

The tall poppy syndrome reigns supreme. “if I can’t have it, neither can you” attitude is pure spite masquerading as socialism and should have no place in this country.

Fix the public system not by trying to throw money at it, but simply introduce some of the factors that make the independent schools better, and then the exodus from public education may slow or even stop.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 14 November 2007 1:40:36 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 am sorry, but Dr Leslie Cannold, you are lying by misrepresenting the funding for public school. In NSW, public schools get 72% of the state funding while only 65% of students go to public schools.

I am amazed to note the byeline at the bottom of the article, which says in part:" Dr Leslie Cannold is a researcher...and medical ETHICIST at the Centre for Gender and Medicine at Monash University." This mendacity appears to be a singularly blatant lack of ethics to me.
Posted by tommybob, Saturday, 17 November 2007 10:07:57 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
""We can't afford it," I replied. He won't ask again. "

THAT is hilarious.
Private schools start at less than $2000 a year.
Even the elite ones that charge $24,000 offer generous scholarships.

I cannot afford a private school for my son.
However, I still send him to one. The part-scholarship he gets helps.
The extra hours I and his mother work helps. The cheap car I drive helps. Not having holidays outside my city helps.

Yes, I sacrifice a fair bit for my child. That is what parents who care about their children do.

"Dr Leslie Cannold is a researcher, writer, commentator and medical ethicist at the Centre for Gender and Medicine at Monash University. She is the author of The Abortion Myth: feminism, morality and the hard choice women make (1998/2000) and What, No Baby? Why women have lost the freedom to mother and how they can get it back (2005). She is also President of Reproductive Choice Australia."

You are better educated and in a better occupational and financial state than I am. The difference, Lesley is that I care about my child.
Posted by tommybob, Saturday, 17 November 2007 10:14:16 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
Whilst I do agree with many of your points, tommybob, I do think the last comment is a little harsh. I'm sure that Dr Cannold cares about her son very much.
Posted by 61, Saturday, 17 November 2007 11:00:10 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
tommybob

Don't lay your smug self-righteousness on us.

Some of us have very good reasons to send our children to government schools. One of the main ones is that we love our children and care very much for their education (as distinct from their schooling) and want them to grow up knowing a broad cross-section of Australian children.

Then there are many, many families who genuinely cannot afford the fees even if they start at 'only' $2000 a year. Private schools tout their 'generous' scholarships in their PR brochures but in fact these represent in the order of 1-2% of private school enrolments. The scholarships are a mere token to let the affluent parents feel better.

Finally, your efforts to help your children are no doubt genuine, but have you thought about the possibility that you are wasting your money? With three children now through the government school system now all with Master's degrees at the best universities except the last who is just entering his Honours year. They learned exceptionally well at government schools and were not spoon-fed by private school teachers anxious to cram Year 12 facts into their heads and not at all interested in how they would cope after that.

My children's schools also didn't chuck the under-achievers out in order to falsify their academic results. These were government schools that took all-comers and cared for them all whatever their backgrounds, their bank accounts or their abilities.

Why should you be surprised that State governments spend more on government schools than they do on private schools? Are you also surprised that the Commonwealth government spends more on private schools than on government schools?
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 17 November 2007 11:22:07 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
The scholarships question is an interesting one isn't it? I know a couple whose twin daughters are very bright academically. They are in their last year of government primary school. A particular private college, which has admitted to the parents that it trolls through primary school newsletters to identify bright primary students has been pestering them (by "pestering" I mean repeated and unwanted attempts) to accept scholarships for the two girls at the college. This college is using its schlarships to rob the state school system of academically gifted students for its own later self-promotion based on Year 12 scores. The market place throws up some great educational values, doesn't it!
Posted by mike-servethepeople, Monday, 19 November 2007 9:24:00 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
Frankgol,

I am really glad that your children performed so well at public school, but your comments about independent schools show that you actually know very little about what goes on at independent schools and the independent route was actually never considered for your children.

If you had you would realise that independent schools do not exclude under achievers. (they have so many applicants that they could do so easily). Also they are not cram colleges, and one of the main attractions is that they focus on a far larger variety of life skills such as music, drama, debating, community focus groups, languages etc.

One of the biggest problems is that many graduates come out of university totally unable to cope with any of the curved balls that life and business throw at them. The skills of negotiation, communication etc are severely lacking and while they perform well in a narrow band, will struggle to advance their careers.

Most parents do not spend the fees so they have something to boast about. If the benefits weren't significant the waiting lists wouldn't be so long.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 19 November 2007 9:50:20 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
I would like to see the figures etc., regarding this idea that is being thrown around about Public School students performing better at University than Private School students. I would like to know how many students they are talking about, how they came to this conclusion and what schools they are talking about because public schools in rich areas are very different to public schools in disadvantaged areas. We should be comparing the public schools from disadvantaged areas. Now I wonder how many of those students from public schools in disadvantage areas actually get to University and actually manage to excell whilst they are there.

If we are going to compare, we should at least be fair.
Posted by Jolanda, Monday, 19 November 2007 10:09:34 AM
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
Thanks Frankgol for your history of your children schooled in Govt high schools and their obvious success. Tommybob is fairly typical of the the pathetic state we have got to in Australia where there are large parts of the population that believe not sending your children to private schools is tantamount to parental failure. We send our children to govt primary and secondary schools and earn $200k + pa-we choose govt schools for the vlaue of programs offered, the excellent and dedicated staff and the value of being in a real community made up of students from all sorts of backgrounds. Scholarships have been debased to the point where private schools use them purely to skim academically bright kids that will boost their VCE results and support their marketing-Tommybob is obviously not bright enough to work this out. Jolanda through her many and varied posts is obviously very unhappy with the govt system in NSW. The situation in Sydney is much like that in Melb-high performing Govt secondary schools are all clustered in middle class suburbs. The outer burbs have the worst performing high schools because there aspirational parents flock to low cost Catholic and independent schools. The population left in these schools usually have the most social and educational problems. Again the Tommybobs of this world are desperate to differientiate them selves from this group.School choice has much to do with aspiration and the desire in the burbs to isolate from what is seen as "negative"-walled estates full of Mc Mansions next to struggletown from which most of the Mc Mansion owners see themselves as escaping from.
Posted by pdev, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 1:29:33 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
"My wife and I both work and scrimp and save to send our kids to private schools, the cost is that we cannot afford to buy a house or new cars,"

"The extra hours I and his mother work helps. The cheap car I drive helps. Not having holidays outside my city helps.
Yes, I sacrifice a fair bit for my child. That is what parents who care about their children do."

In any debate where the private / public school issue is brought up, this same facile statement rears its ugly head. I have read it hundreds of times in many different forms, and I'm SICK of it.

If we had a decent public school system (and we don't), you wouldn't feel the compulsion to "sacrifice".

And what about the kids whose family background is pretty sad, and they don't have the choice to have a good start in life? Is it THEIR fault that they have to attend the "crappy" local public school, and that their parents can't "sacrifice"?
Posted by petal, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 2:34:16 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
petal

I agree with you about the facile claims of private school parents who tell anyone who'll listen that they work themselves to the bone and sacrifice everything to get their kids the 'very best' education. It's trite, smug and self-serving. Not to mention betraying a shallow consumerist approach to education - something that money can't buy.

However, I disagree with you that public schools are not 'decent'. Despite being constantly run down (double meaning intended) by politicians for ideological purposes - and to cut their public education budgets - it is not hard to find excellent public schools at both primary and secondary levels.

I have been a member of several public school councils and my partner and I have been active parents, and we have been highly impressed by the dedicated, hard-working and sensitive teachers we have worked with. I'm sure there are some duds just as there are in the buy-an-education schools; but the overwhelming experience is that they are a great bunch of teachers.

It's a disgrace that they are not better paid - sometimes praise will only go so far.

I agree with you that there are many children whose parents can't even contemplate enrolling their kids in private schools - and we should not condemn the families, parents or children, for circumstances beyond their control.

Privileged parents would be more respected if they did what some of the privileged principals did at the recent launch of Howard's latest gift to the wealthy - acknowledge that the Coalition education policies are unfair to ordinary Australian parents and their children in public schools.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 2:57:00 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
Hi FrankGol. I should have probably made my point clearer - often, the public schools in the most marginalised areas are the most run down, and the only choice for those kids who don't actually have a choice. Cruelly, the independent schools in these areas qualify for more money under the SES model; money that should really be redirected towards the local public schools.

In Victoria, there are a number of private schools in outer areas that have just sprung up over the past few years. Where is the new infrastructure for the public schools in these areas?

Another cruel fact is that public schools here are largely self-governed, which means that parents are doing all they can to get their child into the "good" local school and not have to send them to the "bad" local school. Our child was forced to enrol in a dreadful school which was 100 metres closer to us than the other one, which is much, much better. Coincidentally, that school managed to fill all 40 prep places before they got to us, in spite of our living less than 2km away. So is it really the case that there are 40 5 year olds living within less than 2km from that school? Or are some parents not being totally honest about their addresses?
Posted by petal, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 10:51:20 AM
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
Petal,

You are absolutely correct-parents in Melb and Sydney will falsify their address, use a friends address or move into a rented place for 6-12 months to get into a desirable school particularly at secondary level. This can leave a neighboring school with a shrinking population and a majority of kids with high social and educational needs. It is obvious that a govt school must be successful at attracting middle class families if it is to grow and prosper. I believe there are many parents who are choosing private schools begrudginly because they can not get their kids into "good" or desirable govt high schools. Uni High is an example in Melb with families moving from Epping and Donvale(30-40 km) to get their kids in. The move back to govt schools is becoming more obviuos in areas in Melb where there is high demograhic change like inner city Melb. -the middle class insisting on sending their kids to govt schools changes the school itself, guess what ,marks improve and in a few years govt school ABC is seen as desirable.
Posted by pdev, Thursday, 22 November 2007 12:38:14 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. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

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