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 > Whose education revolution is it? > Comments

Whose education revolution is it? : Comments

By Linda Graham, published 19/11/2007

We must invest now in a universal education system to ensure we do not wave goodbye to the prosperous futures of the majority of Australian children.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Diverting all the money currently subsidising the private schools would save the taxpayer $2 billion per year.

Don't believe what the private school lobby tells you - they conveniently forget to include the huge capital grants that are regularly flung their way.
Posted by petal, Monday, 19 November 2007 8:11:14 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
Do not be too negative. evidence suggests that public school kids do better than either selecticve or private school kids at uni. PISA suggests that private schools do less well than the SES and the the resources would predict. None of theis should be surprising as special needs kids do better in normal schools so normal kids should do better in normal schools.

Oddly we seem to want special schools for normal middle class kids. the danger is however we are developing a school system where only special needs kids are going to normal schools.

GIfted students that do gifted programs are indistiguishable from gifted students who do not at 24. Often educational outcomes are simply measured at the wrong point. Longterm results may be quite different than short term. The NBES research on school choice in Chicago where the choice is randomy allocated. I think they have a lottery. Seenms to indicate that parents exercising choice negatively impacts. Either way research seems to indicate school choice is not what its cracked up to be
Posted by Richard, Monday, 19 November 2007 10:58:35 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
or you could take the view that as grown-ups we are equally liable to law, equally liable to taxation, equally responsible for contributing to society.

so how then can you justify private schools? their whole purpose is to give a head start to the children of the rich, who hardly need it,and certainly don't deserve it.
Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 19 November 2007 11:40:34 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
The conservatives approach to teaching is to avoid teaching children to think clearly. In at least one state and in several school systems overseas teaching children early in their formative years to think clearly is paying off in two fields; the students intellectual capability is increasing significantly and adverse student behaviour is ceasing to be a major problem. The curriculum change necessary is about one hour per week of open class discussion of an ethical or societal question or two of the students choosing. Once established the teachers role in this class time becomes mainly one of ensuring that considerate rules of listening and speaking are adhered to. The one hour is not a net loss to the total other subjects' time as often the subject of the discussion is from another curriculum strand. Also the effectiveness of other school time increases substantially because the children's attentiveness and ability in all classes improves.
If parents elect a non conservative government it may be possible to really take a new approach to public school education which would leave the private school system struggling to keep up particularly those schools that have an authoritarian or dogma dominated approach
Posted by Foyle, Monday, 19 November 2007 12:49:57 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
Why should parents who have worked hard and been successful and can afford to put their kids in private schools be critisized and spoken about like they have done something wrong. Surely success should be encouraged and people shouldn't be punished for being succesful. If we start punishing parents for being successful and we treat them with disdain then we discourage people from helping themselves and create a society where it isn't in your best interest to work hard, succeed and be good. Is that really what would be best for the people?

If parents pay taxes then their taxes are entitled to go towards their children's education at whatever school they choose to go to. If parents are prepared to pay more for better facilities and conditions - then good luck to them.

If the public schools stopped focusing on the Private schools and started focusing on why so many parents (and many are not rich) are taking their kids out of the public schools then maybe things would change.

The biggest problem in the public school is their negative and hostile attitude towards those who they see as better than them and their lack of respect and regard for parents and students.
Posted by Jolanda, Monday, 19 November 2007 12:53:02 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 LDP (Liberty and Democracy Party) opposes the state-federal jurisdictional duplication in education policy and believes that school funding and regulation should be decentralised and devolved to the state level.

At the state level the LDP supports the introduction of school vouchers to allow greater competition between schools and greater parental choice.

And the LDP is against providing subsidies to anyone, including private schools.
Posted by RobertG, Monday, 19 November 2007 2:06:22 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
"Why should parents who have worked hard and been successful and can afford to put their kids in private schools be critisized and spoken about like they have done something wrong."

Why should kids who have frankly very poor family lives be punished with crappy public schools as if THEY have done something wrong?

"Surely success should be encouraged and people shouldn't be punished for being succesful."

Exactly. And let's reward ALL children by giving them the best start in life, no matter where they come from.

"If we start punishing parents for being successful and we treat them with disdain then we discourage people from helping themselves and create a society where it isn't in your best interest to work hard, succeed and be good."

We treat them with disdain by building up the expectation that if they don't make that "sacrifice" (which should really be unnecessary) then their kids deserve the crappy state school which has been starved of funds slowly and painfully over the last, ooh, 11 years.
Posted by petal, Monday, 19 November 2007 2:53:06 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 have you read Maralyn Parkers Blog lately? http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/maralynparker/
Maralyn says that Public schools are the envy of the world!

So I have to ask which one is it? Are public schools spectacular and achieving at highest levels, or are they failing the students?

Of course from my families experiences the public Education system is exercising bias, bullying, victimisation, vilification, discrimination, fraud and corruption and are conspiring to cover it up.

I will have 3 kids in the non-government school system next year. My family is by no means rich. One by one my kids have had to be taken out of the public system for their own safety and wellbeing because they were being systematically victimised, neglected and bullied year after year whilst everybody looked on. The public system would do nothing to help to protect my children from harm.

It's not money that the public system needs, what they need is to be required and obligated to exercise their duties with integrity and accountability so as to ensure that they do the right thing by the children instead of just looking after themselves.

Education - Keeping them honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better
Posted by Jolanda, Monday, 19 November 2007 3:30:12 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
Linda Graham's article is timely. I have long been concerned about the creeping neglect of the public school system and the Coalition's mantra of "school choice". What has actually been happening is a bleeding of funds away from the public school system into the private sector. What is more disturbing is that many private schools, e.g., the so-called Christian Schools have been teaching such nonsense as Intelligent Design (ID)along with other fundamentalist views and beliefs. In some smaller commmunities the only "high school" conveniently close for parents to enrol their kids is a Christian school, and so the kids get indoctrinated with religious nonsense. Even within the public education sector, there is an urgent need to promote critical thinking amongst school students, as advocated in the post by Foyle. Students should be encouraged always to ask: Why should I believe what I am told? when being taught about various alleged "facts" whether evolution, intelligent design or whatever. There are various websites which provide much useful information on the teaching of critical thinking in the schools. Hopefully this emphasis will help to counter the disturbing rise and rise of fundamentalism in today's complex and divisive society, reflected in George W Bush's incredible statement that God told him to go to war in Irag.
Posted by phenologist, Monday, 19 November 2007 3:34:12 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 best education system" is the one that addresses the human capital of education, i.e., its teachers. Who have to be selected on merit, ability, and teaching methods, on which the education unions will not budge from their "postmodernist" position especially in public schools.

http://australiacalls.blogspot.com
Posted by Themistocles, Monday, 19 November 2007 4:20:55 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
Linda Graham

Your concern that educational choice is denied poorer families is an admirable concern. However, your solution misses the point and cuts off a nose to spite a face. The solution lies in expanding choice to ALL families, not restricting it even more. The Teacher's Union dominated public system is on the nose and most parents do not want a bar of it. This is particularly alarming given that all the public school systems are run by Labor governments, and have enjoyed unprecedented funding increases over the past 7 years.
Posted by Doctor's Wife Luvvie, Monday, 19 November 2007 5:13:16 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
Richard

"Either way research seems to indicate school choice is not what its cracked up to be."

Really? Does this "research" actually persuasively prove, merely "indicate" or imaginatively and fictiously "seem" to "indicate?"

What is school choice "cracked up to be?" And according to whom?

The only indicator of the veracity of school choice is DEMAND. If parents are switching their kids from public to private 20 times faster than the other way round, I think it is pretty clear that what is NOT " its cracked up to be" is the public school system.

An elementary course in Quantitaive Reasoning would have spared you these errors.
Posted by Doctor's Wife Luvvie, Monday, 19 November 2007 5:21:48 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
"The only indicator of the veracity of school choice is DEMAND"

I might as well say that the "the only reason parents put their children into private schools is because of the prestige factor".

Both are equally unsubstantiated and unjustified opinions.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 19 November 2007 6:46:21 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 nothing but propogandist rubbish.

No independent school accepts or rejects children on acedemic or behavioural merit. (with the exception of the one or two selective schools) The schools are meticulous in being fair in the award of places.

The only exception is the scholarship program and the expulsion of extremely difficult children which accounts for less than 1%.

Again the proleteriat poison comes out: "how dare they do better than us, it's not fair. Cut them down to size. bring out the guilotine" etc etc

Choice is the air we breath, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. After the freedom of education is gone which freedom is next.
Posted by Democritus, Monday, 19 November 2007 8:50:47 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 federal government started funding private schools because compared to public schools they were suffering from under-investment. That's still the basic rationale, and the reason that the federal government gives more money to schools who draw their kids from lower SES areas.

I'm always bemused when people say the federal government is doing it to punish or destroy the state system. By spending money on private schools, and by more children going into private schools, they actually increase the resources available to state schools, unless the state governments decide to economise and cut back the amount they allocate to state schools - which they appear to have done.

So let's look at the state governments' performance rather than the commonwealth's - it's where the problem appears to lie.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 19 November 2007 9:41:56 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
True, Graham, however the States can only spend what money they have, for which they are reliant on GST revenue.

Further, I'm not sure we can assume spending money on private schools "increases resources available to state schools".
For a start, if the private schools were suffering underinvestment, then the money going towards them was to correct that problem (lack of resources etc.), NOT to boost their enrolment. Secondly, if the pool of funds that is allocated to all schools is essentially constant, then every dollar put towards private schools is one less dollar put towards state schools. E.g. if the funding split was originally 80%-20%, but then changed to 70%-30%, then private school funding has increased 50%, while state school funding has decreased 12.5%. If the private school funding increase was largely to address underinvestment, and prompts only a small increase in enrolment, it's quite possible that enrolment into state schools drops by considerably less than 12.5%, meaning that there is less money per student available (and further, while having less students obviously somewhat decreases funding requirements, it's certainly not a linear relationship - there would be extra costs associated with downsizing, such as having unused classrooms removed etc., and much of the infrastructure would still cost the same amount to maintain.)
Now, I don't have actual numbers at hand, but my point is that your claim is only true if the numbers back it up.

Lastly, why is it that in most other OECD nations (including the U.S.), government schools are able to cater for the vast majority of the population (~90% in the U.S., vs 66% here), and there is often no or very limited funding of private schools? What makes Australia special?
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 6:26:39 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
It's a peculiar education revolution. It's course is circuitous and, while private and public schooling will always a topic, the issue of choice remains a fundamental right for Australian children.
More serious business, referred to in the article, is the shameful way in which primary schooling in Australia is treated by the fat-cash controllers. As parents we are forced to send our children to a school. Okay.
All primary schools schools offer a similar curriculum. Each, in other words, undertakes to lead children through learning experiences that we believe to be useful for them to undertake.
All major parties, at present, are advocating a fear driven curriculum. If you little folk don't pass our [not your] tests, we will punish you, somehow.
We trust the school, whether it is private or public, but these external forces are very, very overpowering. Eventually, these tests overtake our curriculum. History tells this clearly.
This is very, very serious business: the business of what is inflicted on tender primary-aged children.
If folk want their children to achieve because they are force-fed to pass tests, then so be it. Why not allow those children who are motivated by a desire to learn without fear or ridicule, however, to say that they do not want to do these politically motivated tests? Parents can be told that, if they do not want their children to do the tests, they can simply notify the Principal. Have you, Mum and Dad, tried this ?
What rights do parents have who do not want their children to be graded like eggs [A to F. Why not to Z ?] nor to be used as a measuring stick for others ? This assault on the dignity of over half of the school population in scandalous and immoral.
It's a serious issue, far greater than any other schooling issue at present. While the test movement is certainly in line with the Coalition's thrust to erode the values and spirit of Australians, it seems such a shame that the Opposition is we-tooing on such a large scale.
Filip
Posted by Filip, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 9:29:44 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
Doctor's Wife Luvie. Problem with parents asssement is the their children are experiments of one or two with no controls.

To assess educational outlcomes you have to rely on statistical data. A rational person then makes the decision on probabilities as nothing is certain. Most people I assume who read this type of pubication know the problems humans have in assessing the evidence of their own eyes, eg problem of salience, suggestion etc. Any good book on thinking would illustrate the problem.

PISA is the OECD's program of Program of Interantioanl Student assessment. Well worth looking at for any one interested in commenting on education.
The data about University success: Monash University. Dobson, IR and Skuja, E, Secondary Schooling, Tertiary Entry Ranks and University Performance. People and Place v13 no 1 2005 page 53- 62 or http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/view/issue/?volume=13&issue=1

This is not a unique bit of research. It has been confirmed a few times.
The most comprehensive research on school choice is IS GAINING ACCESS TO SELECTIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS GAINING GROUND?
EVIDENCE FROM RANDOMIZED LOTTERIES
Julie Berry Cullen
Brian A. Jacob
Working Paper 13443
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13443 - available for U$5

The real power of this research is the random allocation of students to "magnet schools". they conclude that chosing makes no differnce

"Not what it's cracked" means that no one can demonstrate choice makes any difference to educational outcomes.

I try not to be too dogmatic. This a prabablistic world and you generally do better if you bet with the odds There is no certainty.

However, "School readiness" is the most best predictor of educational success. The obvoius collorary is school choice is irrelevant.

The point seems to be missed that from available evidence public schools are as good or better than private so why should governments waste money on pandering to parent's desire for a non education advantage for children. ie the old school tie. I would assert the very thing that is perceived as a weakness is the strength of the public education. Kids will learn more and better in the diverse environment and not molly-coddled in private special schools.
Posted by Richard, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 10:51:26 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
Wizofaus, your maths is completely wonky. If you remove children from the state system, but the amount of money available to state schools remains the same, then there is an increase in the per capita funding available. Federal funding is in addition to state school funding, as are the school fees that the parents pay. So, if the state governments had kept their funding constant in real terms there would be more money for state schools, not less, and significantly more money in absolute and relative terms across the whole sector.

But they haven't kept their end of the deal and have been happy to shuffle costs off onto the federal government by under-investing in education.

Not sure where you are going with your argument about the GST. It replaced an ad hoc system of tied Commonwealth grants, and the states were happy to sign-up to it because they got a better deal under it than they were getting before.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 12:31:44 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
Hi Graham,

Your logic makes sense but it doesn't actually work like that. Public schools are funded on an enrolment basis. Declining enrolments are a real problem for the public system because you cannot achieve the same economies of scale as you otherwise would... for example, a school with 300 students gets allocated 9 teachers. A small drop in those enrolments can mean a drop to 8 teachers, which may mean increased class sizes and declining parent satisfaction and so on. Chris Bonnor and Jane Caro go into the economies of scale issue in more depth in their book "The Stupid Country" but one thing to remember is that the public system has other difficulties; ie. difficulty shutting small schools down due to parent backlash etc. If forced to compete with an independent system that is allowed to run the race according to a different set of rules, the public system is effectively running with one leg tied behind its back. In other words, it is not a fair race.

In the end, it boils down to one question: the kind of education we provide for our kids reflects the values of our nation. Is the current situation really what we want? Are we ready to say goodbye to egalitarianism in Australia?

Regards,
Linda
Posted by Linda Graham, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 4:30:36 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
A timely article. And as Linda stated, we should carefully think about how we educate our children impacts on our society.

These debates generally degenerate into a public vs private school slanging match. It's lovely to see so many people very loyal to the schools they chose.

My three children have had experiences, excellent and less so, in both public and private schools. It is a myth that private schools are so much better at delivering good educational outcomes. The best school for your child is the one that has programmes/subjects that are of particular relevance to your child.

This is the only arena where choice should come in and this is one area where choices can be limited to parents based on their ability or willingness to make 'sacrifices'.

Australia must be the only modern Western country where there is such an emphasis on and obsession with 'private' schooling. I've never come across it anywhere else. I often suspect it has more to do with being able to show that one has 'arrived' in society and be able to publicly demonstrate this. The natty uniforms next to mum are a dead give away.

I wonder if school uniforms where no longer required that there would be quite such a run to private schools.
Posted by yvonne, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 6:03:29 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
Petal says the taxpayer could save $2b a year by not funding private schools.

The taxpayer could also save $6b by not funding public schools.

The duty of the state is to educate its children. To do this it needs to establish minimum criteria and provide this for all children. In doing so it provides value for the tax it receives.

Likewise if a parent chooses to educate his child elsewhere, the duty of the state is being performed and there is a subsidy towards this. The detractors of the independent school system say that there should be no subsidy and that if you choose a different path you deserve no value back from the taxes you pay.

The same argument could be applied to the health system. Many doctors charge at the bulk billing rate, but some who might provide additional experience etc charge slightly more. The medicare system pays a standard fee, and the patient pays a premium.

If the same logic were applied, medicare would pay nothing and the patient would pay the full amount.

In both cases the state is paying no more per student / patient, and its responsibilities are being discharged, and both the state and the patient / student are winners.

While there are some parents who cannot afford any more for education, they are a small minority. There are many parents who choose a new car or bigger house over additional funding for education, and I would suspect that most of the detractors fit this mould.

While railing at the private schools and wanting their funding diverted to public schools I guess that they want a better education for their children, but they are just not prepared to pay for it themselves.
Posted by Democritus, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 4:16:35 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
Filip. I agree with you with regard to tests. They control our children by their test results and many of those tests you don't even get to see what they got wrong so basically they can do whatever they want including punish children if their parents speak up or if they do not like them.

We have had issues since the Year 2000 with test results, some schools and external, after I made some public complaints about the neglect of the education of my gifted children.

My two eldest children couldn’t get into Opportunity Class (OC) and Selective High Schools (SHS) despite having measured IQ’s of 161 and 154 on the SB4 and despite being ‘obvious’ very highly gifted children who were obviously many years advanced. They were always getting top marks in tests, even when they did tests years up as the tests were too easy, yet after I complained, as my kids didn’t go to school to get high marks, they went to school to learn, suddenly something started happening to their marks and when they did these Selective School tests they didn’t get enough marks to get in. It was so out of character for them that the kids became confused and upset and they wanted to see what they had done as they thought the marks they got were impossible as the tests were not that difficult. After they missed out twice each I requested documents under FOI and the documents showed alarming evidence of bias, tampering, omissions, deletions, manipulation, changing of test scores, misrepresentation of facts and misconduct. The DET would not investigate the complaints instead they turned it on me. My kids suffered so much from being marked down in class and externally so as to discredit them, they felt humiliated and scared and they feared their tests it impacted significantly on their health. All they wanted to do was learn.
Continued.
Posted by Jolanda, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 6:53:55 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
Then my youngest daughter was sitting for OC in 2004. Given the fact that we knew we were being victimised we requested that she be exempt from sitting the test. She had been identified gifted by the UNSW on the SB4 with a measured IQ of 147 and on the WISC by DET's Psychologist who confirmed her IQ was between 145 and 150. She had been accelerated and started Year 4 at the age of 7. The public comprehensive school put her in a 4/5/6 composite so as to better cater for her needs, as she was an obvious gifted child but the school said that they didn’t’ believe that they would be able to cater for her the next year in Year 5 as she had already been exposed to the curriculum above. So she applied for Opportunity Class. Her school marks presented to the Selective Schools unit by the school was 95% in Maths and 95% in English. She won the presentation day Award for Excellence in Literacy and Numeracy and her report showed her to be ‘beyond stage outcomes’.

We had requested that she be exempt from sitting the test and that she be processed on the basis of her identified needs. The SSU said that if she didn’t sit the test, they wouldn’t process the application. We requested that the persons about whom we complained not be permitted to have anything to do with our daughter’s application. They ignored us and they permitted them to process her application again. She was unsuccessful and lost her appeal. Then it happened again to her for High School. The documents are alarming. They recently did it again to my younger son.

So yes, the system focuses on marks because they can destroy a person by their marks and there is no avenue available to get justice and protection for your children. My children only ever wanted to learn. Sadly I know of other children who have been dealt with the same way and have similar documents produced under FOI.

Education - Keeping them honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better
Posted by Jolanda, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 6:57:25 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
Graham, if you are correct that funding for private schools has not come at the expense of funding for state schools, then yes, I agree that in general the state schools should better off in the long run.
My point was merely that you provided no numbers to back up your claim, which may well be perfectly correct.

BTW, I agree that GST arrangement is an improvement on what came before, although there are still issues with the way taxpayers moneys are allocated to the states. Nor sure if you saw this article in The Age recently: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/its-a-federal-election-on-state-issues/2007/11/19/1195321692331.html
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 7:48:23 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
All I can say to jolanda about not getting into selective schools is that the research is clear that kids actually do better in non selective schools in the longer run. Pooh pooh that if you must but it remains true. Ricky ponting went to Brooks High School in Tasmania. It has barely any cricket facilies an now he is captain of Australia. It has not got 17 turf pitches as Kings School is reputed to have. Brooks is about the lowest socio economic school in Tas. My kids went there an all achieve TE scores of 97- 99. I my kids can achieve at a state school Ricky Ponting can rise to the top why are parents so worried that their kids can not hack it. They are better off mixing it.

Why should the state subsidise parents to spend more on an inferior education? 10% of parents would send their kids to private schools without subsidy so the subsidy encourages 20% to go private. So all the savings calculations should be done with that in mind. also we know that private school take less that their fair share of special needs kids so all costing should be done on what it costs to educate similar kids to the same level. The average kid takes less than the average amount to educate. see senate select committee.

the argument really is not about private v public but about selective/exclusive v inclusive. Private usually rates a good mention because the lack ofmoney automatically excludes.

As well as my previous references see Win and Miller2005 Australian economic record v38 N1 pp 1-8
or Birch, Determinants of students teriary academic success productivity commission 2004
Posted by Richard, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 2:59:16 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
Wizofaus, if funding to schools has decreased, it has to be because of the states. Federal funding has increased significantly. This text is taken from the former Prime Minister's web page.

"All schools are getting more money from the Australian Government. Funding for state schools has risen in every Budget with an estimated increase of 118.0% since 1996. The Government will provide an estimated $33 billion for Australian schools over the 2005-08 funding period – an increase of $12.1 billion over the previous four years." If you google it you can view it on google's cache, but Rudd has sin-binned the former PM's web pages so you can't view it on the actual site.

Linda, the states don't need to fund schools on an enrolment basis, or if they do, they can adjust upwards to take account of the fact that parents and the commonwealth are sharing some of their burden.

The arguments about economies of scale sound like just an assertion to me. You'd need some pretty comprehensive economic modelling to prove to me that this holds water. As the state system is larger than the private, economies of scale would prima facie appear to be on the state side.

I don't think you fix inequality by penalising some, and I don't think it's possible to. If you took funding away from private schools, you wouldn't stop private education, you'd just restrict it to the very rich and make it more exclusive.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 29 November 2007 9:38:18 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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