Yes, the logic is simple: heavily subsidise private schools and wealthier parents will tend to send their kids there. Because wealthier kids have better opportunities to learn and are generally better behaved, teachers can spend more time teaching and less on crowd control, and get better outcomes. So what?

All your article shows is that if you throw enough money at something it usually gets better. Interestingly, private school children don't seem to do better at Uni, so something must be wrong with the elite indoctrination system -- better throw some more money at it. Meanwhile teachers and kids in the public system are struggling along on the smell of an oily rag, and the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. Gee, I wonder why?

'While a certain amount of regulation and oversight is warranted, it should be clear that what is being envisaged will overwhelm non-government schools with the type of intrusive, byzantine and costly regulation currently forced on government schools and guaranteed to stifle independence.'

Well, the solution is pretty simple. Don't take any money from the government and you can be truly independent. Most of us like to have our cake and eat it too, but we realise that isn't possible.

All the bargaining tools are there at your disposal. You have the power to bargain for less intrusions and proportionally less money. Or, you can ask for more money, and accept more intrusions.

The governmnet provides a schools. Parents who decide those schools aren't good enough forgo any entitlements to any funding at all. This is their choice, and that is the consequences. These private schools can minimise that pesky governmnet regulation in proportion to the handouts they receive.

I fear not the private school students coming back to the public system. For a start, people choose a school based on their perceptions of the quality of the school and the status. Most would not change their decision if the governmnet funded the school less, but some would not be able to afford the increased fees. So be it.

Anyway, I think if private schools want to lobby for more money, they should lobby the ridiculously rich private schools to do the Christian thing and help out the less well off private schools. That way they could sure up the market share for their particular faith and distributing the public money to poorer schools within their belief system.

'Private' schools, by definition, shouldn't get any money from the government.

Why do private school kids still do worse at Uni?
Back in my day it was thought to be due to attitude and "spoon feeding". Sure they got good VCE scores, but did they learn how to learn?
In my experience they had a "its not what you know but who", and in their minds they were going straight to management...only plebs needed "hands on" skills. The same attitude is reflected in big business culture. "Soft skills" (politics) are considered more valuable than "hard skills" (productivity).
My main issue with Catholic schools is that religion should never be allowed near kids. Let them develop thinking skills before dumping illogic on them.
Let private be private and public public. Enough of the Orwellian double-speak and lame excuses for handouts.

I have seen some organisations where the staff were lazy, incompetent, smug & self satisfied, but none of them prepared me for the sheer ineptitude of our local high school. I was assured that this large [1400 to 1700 students] near country high was one the better ones before I bought my home.

I would have ripped my kids out of it if I had been able, financially, but as I wasn't, we tried to improve things.

In the 12 years I was an office bearer in the P&C we rarely saw a teacher, except when one wanted some money. These were welcome, as they were at least trying to do something other than go through the motions.

This was different to the senior maths & physics teachers who could not have passed the coursers they were supposed to be teaching, but made no effort to improve their ability.

My wife established for the P&C, a school text book hire scheme. This not only saved the parents money, & helped some kids get books, it injected $170,000 into the school budget each year.

Would you believe that we had to chase, continually, the heads of department for information on their requirements? We had to have our budget done, & orders for next years books placed by the end of September each year. These senior staff could not get into their head that some things have to be done in a timely manner. With some of them it would have required an act of parliament, & a large bulldozer to push them into any form of activity.

That any taxpayer should be forced to pay for these homes of ineptitude, & not get some of their taxes contributing to their kids education in a better system would be immoral.

govt in its wisdom..

dosnt pay unemployment/benifits to those working
dosnt send healthy/to hospitals
dont send winter-clothing to desert dweller's

i fail to see/the poor-me..
to the elites...in private-schools

govt is formed..to care/for..the less well-off
instead..its great at subsidising the rich
giving land-grants to farmers/miners/loggers

subsidies for the very well-off..multinational..medi-sin-al..drug-cartels...
even massive/subsidies for the auto-industry..etc

it neatly got rid..of death-DUTIES
not that that affected..the elites..
with their wealth/stashed,,in familly-trust's

burdend the poor with..tax on wages
[when it can only tax income..NOT wage]
gave the poor a gst..and soon a car-bon/tax

enough is enough...govts fund govt schools
private can fund..their own education

im over the poor-me...of those who want/it all
stealing from the dis-advantaged/exploited..abused/oppressed

just so they can do their..collusive deceit..upon the ignorant

its time..we lost all govt largess..to the wealthy
no fuel-subsidies..to industry/miners/farmers

let the user/especially abusers..pay
we cop minimum...acces/charges..to phone/electicy/water

and the big-users/resourse-abusers are subsidised by the spendthrift/pensioner/wage-earner..tax payer

enough is enough...
the elites get decent ratios..teacher/student
teachers get generouse-wage..and the public/teachers get the shaft

we see much the same with docters/nurses..
in public/private hospitals

enough is enough..[too much]

i fail to see/how..you can sleep at night

poor you

Close all non government schools. It is divisive and elitist.
The government has a duty to provide a public school place for every Australian child under our compulsory education laws. That is all they should provide.

Given that only 15% of university graduates are from non selective public schools or less than a third of those from independent schools, whilst still educating the same number of kids, this would imply that the chance of a child with the same ability getting into university is higher at an independent school.

Considering that it costs the state less per independently educated child, it is money well spent.

I don't believe that private schools
should be supported equally with state
schools unless private schools lower
their fees. They can't have it both
ways. They can't insist on government
funding while continuing
to increase their student fees.
While state schools have to rely only
on government funding to barely survive.

"Interestingly, private school children don't seem to do better at Uni, so something must be wrong with the elite indoctrination system -- better throw some more money at it."

what's the evidence for this?

What time period is this over?

Urban myth .. (a consensus of whiners does not make it fact)

Sounds like the usual school of envy at work, or just completely made up bullshyte, the type you hear when a bunch of whiners get together to bleat about someone being better off.

Here's a statement you probably hear all the time fellas "you should have studied harder shouldn't you!"

Give every parent a certificate of value for each child they have and let them invest it at the school of their choice. Let's see where it ends up.

Many people seem to forget that even if a parent chooses a private school, they are still taxpayers, Australians and ENTITLED to a fair share, as fair as a parent whose kid is in a public school.

These articles about the haves and have-nots bring out all the poisonous envy we see all the time from the likes of the unions and ALP .. class warfare.

Your kid is not missing out if he goes to a public school, and a kid who goes to a private school is most likely there because their parents are missing out, so their kid can attend.

Mind you, most of the usual whiners are here as usual, the sniff of anyone doing well or differently is too much to bear.

It is the governments duty to fund education, it is not their duty to divide it up to please the bitterness of some of the community.

"It is divisive and elitist." what is divisive is the rants of class warriors of the socialist bent trying to make out that anything but a socialist flattening out of everything is evil .. it's not, socialism is evil though.

What's wrong with elitism?

Is it a crime?

Whining constantly should be treated, not as a crime, but certainly as a symptom of depression.

'Many people seem to forget that even if a parent chooses a private school, they are still taxpayers, Australians and ENTITLED to a fair share, as fair as a parent whose kid is in a public school.'

Rubbish. They forgo their entitlement voluntarily when they CHOOSE not to go to a governmnet funded school. There is nothing stopping them from doing this.

Besides, just because you pay tax doesn't mean you're entitled to get it all back.

If you want the best from your tax dollars, send your kids to a public school. You might even save $20k every year that could go toward a nice deposit on a house for your kids when they start university. Maybe you could use all the extra money for a private tutor.

The choices are endless!

Secularist are slow learners and still in denial. With all the extra funding that State schools get their amoral philosophies have proved a failure. People have and are voting with their feet. It would be interesting to see how many State school teachers send their kids to private schools. I have known a number and yet very few if any private school teachers send their kids to state schools. I wonder why!

"They forgo their entitlement voluntarily when they CHOOSE not to go to a governmnet funded school."

rubbish, why do they forgo their entitlement?

Is it because you personally don't like it?

No of course they don't and it is self evident, private schools DO GET government funding, or as it is also known, taxpayer funding.

Why would anyone forgo their entitlement? Whi is going to take it off them?

What a ridiculous notion, to want that is just plain mean .. of the school of thought "I don't like it or agree with it, therefore you shall not have it"

Also of the socialist school of thought, "everyone must be exactly the same" to which society replies, "no, I decide what I do and where I spend, therefore I can have it that way, it is the government's duty to comply .. and they DO! YAY!"

If you want to shut private schools down, then the government would have to build a lot more schools to accommodate the students currently in that system .. so the money that would be needed to pay for that, is currently being invested in .. wait for it .. private schools!

oxymoron of the day "If you want the best from your tax dollars, send your kids to a public school." That'll keep me going all weekend now, LOL .. toodles!

'oxymoron of the day "If you want the best from your tax dollars, send your kids to a public school." That'll keep me going all weekend now, LOL .. toodles!'

What I'm saying is that you know that the governmnet funds public schools more than it does private. If you are upset that the private schools get less money, and you think it's 'unfair', you are perfectly entitled to move your kids to a public school in order to have more of your tax dollars spent on your needs.

If you choose not to send your kids to public schools, you are choosing to forgo your entitlement to governmnet expenditure that the public schools receive. Pretty simple really.

The fact that the government has provided public schools, but you have decided not to make use of the service, means you forgo any entitlement. Happily for you, it suits the government to entice and support you in order to relive the burden on public schools, and save it unpopular tax increases. But that's hardly an entitlement, and if and when it suits the governmnet not to fund your school, you always have the CHOICE of that nasty public school if you don't like the extra fees.

'Is it because you personally don't like it?'
I just don't see the need.

Interesting to see that a lot of opinions are clearly "yes" or "no" for public funding of non-government schools.

What I have said before and I will say again is that I have no problem with public funding of non-government schools as long as they need the funding. There are some well-resourced private schools that charge high fees and have everything that a school could want yet there are some government schools that are not as well resourced (and yes, I know there are also well-resourced government schools).

Also, do the figures that get reported here and everywhere include all the income that non-government schools receive through other fees, funding drives or donations?

And, if as the author says:
"It should also never be forgotten that those parents who send their children to non-government schools, a right that is protected by international conventions and agreements, in addition to school fees, pay taxes that support a system they do not use."

Am I right in understanding that the author is implying that just because someone pays taxes for something that they don't use that they should receive government funding for something that they actually use?

If that were the case, then if I don't use hospitals or national parks can I get a subsidy for things that I do use? Taxis come to mind...

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Why should private schools not receive any funding from Government?

Government schools take in many students who are not Christian, which in turn, reduces government class sizes that non-christian school students benefit from in a number of ways.

Further, if one took all the privately educated students out of the private systems, government schools would be bursting at the seams, enforcing most parents to pay astronomical fees anyway.

Look at the broad picture and face the reality that the private systems/schools' have been doing most non-christian educated kids and their families a favour for generations.

Another poster stated that there are less privately educated students making or attending university. The point? Where are the figures for this statement [am interested] and if true, why a negative, when privately educated students may be either delaying their studies for one or two years after finishing year 12 [relatives in my family and friends kids who did this a few years ago], along with many kids who have completed Apprenticeships in their chosen fields.

After attending a large family 'do' on the weekend catching up with first cousins children in their twenties, most of these had been privately educated and have completed Apprenticeships or half way through Uni, a couple working in mines, some own businesses etc.

Both public and private system educated kids equally contribute to our economy regardless of whether 'University' educated.

Maybe we should turn this around.

Given that independent school pupils cost the state about 60% of the cost of public school students, and about 75% of the independent schools would close if subsidies were withdrawn, withdrawing subsidies would:

-Force the government to spend hundreds of billions on capital to fund the extra places,
-Having spent the money, the annual cost to the states will be higher,
-The average quality of education will be lower,
-Parents will have lost the choice as to how to educate their kids.

Based on this has anyone got more than a fuzzy ideal of equality to justify removing subsidies?

I really do love the concept that "All -people- are created equal..."
What a shame it is all so much crap.
Wouldn't it be nice if every kid was allowed at least an equal start in life? What happens after that should be entirely up to the individual, but is it so wrong to think in any race or contest(as all life inevitably is) everyone should start at the same line?
The author's argument that a steady flow of students from public to private schools justifies giving more money to the latter is really putting the horse before the cart. Most of those parents are taking their kids out of public schools because they are underfunded, and yes, in many cases, badly run.
If 'advantaged' kids didn't have a 'get out of jail free' card, then I'm pretty sure the government schools would have to lift their game.
In fact, we don't have to guess; we just have to look at recent history. In my day, public schools were much more comparable (in fact, often superior) to private ones.
The movement of 'economic rationalism' and privatisation has led us down the wrong path. If you know you are going the wrong way, why push ahead?
Some Human Rights should be inviolable and universal. Among these rights should be the right to education and health care, equal to the very best. Let all the children have the right to achieve their full potential.
The fact that it is Christians, of all people, arguing against this fundamental right makes me sick.
I don't think Jesus was placing himself in the role of private school Principal when he said "suffer the little children to come unto me".

Kevin Donnelly has a great knack of creating something very readable by stringing together a succession of generalizations, diversions and what are really half truths.

It’s all there: private schools save public money (oh so THAT’S the purpose of education!) – government selective schools are also exclusive (true - but diversionary) – Catholic schools are better for disadvantaged kids (show us, Kevin).

He is concerned that non-government schools might “lose control of who they enrol” – yet he repeats and relies on flawed generalizations about schools created, not by their alleged achievement, but by their enrolment profile.

My favourite is his reference to Jennifer Buckingham’s claim that private schools produce better citizens – apparently based on polling which takes no account of who actually enrols at different schools in the first place.

But in repeating claims that the community profile of Catholic schools is the same as government schools he runs up against two problems. The first is that census data doesn’t support such an assertion. But forget about the ABS, Donnelly is really contradicting statements made by Cardinal Pell http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/people/archbishop/addresses/2006/2006928_17.shtml

I’d have to say that when it comes to choices I’d have to back George over Kevin

>>> -Force the government to spend hundreds of billions on capital to fund the extra places >>>

And employ more teachers, improve on capital works, provide additional funding for a wider curriculum - all this for low to middle income people's children.

>>> -Having spent the money, the annual cost to the states will be higher <<<

How? The States would benefit from public schooling receiving the subsidies normally handed to private-for-profit schools.

>>>-The average quality of education will be lower, <<<

Evidence please. If public schools received all the funding, teachers would be better paid and able to provide a comprehensive curriculum.

>>> -Parents will have lost the choice as to how to educate their kids. <<<

No. People who can afford the fees can still choose to send their children to private-for-profit schools.

Meanwhile MY taxes and the taxes of others go to benefit all children who have the right to high quality education - not just the religious (one has to question the 'quality' of teaching religious dogma) or the wealthy.

In the 80s, our uni's professor commented that non-govt students at this uni didn't perform as well as their govt school counterparts in the first year. Why?

He suggested some possible reasons...
* the non-govts had been 'spoon-fed' academically in their final year of secondary school
* they had been marshalled from class to class and didn't have the time management skills etc to adjust to uni's more self-directed style of learning
* they more commonly came from single sex schools and the uni's mixed sex environment (and all its opportunities) was a bit of an adjustment for some (goodbye 1st year)

Year 2, 3 and beyond
The non-govt students reached parity and I think he said they preformed slightly better their final year.

So what to make of it? There was very little in the earlier 'dip' down nor in the later 'pip' up. So let's just let a person's results speak for themselves and quit the stereotyping.

Severin,

Obviously maths isn't your strong point.

If the subsidy is removed, ignoring the huge public spend to create the places, the cost of educating the pupils from the closure of the 75% of lower cost independent schools that would not be financially viable would be higher than the subsidies paid for all the independent schools.

The state would have higher running costs for the same standards, and there would be less money for upgrading public schools.

The government that did this would be run out on a rail. Labor knows it.

Shadow Minister

Apart from attempting to flame me - you do not even bother to research your claims.

http://www.adogs.info/Statistics%2016.htm

>> Saves money? A further rationale for the increased public funding for non-government schools arising from the SES scheme was that it would save public money overall, when

funding from all Commonwealth and State sources was taken into account. This kind of justification for public funding of private schools has a long history in the politics of

Australian education, based on the assumption that State governments, in particular, would reduce their funding commitments for public schools, including through school

closures, when significant numbers of students moved from public schools to the private sector.



But the political and financial realities are quite different from this theoretical assumption. In 2006, for example, some 200,000 additional students were enrolled in

non-government schools compared with the 1996 level. Had these 200,000 students been accommodated instead in public schools over this decade, this would have required

additional public funding of around $2 billion. Over that same period, however, the real increase in public funding for these same students, in the non-government sector, was

more than $3 billion4, mostly provided by the Commonwealth. In other words, governments funded the additional non-government school students by $1 billion more

than would have been required for the equivalent number of students in fully publicly funded government schools.



DOGS note that it has taken billions and billions of taxpayer dollars ( a projected $9.5 billion federal funding for sectarian schools and only $3.1 billion for public schools) to encourage parents to divert their children into sectarian institutions in Australia. They have been sold a lemon, encouraged to part with more and more of their hard earned money on school fees, placing their homes at the mercy of debt collectors. Meanwhile, the choice of a free, secular and universal education is being lost, particularly in developing areas on the outskirts of our large cities. <<

Source: http://www.adogs.info/pr391.htm

Cont'd

Cont'd

>> THE FEATURES OF A SCHOOL OR SCHOOL SYSTEM WHICH CAN CORRECTLY BE CALLED "PUBLIC"

The school or school system, to be a public one must be :

Public in purpose,
Public in benefit
Public in access ( for pupils, teachers and administrators and citizens)
Public in control
Public in ownership
Public in accountability
Public in provision ( No public/private partnerships or private finance initiatives)
Public in funding

These are all essential characteristics of the free, secular, compulsory and universal system of education which we have inherited from our nineteenth century forebears. If any of these characteristics are compromised, then the public system itself is compromised.

Why is it so important to reiterate these essentials at this time in our Australian history?

Because our public systems are under threat, not only from an aggressive, well funded private system - but also from persons who claim to support public education yet who are willing to compromise some of these essential underpinnings of a strong public system.

Source: http://www.adogs.info/definition.html

Further reading:

>> Queensland State school students are placed in Religious Instruction according to the faith or denomination provided, as an option, within their enrolment documentation.

It is a fact, acknowledged in 2007 by Education Queensland, that beyond 80% of parents across the State have chosen not to disclose a faith or denomination in the space provided on enrolment forms.

Since the vast majority of Queensland children in this category can not be positively identified as "members of a religious denomination or society”, it follows, according to the Education Act, that the school principal must not allow them to attend Religious Instruction without parental “written consent”—these students are, by statute, required to opt-in to, rather than opt-out of, Religious Instruction.

Yet, throughout Queensland, more often than not the Education Act—the law—is being ignored. Children of undisclosed faith or lack of faith are being placed in Christian Religious Instruction—often nothing other than evangelical Christian worship—as the ‘default option’. <<

Source: http://www.thefourthr.info/

The fact remains that until the Government can improve conditions at public high schools in particular, any parent who is not situated near one of the rare good public schools, and who can afford it, will send their kids to a private school.

Religious classes once a week are a small price to pay for a better education, smaller classes, more pleasant environment, and more effective disciplinary measures that are hallmarks of a private school education.

If I had kids again in the right age group I would not hesitate to send them to a private school again.

The truthful fact remains that very disruptive kids (usually having come from disruptive homes) are not tolerated at private schools, so anyone who wants a more productive education for their child will try to get them into a private school.

Until the Government schools address the behaviour problems endemic in public schools, nothing will change.

Yet, throughout Queensland, more often than not the Education Act—the law—is being ignored. Children of undisclosed faith or lack of faith are being placed in Christian Religious Instruction—often nothing other than evangelical Christian worship—as the ‘default option’. <<

Source: http://www.thefourthr.info/

Hi Severin, I can see the odd validated point you raise prior to this one and in part, am able to understand your annoyance relating to how you view your taxes being wasted on the private education system's children. For instance, there are areas whereby my taxes have been distributed into projects/things that may not, on the surface, appear to benefit my children or self.

I think outside the square, and realise that on many occasions, our taxes are spent on quite a few positive projects and ventures benefiting our school children, who are our future 'doctors, nurses, paramedics, teachers, law enforcement officers, tradespeople/all employed Australians, regardless of whether or not students are educated within the public system or private systems.

The source Salecich, J., 2001. Chaplaincy in Queensland State Schools: An Investigation. Thesis, (PHD). University of Queensland was conducted 9 or 10 years ago Severin. Further it was a Thesis from one individual not a study that was conclusive/factual.

Are there any recent studies into claims that students have been unlawfully receiving religious instruction within public schools, without their parents' prior consent over the past 7 years? I ask for a few reasons.

My Daughter was educated in the public system, and never received religious instruction during her educational years.

However, I strongly disagree that any educational system should be giving religious instruction to students without prior consent of their parents. It goes without saying, apart from being unlawful for obvious reasons, that most people undoubtedly are able to fathom [brainwashing kids with certain types of religious instruction and abusing both the rights of parents and their children], there would exist, in future, the concerns of various types of religious instructions, in addition to Christian based faiths, inflicted upon young children ie young,innocent victims.

Severin,

You must be kidding! ADOGS is an organisation that specifically tries to undermine the funding of independent schools by quoting selective excised statistics, and unbiased sources such as the unions.

It would be like quoting a Catholic organisation as an unbiased source on abortion.

The majority of independent funding is federal, the majority of public school funding is state based. If you quote only federal funding, then surprise surprise, the independent schools get more.

There are site including government sites that supply information and analysis on funding, and if you look at the total funding, there is no dispute that the funding per pupil is lower at independent schools.

Amicus

"These articles about the haves and have-nots bring out all the poisonous envy we see all the time from the likes of the unions and ALP .. class warfare"

What is illegitimate about a discussion about the distribution of income and opportunity? What is wrong with class politics? When was the last time that you heard an ALP figure talking about the workers?

I just love the class aspect of this issue.

Hear Hear Severin.
suzeonline, clearly you want what's best for your children, as all decent parents do.
Isn't Democracy -and the concepts of equality and egality- a weird and wonderful thing?
I for one find it very easy to say "I am no better than anyone else, and no one else is better than me". It's very much harder to say "and my child is no better (or more deserving) than any other child..."
Like you, I want the very best world for my children. I want them to have a world of maximum liberty, recognising that Liberty, like all other precious resources, is strictly limited. The more liberty one person takes, the less there is for everyone else.
The most 'liberated' people on the planet are sociopaths. They are free to do whatever they want, to whomever they want, with absolute disregard for anyone's freedom but their own.
In wanting the best for our children, we as parents have to decide whether this is best accomplished by getting the best for all children, or giving our own children the best, in comparison to other children.
After all, where would the fun be in being rich, if no one was poor?
As long as wealthy parents can opt out of the system, nothing will change.
BTW, as I recall when I was at (public) school in the Mountains, Blue Mountains Grammar had a lot of kids who had been expelled from other schools.
Isn't that more in keeping with our 'user pays' or 'do the crime, do the time' system?
If parents can't or won't control their children or teach them proper respect, why not make them pay for their children's education?

We're all getting off the topic.

The main point of the article is that private schools want all the governmnet money without any of that pesky government interference.

One glaring example of this is being able to reject students based on their behaviour, something governmnet schools aren't allowed to do. I think it's only fair if you want governmnet money, you are no longer 'private', so you must lose some of your autonomy.

Besides, there is plenty of rich private schools with a strong Christian ethic that will be happy to fund the less well off catholic schools. I've heard Christians are very charitable, and if governmnet funding is reduced, I've got no doubt the rich Catholic schools will donate lots of money to the poor ones to keep them afloat.

So, there's the solution. If you are happy to accept more regulation, you can have more money. If you want private schools to actually BE private, well, you can rely on your charitable brethren.

SM

I never expected you to further investigate the links I gave - ADOGS have many links to evidence for their claims. And good reason to promote fair and equitable education for all irrespective of income or religion - another point that escapes you regardless of the plethora of evidence provided by many at this forum.

Also you never answered my question regarding your claim that State Governments would be financially disadvantaged, if the Federal Government invested more in public schools than Private-for-Profit Schools. You then blithely proceeded to insult my ability at maths instead. Logic please. You have no idea what my abilities are, but here's a hint, I have a degree in Applied Science. Of course, you will not be deleted for flaming - so you have nothing to fear.

To all, I have focussed upon the term 'Private-for-Profit' schools for good reason - seems some of you have managed to miss that term. There are excellent not-for-profit schools that specialise in teaching disabled or other specialist programs such as arts or science based curriculums. This does bring into question religion based schools, as no single religion can prove it is the one single truth, perhaps a prerequisite would be the teaching of comparative religions in order to qualify for government assistance.

Suzeonline

Religious classes that encompass ALL religious beliefs is not an issue. The teaching of only one religion is a massive price to pay, given the world wide problems we have today because of religious zealotry, only this morning I was listening to radio broadcasts about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict based on each side claiming God given right to a variety of landmarks in Jerusalem and other landscapes of human viewed significance. I could list many, many more horrific conflicts due to religious division, but I am sure you get my point.

Grim

Thank you for taking the time to read and try to understand my posts, I will try harder to be more concise in order that others cannot claim to misunderstand what I am trying to say, which is simply this:

Private Schools are being funded to the detriment of public schools - this is inequitable for a self-proclaimed egalitarian nation that Australia likes to believe it is.

The above was part of my original post but due to 350 word constraint had no choice but to add this final part as a new post.

Democracy is not everything for all, weather they want it or not. Its of, by & for the majority, giving the best for least. That means we should not waste time & money on those with no Hope

To make schools work is not that hard, really.

First bring back proper streaming, so those who want to can learn at the best rate.

Bring back real discipline, so those who don't want to learn will not cause so much trouble.

Bring in many courses like mechanical & wood work, with more in school apprenticeships for the less academic.

Chuck out the no hope dills. On the scrap heap if necessary, it's where they're going anyway.

Chuck out 25% of the most useless teachers. They do nothing for anyone except themselves.

Chuck out all ex teachers from education departments around the country.

Bring in private sector managers, with the ability to sack.

We would get rid of the sheltered workshop for dud teachers, & just may be get some work happening.

"Chuck out the no hope dills. On the scrap heap if necessary, it's where they're going anyway."
Chuck them where, precisely? Botany Bay? Uh, hand on a minute, I think...
I think there are more than enough jobs that need doing, for everyone to be gainfully employed.
Possibly even CPA's and lawyers..

Hi Severin

One other point I wish to raise in all fairness: the Catholic system does set assignments and work in class on alternative religions; Buddhism Hinduism and others. My son was given at least four different religions to research and write about each year through high school. Primary school ditto.

Back to the point regarding funding and equality.

You do realise that each state varies according to the funding received by private schools from government Severin?

Annual difference. Scraps to some, zilch some years, a small percentage other years.

One school many years ago did not receive their small percentage given that State government's financial situation at the time, which led to all the fundraising performed by parents in order for disability infrastructure implemented, along with extensions and buildings added, to support the growing numbers of the population flocking to book their kids into private schools ie the catholic schools.

These kids would otherwise have been attending public schools, the numbers up into their 40's by now, with teachers inundated, crime worse, lack of quality teaching and a total lack of control within public school classroom and school environments; the list endless.

Friends with families from both, two at present are taking their kids out of the public system and paying the extras to place them in the private system given the additional programs and discipline.

Further, new concepts and innovative preparational courses are about to commence in many catholic high schools giving students [both Catholic and non-Catholics] an advantage for both university and Tafe; funded by parents.

'funded by parents'

Good Idea too. A child's educational resources should be determined by the wealth of the parents at their school. If poor parents don't care enough about their kids to sell chocolates after their late cleaning shift at the hospital, why should rich parents be disadvantaged.

Severin <"Private Schools are being funded to the detriment of public schools - this is inequitable for a self-proclaimed egalitarian nation that Australia likes to believe it is."

We will have to agree to disagree on this!

The Government does not give as much public money to private schools do they? The Catholic school my daughter went to has many kids who go there whose parents don't have to pay fees at all, due to hardship, yet they still want their kids schooled there.

Aren't private schools meant to get most of their funds from larger school fees and their own organization's funds than from the Government?

Don't most of us contribute to the Government coffers by our taxes? Why then are you suggesting that children in public system schools are worse off?
Shouldn't all children in our country get the same amount of funding by our Government?
Are private school kids any less worthy because most of their parents (like us) scrimped and saved hard to pay the higher school fees?

Many parents don't care a damn where their kids go to school as long as they don't have to pay a cent towards it. Why attack those of us who are willing to pay for our kids to go to a school we care about?

Schools are a micro-chasm of the wider community. Are you suggesting we don't deserve a choice of where we send our kids to school?

At the end of the day, we all have choices in life. It may not always seem fair, but that is the way life is, and our kids have to learn that as well.

Severin,

To make it simple, try this model:

100 schools 50 public 50 independent.
public schools funded at $10 000 p.a.
independent schools funded at $7000 p.a.

Total state running costs $850 000 p.a.

Withdraw the subsidies - Result 40 independent schools close
Result 90 public schools and 10 private schools

Total state running costs $900 000 p.a.

Additional cost to the state, the purchase of land and construction of 40 schools.

Granted that the funding arrangements are more complex than the model, however, the overall result is the same. The schools that would close would be the independent schools in the less affluent areas, restricting private education to only the wealthy.

Having trawled through the insubstantial links on ADOGS, it appears to me to be a one man band. At least it has cleaned its act up a bit and is not so fraught with spelling and other errors. However, its content remains cut and paste from various left wing green or union sources and contains little to no analysis of its own.

I have also seen websites "proving" that 9/11 was manufactured. Until I see a complete analysis attempted by this website rather than echoing excised snippets, I cannot take it seriously.

Try:

http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PolicyBriefs_Dowling07.pdf

Independent schools get about 22% of student funding, but educate about 33% of the pupils.

SM

What part of 'Private-for-Profit schools are not entitled to government funding be it Federal or state', don't you get? All you have done is try to denigrate an organisation which presents how government funding for schools is distributed - else no-one would know.

I have made a case in favour of not-for-profit private schools in my previous posts. The only schools I am excluding are those which make a profit from fees and government subsidy for what results in marginally little return. By 'return' I mean that public school educated children go on to excel in universities and careers, despite all the 'bells and whistles' our government provides through subsidising private schools.

State Governments would be advantaged, as they would only need to aid State Schools - I do believe this is why they are called State Schools.

Like many private industries, private schools are in fact in receipt of government welfare at the expense of the tax payer.

I don't mind my taxes going to organisations which benefit the greater good, such as NGO's, transition to self sufficient technology, the EPA and much more which does not have a direct impact on me.

For reasons which should be obvious even to you, I, as do many others, object to our tax dollars being used to support private enterprise.

Suzeonline

While I frequently find myself in agreement with you, this is the exception, I guess. I am on a low income, yet my taxes help your choice in private education for your children - that hurts.

'Withdraw the subsidies - Result 40 independent schools close'

That's a massive assumption. They can up their fees, and 10-20% of the student base who cant or don't want to afford it may leave. Or else they'll just scrimp and save more. The school needn't close. As Suze says, those parents are happy to scrimp and save as they believe they are getting value for money and they like the status private schools bring to them.

If they're religious schools under threat, naturally richer religious schools of the same denomination will step in to support them to save them from closing too.

Anyway, the government should provide an education for all, and if it costs more, so be it. That's what taxes are for.

Currently the governmnet is deliberately under-funding public schools in the hope even more parents will get jack of it and take their kids out, giving the government the chance to spend even less.

If they do it badly for long enough, people will expect public schools to be only for the very dregs of society. Then our taxes will be lower, and we'll all be happy with paying 20K a year for what the governmnet should provide, and spend our time feeling high and mighty that we're 'good parents' who 'are willing to pay for our kids to go to a school we care about' by 'scrimping and saving'.

If the poor people of the world cant be bothered scrimping and saving 20k a year for their kids education, they can send them to the ghetto public schools.

What we need is a society where both parents work as much as possible, rarely see their kids, and are stressed out and unhappy in order for kids to know their parents cared enough to send them to a prestigious private school.

"At the end of the day, we all have choices in life. It may not always seem fair, but that is the way life is, and our kids have to learn that as well."

Is this the attitude Christian schools are teaching these days?

The Supreme Court of the United States in 1952 determined that segregation by race is inherently unequal. Since then there have been vast changes in the United States. I visit Tidewater Virginia occasionally since my son is a professor at William and Mary. That area has undergone tremendous changes since WW2. After the war there was real apartheid. Most restaurants and hotels would not let black people in. Those that did were for blacks only. Schools were segregated by race. When public facilities were first desegregated whites would cluster together and blacks would cluster together. Now one can see people of different races mingling and having a good time together.

It has cost money. Black schools in general had inferior facilities. Integration had great opposition since bigoted people did not want their children mixing with children of another colour. Horrors! They might even get friendly and marry them. I don’t see that segregation by religion is essentially different.

I am from the United States and was shocked when I came here to find that non-public schools are funded by taxpayers. It is illegal in the US. Private schools are private. If parents want to send their children to a private school run by a religious group that should be their right, but I see no reason taxpayers should fund it.

Separation of children by religion is inherently unequal. It is unnecessary for education or the promotion of religion. The United States is a more religious country than Australia. If the public school system represents a broader range of children their parents will be an effective lobby for better public school funding. Let religious education in the schools be religious education, not indoctrination where religious opinion is taught as truth. Let students learn about the different beliefs that people have. They can be indoctrinated in church, synagogue, mosque or temple if parents want it.

In Australia there are school systems for Muslims, another for Jews, another for Catholics etc. Go to school together, work together, live together for a better Australia.

Hallelujah, brother David! Let the sunshine in.
(much as it grieves me to give credit to a bloody seppo).

I love how you misinterpret peoples statements Houllebecq. "Status" was not a term, innuendo or connotation that Suze used at all. I notice you refer to this term via your posts elsewhere. Interesting assumption yet wrong for many of the parents I associate with through private system[s]; most of whom do not care a fig about "status" or are "snobs" as you referred to in a previous post.

How many parents of privately educated kids over the years have you really known well Houllebecq; few I would say, if your remarks are anything to go by.

How do you know if parents have some children educated in both private systems and public systems. I know many parents over the years who have deliberately, for one reason or another, placed their kids in both. Blows out the "status" or "snob" theory Houllebecq.

Sure, there are parents who are insecure in their dispositions and under the false impression, that private schools will give themselves and their children "status" or a greater station in life; any one grounded who mixes in the real world, knows that this is a load of rubbish.

Btw, I used to come across the odd parents and families that sent their kids to boarding schools who came across as a tad on the snobbery side until I made the effort to know them. All of the pretentious and status type of attitudes disappear out the door, with most people once a person makes the effort with their children and themselves

Dear Grim,

What is a seppo?

I must add Severin, that I value and agree with most of what you state on OLO regarding various subjects [factual] so please do not take my opinion regarding the equity of public and private systems personally.

You contribute greatly to most threads positively and are a giving and caring person towards the most vulnerable. I admire you for all of those wonderful things.

Enjoy your week Severin!

Hey David,
"Seppo" is a completely tasteless Aussie abbreviated cockney rhyming slang. Septic tank rhymes with Yank.
After reading your lovely post demonstrating the ugliness of discrimination in all it's myriad forms, I couldn't resist.
(I felt confident a man of your demonstrated punning skills could stand a little iron in your diet).

'I love how you misinterpret peoples statements Houllebecq. "Status" was not a term, innuendo or connotation that Suze used at all.'

There is a comma. I didn't interpret Suze to saying anything about status.

' I notice you refer to this term via your posts elsewhere. '

Yep, I like to have a laugh at generalisations. I notice you omitted the snobs had a winking smiley after it. I may have to use more of such for people to stop taking me so seriously.

'Interesting assumption yet wrong for many of the parents I associate with through private system[s];'

No more interesting than the assumption people who don't send their kids to private schools just don't care enough about their kids to 'scrimp and save'. Which was my point.

We are unique, thanks for your kind words :)
Severin, I do understand where you are coming from.

Houellebecq, I do understand that many of the statements you make are probably tongue in cheek, but it is not always easy to judge when we can't see facial expressions :(

I never meant to suggest that public school parents did not care about their kids at all. In fact, I am one of those parents who sent my daughter to both public and private schools for an equal number of years each, so I am hardly likely to suggest such a thing.

It is an unfortunate fact of life in our town, where there is two huge public high schools, and two smaller private high schools, that the vast majority of kids NOT wanting to be at school, and therefore extremely disruptive and often bullies, go to the public schools.

Wouldn't you try as hard as you possibly could to send your kids to the private schools in these situations? We didn't really have much of a choice, given that we had a timid, shy daughter that would have been swallowed up and spat out at the public high school.

We aren't well off at all, but we both worked hard, and I was able to work nightshifts during the time my daughter was at school, so I was available to her both before and after school.
You can't judge all parents of private school kids (or public school kids) unless you know their personal situations

'we had a timid, shy daughter that would have been swallowed up and spat out at the public high school. '

So you're in favour of social segregation based on socio-economic class. At some point your shy daughter will have to face those people.

Then again maybe not, perhaps she'll do so well at university she'll be able to afford to live and work away from 'those people' for the rest of her life.

'We aren't well off at all, but we both worked hard...'

Do you accept that some parents, no matter how much they scrimp and save, no matter how hard they work, will never be able to afford a private school? Do you think that even though people have different abilities, it's better to have kids start with equal access to the same standard of education? Do you know there are bullies even in the most exclusive of private schools?

I shudder to think what opinion you have of people who decide the local public school is good enough for their kids, the cream will rise to the top, and that they could use $20k a year per child towards something more valuable to the family unit.

Choice is nice, but only for those who have the choice. Normally I'm a libertarian, but when it comes to education, I think we should be aiming for equality of opportunity. At the very least private schools who can afford state of the art sports facilities should not be given money when there are public schools with kids packed into demountable classrooms with no air conditioning.

Suzeonline

Thank you for the greater detail into your situation. I understand that some private schools provide assistance to those who wish to send their children to private schools - either through means test or scholarships. However not all.

While I do understand I cannot condone - Public schools are being dudded, while schools like those in the following link are being subsidised by all taxpayers. As I noted special needs are in an entirely different ball park.

http://www.independentschools.com/australia/

We are unique

Thank you for your very kind words, almost amusing considering I am regarded as "one of the most aggressive posters on OLO", but no names lest I be suspended again.

Houllie

Re: Snobbery (which you introduced into the mix).

What DON'T you have a chip on your shoulder about?

Dear Houellie,

Suze obviously chose the schooling situation that she judged was best for her daughter.
Sometimes you have to make a decision and deviate from standard procedure even though society dictates otherwise. My son is at the high end of the autistic spectrum, which makes him charming and clever, but also naive and gullible. I have chosen to bypass the standardisation of institutionalised schooling altogether (for a number of reasons), choosing instead to educated him in the greater community.
Suze's comment that her daughter would have been "swallowed up and spat out" is pertinent to the situations experienced by many children who have a nightmare time during their formative years due to the often overly sadistic conduct of children captive in an instiutionalised environment. Although bullying is experienced in all walks of life, it is particularly endemic in a school setting.

I do agree, however, that private schools should be means tested for public funding

To be, or not to be...
Is it nobler of the spirit to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous oppression, or to take up arms against a sea of troubles, and by fighting, end them?
I have to feel sorry for all the shy, timid kids whose parents can't take them out of the system; particularly if they are left in a small minority.
I still think if anyone should pay for private education, it should be the parents of those children who make life so miserable, not only for other students but teachers and staff also.
It appears the class system is making a resurgence. The trend seems to be towards state schools only being for the 'no hope dills, chuck them on the scrap heap if necessary' as someone so eloquently put it.
We had a great education system once; what happened?
Oh yes. Economic Rationalism, followed by Neo Liberalism.

I agree Grim, we did have a good education system once.
When we were kids, you only went to a private school if your' family wanted you to have a religious education as well.

My Catholic mum insisted we all went to private Catholic schools. Everyone that I knew appeared able to afford this on just one income in those days, as my mum worked as a housewife.

However, my brother was a very gifted boy, and in 2nd year high he told my mum he needed more maths tuition in order to be an electronic engineer.

She found a good public high school nearby that had an excellent maths program. He transferred there, along with my other brother, and they did very well indeed.

Unfortunately, we don't seem to have many good public high schools any more... and if there are, you have to live in the surrounding suburbs to be eligible to go there!

I had an excellent public education. It was depression in the 1930s, and highly qualified people with a love for their area of knowledge taught school because other jobs were scarce. My physics, chemistry and mathematics teachers were excellent. My Latin teacher was wonderful, too, but that's another story.

We could have the same thing now if we would pay salaries to teachers comparable to those they could get in other areas.

So you're in favour of social segregation based on socio-economic class. At some point your shy daughter will have to face those people.

Then again maybe not, perhaps she'll do so well at university she'll be able to afford to live and work away from 'those people' for the rest of her life.

Grow up Houllebecq just as Suze's daughter has, mixing with a high number of students in the private system [interacting and socialising in abundance]given the high numbers within private schools over the years.

Severin et al,

Whilst I have shown that independent schools make economic sense, there are other benefits too.

As far as society is concerned, people have aspirations for themselves and their children. Having a choice to provide a different and mostly better education for their children is most independent parents a significant sacrifice, but one they make willingly. Without the subsidies this would be impossible for most.

Secondly the comparison of the public schools not only to the top private schools, but to the smaller more modest independent schools shows that with similar resources, the independent schools still out perform the public schools. This in turn forces the public schooling system to lift its game.

Finally, my opinion is that the performance of the public schools has more to do with the way they are run than the resources they get. The union stipulated promotion on seniority and other obsolete ideologies are a powerful disincentive to the teachers, and lead to inefficiencies and incompetence being retained and rewarded.

If you want people to start flocking back to the public school system, you need the carrot of improved public education, and not the stick of punishing excellence.

Fixing the public school system would be a huge plus for the voters, while punishing the independent schools would be an electoral disaster. Julia's problem is that she is beholden to the teachers' union which is the source of the problem.

unique,

'mixing with a high number of students in the private system [interacting and socialising in abundance]given the high numbers within private schools over the years.'

That homogeneous lot of middle class and upper class aspirationals as shadow minister says? She would never have to encounter any pikeys.

SM,

'If you want people to start flocking back to the public school system, you need the carrot of improved public education, and not the stick of punishing excellence.'

Punishing? That's a laugh. I suppose the governmnet is punishing millionaires when it means tests the Baby Bonus too?

I think the private school lobby would have zero problems justifying it's funding if it were happy to relinquish funding from the super rich schools who have school excursions to Paris and Olympic standard sports facilities.

I can see you're really interested in totally privatising education, which is fair enough, but why not be honest about it? It seems a bit disingenuous to assert you want public schools to be better, be against tax, and want increased funding to private schools.

You make a it zero sum game by your politics, then argue private schools should get more of the pie when public schools are struggling.

Besides, while ever the pikeys cant afford private schools, the end goal for SM is good schooling for the well behaved middle class, and all the 'problem' kids with unstable upbringings left in the zoo of public schooling.

I cant believe the middle class is so easily duped. If instead of supporting private schools they supported improving the public system, they wouldn't be forking out $20k per kid per year for a decent education for their kids. They could just pay $2K more tax a year and have free schools, perhaps without those Olympic swimming pools. Then the 'aspirationals' could afford to work less and enjoy more time with their kids. Maybe that's what they're afraid of.

Houellebecq,

The problem is not the money. For a couple of years, we lived in a small town where there were two schools, one public and one independent. The fees for the independent school were less than $1000 per child, which with the subsidy meant that the financial resources of this small school where less than the public school. However, the small independent school's results were consistently better.

The teachers were paid the same, the facilities were simpler, the difference was that poor performance would mean the closure of the school as all the parents could easily move them over to the public school.

For many countries, public schools deliver an education that is the equal of what private schools can deliver, Australia is not one of them. Countries like Finland strictly monitor students and teachers performance, and promotion is based on merit not seniority. A little more money is not going to fix the problem.

Also the vast majority of independent schools do not charge anywhere near $20k p.a. and what they generally offer is a far more rounded education including sport, music, Duke of Edinburgh etc.

The only reason to stop the subsidy is to bring everyone down to the same level.

But schools that charge $20k still get government funding. What is wrong with means testing it. Surely if people have a lazy $20k to splash around every year, and the school has such amazing facilities they don't need the money. Some of these rich schools make a handsome profit year on year.

What do you believe should be means tested? Anything?

'A little more money is not going to fix the problem.'

A little less money is not going to be noticed by some of these rich schools.

'The only reason to stop the subsidy is to bring everyone down to the same level.'

Nope, it's for governmnet funds to go where they are needed most. Which includes your country private school if it is struggling.

PS: The 'same level' of education is what should be the goal. It's the only way you can have equality of opportunity. After an equal access to education, I'm happy to go with your throw the pikeys to the dogs mantra.

'the difference was that poor performance would mean the closure of the school as all the parents could easily move them over to the public school.'

You seem so upset about this. So why are you not concerned at all about the kids who don't have the choice to move to a private school if the public school performs badly?

Anyway, as I said, the school wouldn't close. They'd just charge more, and the parents would scrimp and save more. Well, those that had to in the first place.

Houle,

You are all over the map.

So now you admit that the smaller private schools should be subsidised, which is in cash terms the majority of the funds.

The means testing that is already in place for the top schools in that they get a smaller fraction of what the other independent schools get you want reduced to zero.

"The parents scrimping and saving should just scrimp and save some more" what a spiteful heartless thing to say. It just shows that your only motivation is envy.

I wouldn't be carping on about heartless if I was you SM.

Talk about being all over the map. You have no heart for people who can never afford private schooling, but now have all the heart for those who once could afford it but now may not. Unbelievable! Maybe once one has stepped into a private school they are now worthy?

As I said, I cant believe the middle class is so easily duped. They wouldn't have to scrimp and save if instead of trying to get one over the Joneses they hounded the governmnet to make the public system better. I'm sorry if my heart is all used up on the kids who will never be able to afford a decent education, with no heart left for the 'aspirationals'.

'So now you admit that the smaller private schools should be subsidised, which is in cash terms the majority of the funds. '

Ideologically No. In terms of your so called 'entitlement', definitely no. In terms of pragmatism and practicality (especially in country towns with less choice),and given the current state of play, yes.

I suppose in summary, I find it offensive this bleating by the rich private schools lobby about entitlement. I find it offensive this idea that everyone should get all their tax money back. I find it ridiculous that after having been provided schools via taxes, one decides they aren't good enough, then cries they are being 'punished' when they choose not to use the services the taxes provided. I find it even more ridiculous that people claim to be 'subsidising' the public system as if that's their motivation.

'It just shows that your only motivation is envy.'

Well, that's a simple way to dismiss anyone who dares to be interested in looking after the less well off in society. I'll see you envy and raise you snobbery.

I think you forget we are talking about children and their start in life and equality of opportunity. You are all about the parents and 'entitlements' and judgement calls about whether they 'care' enough to 'scrimp and save'.

My wife went to St. Peter's and attended a class reunion several years ago. The headmaster gave a talk and asked people to vote for Howard because the school badly needed a performing arts centre. My wife's outrage left her speechless so she said nothing to the headmaster but plenty to me which does no good at all except that I have something to post on this subject.

When Howard was introducing the GST the Catholic bishops were expected to issue a pastoral letter opposing the GST as it was a regressive tax. Howard announced $400,000,000 more for the Catholic school system, and there was no pastoral letter on the GST.

I was a delegate to an interfaith conference in Brisbane and attended a session on independent schools. The chairman stressed the fact that students were taught about other religions. I asked what programs existed for students to meet and exchange views with students of other faiths. He bloviated and then admitted there were none.

Get rid of religious apartheid and political catering to religious blocs. Let those who want religious apartheid pay for it.

Otherwise create a public school system good enough for everybody. Learn together. Live together. Work together.

Houle,

You are mistaking equality of opportunity with economic equality.

We are all equal under the law. We all equally have the opportunity to buy a porsche. However, the assumption is that we have the means and desire to do so. If you want to sell your house to buy a porsche most people could. However, the porsche would not be high on their priorities, and the fact that some people could easily buy a porsche does not imply that the state should provide everyone with a porsche.

There are very few people for whom the lower fee independent schools are out of reach if they work harder and save more. However, many make the decision not to make the sacrifice. That is entirely their choice.

If they should then be envious of those that do sacrifice to better educate their children, then driven by guilt they find it easier to try and pull down those that have focused on their children and not their selves.

SM,

Haha. Now it's coming out full throttle! Those poor people, they should just work harder. Then they wouldn't be poor. Maybe all the poor people are just Lazy?

'those that have focused on their children and not their selves.'

Selfish and lazy!

I see in your world, that scrimping and saving for a posh school, regardless of the effects on the family unit (unhappy tired parents, no money for other things, parents who rarely see their kids) is the only way to be 'focussed' on your children. It's a nice little excuse isn't it. Do you work 70 hour weeks for your kids to go to private school, or do your kids go to private school so you can justify your desire to work 70 hour weeks in the career you love that defines you? What's more important really, your career or the family happiness? The added bonus is the self righteous excuse of doing it for the kids, and you can look down to those who just don't care enough about their kids to 'scrimp and save'.

'You are mistaking equality of opportunity with economic equality.'

You are confusing opportunity of children with opportunity of parents.

'If they should then be envious...'

I'm not 'envious', I'm happy for middle class mugs to take it upon themselves to pay $20k a year for a service they could get for free, because they think that will buy them a better education. $20k a year could be $200k after 6 years, invested wisely, a fair deposit on a house. It could be a private tutor for 1 hour a day. It's when they decide the state should subsidise this choice it gets ridiculous.

'the fact that some people could easily buy a porsche does not imply that the state should provide everyone with a porsche.'

The fact that some people don't like public transport doesn't mean the state should subsidise their porsche.

Houle,

Education is a common good. If the state subsidises it, it costs the state less and the overall quality of education is better. This is an overwhelming argument for continuing it. That it gives people choice is the cherry on top.

You have not yet provided a argument as to why the subsidy should be stopped. That you would prefer it fortunately carries very weight.

And where did you get the 70hr weeks from? You are really grasping at straws if your only riposte is to exaggerate what I said to the ridiculous.