The Forum > Article Comments > Public funds, private schools > Comments
Public funds, private schools : Comments
By Tom Greenwell, published 4/2/2011A fair and intelligent funding system should not reward good luck in the lottery of life but seek to mitigate against bad luck.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 43
- 44
- 45
-
- All
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:24:48 AM
| |
Dont you just love a land of equal-opportunity, where the rich keep their brats on the top shelf as usual. Now wouldn't all of the Australian people benefit from a ONE SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT FITS ALL....but NO.....that would mean using the world FAIR in their vocabulary.
"A fair and intelligent funding system should not reward good luck in the lottery of life but seek to mitigate against bad luck." Just says it all, doesn't it. BLUE Posted by Deep-Blue, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:38:44 AM
| |
Deep Blue,
Next you will want all houses, cars, etc to be equal. Unfortunately that system went out with the collapse of the Soviet Union. If parents wish to pay extra for their kids education, then it benefits the country more than buying new cars or plasma TVs. Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:50:03 AM
| |
I would be very skeptical of more taxpayer money being given to any school, as most of student performance seems to be connected to curriculum and teacher attitudes, not facilities.
The author, like so many other teachers, writes of children with "disabilities" and "learning difficulties" and "low-SES backgrounds". So where do these children come from, and why are there so many? “One-parent families are the fastest growing type of family in Australia, with 823,300 single families recorded during the 2006 census. The Australian Government expects this number to reach 1.2 million by 2026.” http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/parenting_alone.html One parent families are also the most likely to live in poverty, and most likely to produce disadvantaged children, or children from low-SES backgrounds. Something I am sure many teachers are aware of, but something I have never heard any teacher publicly mention. The big question now is, if teachers are actually interested in disadvantaged children (and not just interested in grabbing more money from the taxpayer), then why don't they mention the main factors that create disadvantaged children? Posted by vanna, Friday, 4 February 2011 8:19:47 AM
| |
Tables like the ones in this article are enlightening because they make the impacts of the various mixes of private and public funding crystal clear. The central argument here is whether or not each child is entitled to the same amount of public funding regardless of how much its parents wish to contribute privately. Our society has long been split on this question, essentially on ideological grounds. In my experience, no-one ever really changes their mind about how they answer it. But there is one factor that is always overlooked, as in these tables. There is only a single funding level shown for public schools, meaning that parental contributions are forbidden. So if some parents wish, for example, to contribute privately to their public school in the belief that their children will get an advantage, they cannot, at least without endangering the school's government funding. Is this what the electorate really wants? I doubt it. All logic points to constant government funding per student, i.e. the voucher system.
Posted by Tombee, Friday, 4 February 2011 8:59:22 AM
| |
The wealthy world's biggest problem is it's aging population. We are failing to have enough children to support all the old people.
Especilly bad is the fact that the 'most disadvantaged' have the most children. Basically we have 'means-tested' so much of our economy that it is too expensive for professional families to have more than one or two kids, and many men don't want to become fathers at all! On the other hand, those on welfare are bribed by over-generous cash payments to have more children than they can reasonably care for. 'Disadvantaged' single mothers with low education and limited life skills and ability should not be bribed by cash payments to have 12 children. But frequently that's the result of over-generous means-tested payments. Money should be directed to incentives for professionals to have the children they can't afford. a universal school 'voucher' system, so every child gets the same subsidy for their education would help. Replacing means-tested cash payments with changes to make children reduce your tax would help also. For example, allowing income splitting between all the people in a family, including children. Firstly, students who face educational disadvantage should receive appropriate additional funding that follows them wherever they receive their schooling. Posted by partTimeParent, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:00:59 AM
|
Independent schools already receive substantially less funding from the government than public schools. Parents pay fees because they know some of it will go towards providing a little extra than the public schools.
The formula in table 2 shows that for the first $10 000 the parents will not get one cent value. This will essentially destroy any incentive for parents to send their children to the mid fee independent schools other than independent education generally getting better education results.
Considering that most independent schools are in this range, the result would simply be either that they close, or they stop charging fees and get the full government subsidy.
Either way the state looses and ends up paying a far greater amount for education of a lower average standard.