I dealt with the issue of small schools, which are often country schools, in my submissions to the Review of Funding for Schooling. I proposed a base factor of c$250,000 per primary school and c$1,000,000 per secondary school, paid by state or territory governments in the case of public schools and by fees in the case of private schools, a student learning entitlement of $6,993 for every student in years 3-6 and $8,320 for every student in every other year, paid by the federal and state or territory governments to all public schools and all private schools with fees of no more than $1,000 per year and special needs funding for ESL, disability and low socio-economic status. Fees at this limit would provide the base funding for a 250-student primary school and a 1,000-student secondary school. The base funding provides two teachers for every primary school and eight for every secondary school. These can be used for curriculum breadth in small schools and for non-classroom positions in large schools. The SLE provides PTRs of 18:1 and 15:1 respectively.

It may be argued that some really remote schools are too small for this fee limit to provide sufficient funds and there is some argument for extra funding for really remote schools. However, it is not good public policy to fund two small schools in the same area when one larger one is a more efficient use of taxpayers’ funds.

The other advance that will reach schools eventually is the NBN, which will allow combined classes on the web.

I communicated my submissions to Therese Temby of the National Catholic Education Commission last month. I didn’t even get a formal reply. A lot of the submitters really missed the pint of the review because they were too focussed on their own area of interest; e.g., the federal AEU did not even bother to propose a new funding formula, a specific amount of money for each student or a staffing formula.

My submissions are at:
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/SubGen/Documents/Curtis_Chris.pdf

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/SubGen/Documents/Curtis_Chris_Attachment_1.pdf

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/SubGen/Documents/Curtis_Chris_Attachment_2.pdf

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/SubEip/AtoF/Documents/Curtis_Chris.pdf

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/SubResearch/AtoM/Documents/Curtis_Chris.pdf

It seems to me that you should adopt a more pragmatic approach and close down all your Catholic schools and let the students attend the state run schools instead. The kids would then get a better education albeit without the "benefit" of any Catholic dogma.

David

I should have added to my last sentence "which, unfortunately for you, the majority will reject in later life."

VK3AUU, "let the students attend the state run schools"? LET? No one forces them (except their parents). Their parents CHOOSE to send them to Catholic schools, and most of them aren't even Catholic. Catholic schools are a great service to the community, and the government would be hard pushed to replace them if they did close down. It is in the interests of all Australians that we support Catholic organisations like schools and hospitals - without them we'd be stuffed!

But Minimus, you can't have it both ways -- at least, not forever. If parents choose to send their children to non-State schools when State schools are available, that's fine, but they shouldn't expect taxpayers to bear the cost, any more than they should bear the cost if I choose to buy a Mercedes rather than a Hyundai.

If you want X, then you pay for X, or you put up with Y like everyone else. It doesn't seem that difficult a principle to me.

Minimus, perhaps as you say they are not forced to attend Catholic schools, but they are certainly encouraged to do so by their local priest. However, they only have themselves to blame if it costs them more.

I think JonJ sums it up pretty well.