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 > No Gerard, schooling is not part of the social safety net: it is a public good > Comments

No Gerard, schooling is not part of the social safety net: it is a public good : Comments

By Margaret Clark, published 3/5/2012

It matters because pushing well-off families out of the public sector would lead to higher concentrations of disadvantage in government schools.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Yes, i agree with this article, pretty much 100%.

While i have written that many people hve sent their kids to private schools for several reasons, there is no doubt that budgetary difficulites are complicatig the opportunity of all to have access to decent public education.

I have an electic range of views on Aust's policy mix, like most, but I believe there are two areas of policy that should never be sacrificed by the State. I believe that all Australians should have the right to decent public health and education.

If i have the misfortune to live during the demise of public edcuation, and i hope it does not happen, then we indeed fail as a society.

I say this again while recognising my own contradictiton. I am planning to send my daughter (now three) to a private seconday school in the area (which I can afford).

Nevertheless, I believe that differences between public and private schools should be minimal. Every young Australian must have the opportunity for affordable education.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 3 May 2012 9:13:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article addresses THE most important issue in education at present. Its position is one that any true democrat should support.

The ghettoisation of some state schools (and some struggling private ones) is a blight on the community.

It is often overlooked that despite the clear inequalities in resources available, we nonetheless force all students (and increasingly teachers and schools) to compete in the education race through such mechanisms as NAPLAN, tertiary entrance and the like.

That this competition is conducted on such unequal terms is a scandal.

A true democracy would give all students the opportunity to obtain the best education we can provide, and this means the opportunity to attend ANY school they wish, irrespective of their family's financial clout.
Posted by Godo, Thursday, 3 May 2012 9:28:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The existence of expensive private schools that are filled with the cream of teachers ensures that the wealthy elite continue to run the country to suit them and their elitist, privileged progeny.

The average kid is stuck in a school with very average teachers and struggles to compete against his private school counterparts for University Entrance, scholarships, etc.

If we want a school system that advantages every child equally, then step one is to get rid of all private schools and treat every child the same regarding teacher quality and teaching resources.
Posted by David G, Thursday, 3 May 2012 9:52:13 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
Gerard Henderson’s point arises from the SES model and the Gonski report’s recommendation to refine it to the level of the individual parent. Under the SES model, schools are funded according to how well off the other people who live in the streets the students come from are. This is insane. It takes no account of school fees. It underfunds private schools so badly that about half receive compensation which gives them the funds they would have got under the previous Labor government’s education resources index model, which actually took account of the school’s own resources. Weirdly, the Coalition, the underfunder, gets away with portraying itself as the friend of private schools and Labor, the more generous funder, is portrayed as their enemy. Public education advocates reinforce this crazy belief by referring to the compensation as “overfunding”, thus driving private school parents into the arms of the Coalition and making it harder for Labor, the party that best supports public education, to win.

The Gonski review could have ended this by recommending that schools be funded on the basis of their own resources. Instead, it recommended that schools should be funded on the basis of the parents’ capacity to pay. This should have sent a red flag flying to public school advocates, but, as so many of them are still stuck in the 1950s, they did not see it. I did – straight away. Once you accept the principle that private schools should be funded on the parents’ capacity to pay, it is easy to extend the principle to public schools. If, instead, you say private schools should be funded in accordance with their own resources, you apply the same principle to public schools. Public schools are fully funded irrespective of the wealth of the parents because they don’t have any other resources. Low-fee private schools are highly funded irrespective of the wealth of the parents. High-fee private schools are lowly funded irrespective of the wealth of the parents. If you support the SES model (refined or not), you are, in principle, supporting fees for public schools.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 3 May 2012 10:54:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The federal AEU has so far apparently said nothing abut the Gonski recommendation to continue and refine the Howard government’s SES model, just as it failed to make a submission in support of an explicit staffing formula as the basis of funding and thus allowed the high-performing reference schools model to be recommended, the to the detriment of its own members. Anyone alert to politics knew that the Gonski review would recommend a system like the one that has applied in Victoria for the last seven years. A smart union would have read the signals and made a submission based on that knowledge and put forward a detailed plan for school funding. The federal AEU failed dismally to do so.
In fact, while there were many informative and thoughtful submissions from public education advocates, as best I can make out, the only submission from anyone with a public education perspective to propose a detailed plan for funding was mine:
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

So, don’t blame Gerard Henderson, whose point is perfectly consistent with the SES model and the Gosnki proposal. Blame the federal AEU for not seeing the obvious on Day One.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 3 May 2012 10:56:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Margaret does have a bit of a problem. She wants public funding of education to be fair, just not too fair.

Come on love, bite the bullet & make it really fair. Allocate funding to each child as a credit, value dependent on age, & let the parent decide which school to chose.

This would stop the continued employment of totally incompetent teachers in the public system. If the schools teachers didn't perform, the school would loose students & income. Kids waving dollar bills at the school gate will rapidly assure equity, & quality. I suppose such a system would not find favour, with the bureaucrats, as so many unnecessary bureaucratic jobs would be lost.

Margaret then has a little swipe at health costs. As a Queenslander I've enjoyed free hospital care most of my life. It was great, back in the old days.

While it would nail a broken arm back together, or pull out a crook appendix, or a set of tonsils, we could afford it too. Then came the advances & spare parts medicine. People can now destroy their liver, lungs, or heart, with their life style, then go get a new one, all on the tax payer.

Am I the only one who finds this disgusting. If we don't get a handle on medical costs soon, we won't be able to afford education, or anything else.

Sure repair accident damage, & fix the common ailments that many have, but some things should remain on the top shelf. If you haven't earned the cost, you don't get the treatment. It is either that, or pay the medicos much less.

There comes a time when personal effort is so poorly rewarded in a welfare state, that the state fails, due to lack of personal effort. Think the USSR. If we rob the worker to benefit the drone too much more, workers will cease to exist
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 3 May 2012 12:21:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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