The article’s reference to “the funding model that will have to replace the existing socioeconomic status (SES) model, due to expire at the end of 2013” implies that the SES model will end, but the Gonksi report, though widely applauded by those who condemned the Howard government’s education policies, recommends continuing that flawed funding arrangement. Labor people who pay attention know that this would be a great mistake and hope that the delay in the government’s response is due to work being done on replacing the SES model with something more logical.

The Howard and Gonski models both support funding schools on the basis of the socio-economic status of the people who live near the students, the difference being that the latter would use a smaller area. Both ignore the school’s own income and are thus very bad for low-fee private schools. Both give more money to high-fee private schools that take well-off students from poor areas than to low-fee private schools that take poor children from well-off areas.

The SES model is so irrational that half of the private schools in the country have to get compensation to be as well off as they were under the previous Labor government’s model.

We need to return to a system that gives more money to low-fee schools and less money to high-fee schools, as we did in the 1990s. As more than 80 per cent of the core recurrent costs of a school are teacher employment, the standard amount of money should be based on a staffing formula, which is what the Victorian Labor government based its 2005 system on.

See:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14221&page=0

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14073&page=0

http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/576719.aspx?PageIndex=1

Of course as someone associated with the Liberal party and the usual so called conservative suspects who are all completely committed to the dismal world-view created in the image of scientific materialism, and who (contrary to all of the hype) effectively believe that the primary purpose of "education" is to train people to become unconscious robotic cogs in the industrial machine, and to do what they are told by those in power, Kevin does not have any ideological axe to grind, or barrow to push, does he!

He sees reality true, completely unencumbered by any unconsciously held presumptions about what we are human beings.

The purpose of old-style "education" was to create grey-flannel suited dreadfully sane one dimensional robots who were unquestionably faithfull to the system. And to produce programmed robots who would "volunteer" to march off and be slaughtered in their millions in the never-ending imperial/colonial wars.

Except for the fortunate few, the system inevitably and deliberately squashed or extinguished any kind of imaginative creative impulse or curiosity in the masses altogether. Such was also the case with old-style child "rearing" practices.

In short its purpose was to create the dreadfully sane one-dimensional man/woman as described by Marcuse in his book One Dimensional Man. Or to put everyone in little boxes made out of ticky-tacky, all the same. See the lyrics of the 1960's song by Malvina Reynolds titled Little Boxes.

The normal person, then or now, was/is supposed to work, eat junk "food", watch TV and stay tuned for the latest "news" (propaganda). And, more importantly to be very ENTHUSIASTIC about all of the latest advertised products and "vow" experiences and to thus drive on down to the local Cathedral (mega-sized shopping mall) of the now dominat religion of consumerism to dutifully purchase the said products.

Such chutzpah! This article demonstrates how entrenched the sense of entitlement in regard to middle class welfare has become.

The solution is simple, the so-called "independent" schools should not receive a cent of taxpayers' money, if parents want their children to be educated at an independent private school they should pay for it. It's not the government's business to fund private education.
Their little Emmas, Jeremies, Fionas (and Dr Donnelly) would be then free from the pernicious influences of Social Democracy and the 21st century.

Good point, Mac!

I agree, but have 3 comments:

1) To the extent and portion that private schools do teach the same content (eg. math, science, English, etc.), what logic is there to hand the same middle-class parents government subsidies if they send their children to public schools but not to private ones? Surely if they aren't entitled, then they aren't entitled either way!

2) I do hope that you sincerely mean it and your government will indeed allow the Emmas, Jeremies and Fionas to be free from the pernicious influences of Social Democracy and the 21st century. Shutting them up with 30 pieces of silver to redeem one's childrens' freedom is the best possible investment a parent can make.

3) One other benefit which you seem to have omitted, is that those children will no longer learn to steal. Stopping to take money from the government, which in turn was taken from people without their consent (how are such acts normally called?), will stop turning those children into accomplices in crime.

Yuyustu,

I don't understand your first comment, the following might help to explain my position.

Although my perspective is from the left of the political spectrum I generally don't support government subsidies of private discretionary expenditure, which includes taxpayer supported private education and the monumentally harebrained " baby bonuses", for example. It's a particularly corrosive form of middle class welfare, so I agree with you for much the same reasons, although I'm sure we'd disagree with the disbursement of the savings from ending the subsidies.

Re (2) and (3) What I meant was that supporters of private education can't have it both ways, they can't be independent and sponging off the taxpayer at the same time. If they want to promote their favourite educational ideologies they shouldn't expect the government to pick up the tab.

It's pretty simple what he's saying Mac. If you're against subsidies to the rich then you will be opposed to them getting any subsidy towards their children's education, and they should be made to pay for the education they get in state schools.

The current system discriminates against those wealthy people who choose not to send their kids to state schools.

Dear Mac,

Thank you, I truly appreciate your detailed explanation, so far we agree.

Re my first comment: Graham already explained the case where both private and public schools teach the same prescribed curriculum (I oppose any state-prescribed curriculum, but given that you are on the left side of politics this is something that even you should agree on), but suppose a private school teaches 65% of the same subjects and same contents as public schools, then so long as the rich receive 100% free public-school education for the 100% public curriculum (which is probably wrong, ideally perhaps they shouldn't, but so long as they do), it only makes sense that the private school should receive 65% of that for the common teachings.

In other words, if you are only 35% independent, then you should receive 65% for the non-independent portion.

Kevin, can you give us a link to the scientific research of how student performance is lifted by "competition, diversity, autonomy and choice in education". For example, effect size on student performance would be good. Until then I will just assume your argument is just based on supposition and prejudice. Why is so much air in the "education debate" taken by political war-horses like Donnelly when there is so much serious educational research available that points to the stuff that really does make a difference in the classroom - (PS - and it ain't increased "competition, diversity, autonomy and choice in education")

How fortunate we are to have a totally ideology free commentator such as Mr Donnelly. Otherwise he would leave himself open to accusations of hypocrisy and being two faced.

Forunately Mr Donnelly is totally unbiased and wouldn't dare superimpose his own ideological values onto an article posing as a faux neutral assessment of a policy he is fundamentally ideologically opposed to.
Lucky aren't we?

Yuyustu, and Graham Y,

"In other words, if you are only 35% independent, then you should receive 65% for the non-independent portion."

Don't agree. If the board of an independent school( ie independently funded) chooses to teach !00% of the public curriculum, the school should have no claim whatsoever on taxpayers' funds as it's an autonomous decision.

What you are suggesting seems to be a regime of tax hypothecation.
The Social Democratic principle is that a government is elected to administer particular fiscal policies, taxpayers funds are used to provide public goods, such as education and infrastructure. Those citizens who find the services provided inadequate, or unacceptable for other reasons, are free to make their own arrangements or campaign for changes.

So the answer to --"The current system discriminates against those wealthy people who choose not to send their kids to state schools." No, it doesn't, they made a choice to send their children to private schools, in fact, unlike lower income people, they have a choice.

Tax hypothecation is attractive at first sight, many taxpayers would be delighted to specify how their tax funds should be spent -- however, administratively, it would be chaotic.

Graham,

The point you make is a very significant one, and all those foolish people demanding the unamended implementation of the Gonksi report seem not to realise that such implementation will lead to exactly what you imply. The flaws in the Gonski report were obvious the day it was released, which is why I submitted a letter to the editor of The Age pointing them out on that day. I have submitted 43 letters in total to The Age on the Gonksi review, the most recent being sent today. Not one has been published, which is why members of the public do not know what the Gonski report actually proposes.

The Gonski report endorses the Howard government’s SES model. The report comes right out and says:
“The panel considers that basing public funding on the level of private resources a school is likely to be capable of raising for itself is preferable to relying on the private income that it actually receives. As argued in Chapter 2.3, linking public funding directly to a non-government school’s private income, expenditure or assets would be inherently complex and difficult to implement equitably given that different schools finance their recurrent and capital needs in very different ways. It would also accentuate disincentives for parents to invest in their children’s education.”
(page 176, Review of Funding for Schooling, Final Report)

This means that schools would continue to be funded on the basis of how well off the people who live in the area the students come from are. The report wants the area to be made smaller, but the principle remains. The endorsement of this principle of funding schools on the basis of supposed parental capacity to pay rather than on fees actually charged will increase pressure on the public school sector to charge fees based on parental income (which news reports say SA has already introduced in a very small way), but the public school advocates seem totally unable to see it – yet again missing the point, as they have done from the moment the Gonski review was announced.

Even Kevin Donnelly isn't arguing against the idea of universal compulsory education in our society…

So it seems to me the only argument that would support the claim that the current system discriminates against wealthy people would be if they were denied enrolment of their children at state schools on the basis of their parents 'wealth'.

A corollary would be people being denied a seat on public transport because they were wealthy enough to own a Rolls-Royce.

If they were and chose instead to use the Roller – or send their kids to Geelong Grammar or Kings – that is not state discrimination against, but personal discrimination in favour of one's self.

Surely in a democracy the children of all citizens should receive the same level of government contribution to their education. If parents chose to pay more that should be their right.

If you want to start reducing the equal treatment of children, it would be better to fund the children of tax paying citizens, in preference to non tax paying folk. It is the children of these folk who are proven to be less likely to contribute to the society, after they have been educated.

Yes I'm sure the bleeding hearts will have a dozen excuses,{reasons they will tell us], for this non contribution, but after 30 years of following their beliefs, nothing has changed. How much longer do we spend wasting our efforts.

Yuyutsu, if like me you had been to 16 different schools, in 3 states, you would be demanding a totally inflexible national curriculum, to give the kids of mobile families a chance.

After 18 months in NSW, where we had not even heard of algebra, I found myself in Qld, where they had all ready had over a year of it. If it had not been for a kind math master, who gave me a couple of hours a week after school help, I would never have caught up. It was lucky really. His help gave me a love of math, that helped me right through to my B Sc.

Gillard's draft bill denies nothing. All going well it only insists those looking for an elitist education for their brats pay for it themselves. Gross wealth disparities properly have no place in a democracy, and if the only way to exact taxes from the wealthy and savy classes targeting goods and services, then so be it. As was espoused today on Counterpoint, the modern anti-ethic is to capitalise on opportunity without any sense of gratitude or indebtedness.
Quite apart from all that, children are surely our sacred cows and there shouldn't be educational double standards. By refusing to subsidise elitist education the government at least discourages the practice.
There should only be State education--the wealthy would then ensure it was world's best practice. Until then I say make the bastards pay!

Squeers,

The draft bill does not say anything about excluding some parents, no matter how wealthy, from education funding. Nor did the Gonski report make any such recommendation. The Gonski report recommends a minimum payment of 20-25 per cent of the school resource standard to those school whose parents have the wealthiest of neigbours. Such schools would be free to put their fees up as much as they liked without losing one cent of government support, just as is the case under the Howard government’s SES model. In addition, the Gillard government has already guaranteed that no school will be worse off per student under the new system. I suggest you read the links I have given above because the mainstream reporting of the Gonksi report and of the existing school funding system has been very poor.

"Ignored is that while geographically a part of Asia, Australia is a liberal, Western democracy and that the political and legal institutions that guarantee our freedom and prosperity are based on the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage and Western tradition."

Australia is a European-derived society. Our culture, way of life, traditions, political institutions, and economic system all are derived from Europe. Furthermore, most of Australia's population is of European descent.

Yet, the new national curriculum virtually ignores every aspect of Australia's European heritage. Indeed, based on Labor's ultra-left, Asia-centric curriculum, one would hardly know that Australia had ever had a distinct polity and society related to European civilisation.

Australia owes its relative success as a nation to its European, namely British, heritage. It is a heritage that should be celebrated, not ignored.

Drab,
Are you joking? "Ignoring Australia's European heritage" - please read the ACARA history curriculum and familiarise your self with it before making really uninformed statements.