Non-government schools are precisely that - an alternative to government schools. Government schools are for all students, all religions or none and various kinds of disabilities. Non-government schools are for those children whose parents don't wish their children to go to government schools. They have the right to make that choice, but they should not have the right to make other taxpayers pay for that choice.

Segregated schools whether segregated by race, religion or other criteria which should not be the business of the state are divisive in that some children are isolated from other children and are liable to grow up with the prejudices that isolated groups inculcate through their isolation.

All government money allocated for education should go to government schools. If one wants a Ferrari rather than a Holden it is a matter of personal choice and should not be funded by the general taxpayer.

Agree entirely with David F. Although the more apt analogy is that public transport is available for all at a low cost. If you want to drive, buy your own car. The roads are built on public funds, it is enough.
If you don't want to use the public education service, but want to use a more private form of education, you shouldn't expect the state to pay for it. Every dollar spent on private schools is not spent on public schools - where the most disadvantaged children go. If we fail to educate them, we fail the next generation.

David f's response is a reprise of the logical falacy that funding government schools removes the legitimacy of choice by taxpayers to use non-government schools and recieve any part of funding for education they have contributed to as taxpayers.
Would david f agree to taxpayers, who chose use non-government schools, recieving a reduction in taxation as compensation for the money the save the government by reducing the burden on the public purse?
Or would david f prefer to have all taxpayers recieve a voucher for the education of their child at the school that best suits the needs of their child?
Or would david f just wish to have all non-governmenty school s starved of funds so that they cease to remain viable.
Just what are we talking about here genuine equity or socialist ideology?
I presume david f's lack of use of capitals letters in names is just stylistic and not idicative of a deeper significance.

MaomiMelb roads are built with a small part of the tax & excise charged on fuel. The rest is used to pay for hospitals, schools etc.
Perhaps only motorists, should be allowed to use them. Public transport should build & pay for their own & cyclists paying for bike lanes, would be more equitable.

When it comes to schools, all tax payers kids should receive the same government support for school costs, that CARFAX would be equality. Whether non tax payers kid should get any government support is another question.

Carfax wrote: "Would david f agree to taxpayers, who chose use non-government schools, recieving a reduction in taxation as compensation for the money the save the government by reducing the burden on the public purse?"

Would Carfax agree to taxpayers who choose to drive their own cars to work receiving a reduction in taxation for saving the government the cost of having to provide more trains, buses and ferries?

I do give a Gonski, I just want all Govt largesse to be means tested.
We could do worse than follow Finland's pragmatic example. Where there are no private schools?
Just better funded public ones? And then we wonder why their education model outperforms ours?
Perhaps its because education is just that, rather than a platform for time wasting religious indoctrination or justifying privilege?
Perhaps we should take a hard long look at places like Pakistan, where religious indoctrination has been allowed and or tolerated since inception, or northern Ireland, where infinitesimal differences in religious belief, allowed various sections of society, to regard friends and neighbours as the literal enemy; and or, deserving to die, in the most horrific ways imaginable.
Not all that long ago, that very same outcome was imaginable in Australia, with a similar religious divide.
And we have of late, opened our doors to some very different and vastly less tolerant cultures!
And may well be witnessing the whirlwind that Britain has inherited, by doing just that?
Albeit, much more massively than we have done thus far!
Sure, let well heeled parents send their tin lids to private schools, if they needs must.
Just don't ask the taxpayer to fund it, unless religious education is optional and outside normal school hours; and then always providing, any assistance is also means tested!
As implied in the Gonski model?
Rhrosty.

the secularist hate the fact that they are totally outperformed with far less money per student going to the independant schools. It is the idiotic ideologies and total lack of discipline that has led to this result. The union knows this but wants to play victim and increase its base. We don't need to keep spending taxpayers money to find reasons to justify the public systems failures. Blind freddy can see the problems. more money, more money. What a pathetic mantra.

"Blind freddy can see the problems. more money, more money. What a pathetic mantra."

Please, runner, feel free to tell us which private schools have reduced their fees...

Actually, giving any money to non-government schools is discriminating against government schools. Such payments are giving an additional advantage to the already advantaged financed by the general public. As the proverb goes, 'Them what has gits.'

Can we please have a new rule for all Gonski and related discussions? It would be, "If you know nothing about education in Finland, you don't get to use it as an example."
Finland does have private schools and they are FULLY funded by the government. Happy for people to argue against that, but that is the current state of play.
Also, you have to look a lot deeper than PISA results to make an analysis and comparison of schooling, and its results, in Australia and Finland. Population, infrastructure, training, pay, etc are just a few to get you started.
But hey, don't let e few facts get in the way of a good whinge...

Okay Rational-debate, you got me.
I should rephrase my statement by saying. As a consequence of general consensus in the sixties and seventies, there are very few private schools in Finland, and those that are there, are as you rightly say, fully funded by the Govt.
Finland spends around 5.9% of its GNP on education, which is probably higher as a pro rata outlay, than we expend here? Hence the need for Gonski!
Schools are run by local municipalities, and at least five parents are required sit on each school board.
This model results in more regional autonomy?
There are no school buses and students are expected to make their own way to school.
And children are expected to take a much more active investigative role in learning; and parents generally, a much more active participation role, in overall education outcomes.
Secondary students also set much of their own education agenda, which compels a greater level of serious study and individual academic interest?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty just can't stop digging.
Wrong on the 'no private schools in Finland' post and then the mia culpa which followed added more evidence of a complete lack of understanding of education arrangements in Finland.
Correcting the magnificent ignorance of the second post would be just too tiresome to contemplate.
As a gesture of good will I suggest Rhosty googles the Finland Ministry of Education web page where there is an english language version. This might help to add some informed comment to the discussion.

There are a huge group of people who Gonski Gillard and the other sychophants totally ignore in their stupid argument about who should pay for the public or private education.

Why should taxpayers who don't have kids at school subsidise the education responsibility of anyone with kids at any school?

This whole stupidity of Gonski sickens me in that I subsidise the electrical costs of everyone. I subsidise the transport cost of everyone. Since I live on a boat,I produce my own power, water and transport Why the hello don't you people all give me a great big thank you. I get absolutlty no benefit for anything. I'm a self funded retiree.

This is the crappy way our society has embraced socialism. It sickens me.You are all arguing how you best spend others money. Yoowhooooo why don't you all take responsibility for yourselves.

Kevin Donnelly’s claim that “that non-government schools, even those in disadvantaged areas serving poor communities, will have to contribute at least 10% from local funds like school fees and school fetes” is untrue, and he knows it is untrue because following the last time he made it in The Australian, I had a letter published correcting it.

He made this claim at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/misguided-gonski-model-threatens-the-quality-of-schooling/story-e6frgd0x-1226575704696.

I corrected it at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/competition-wont-work/story-fn558imw-1226576487152.

He is wrong when he says that private schools “will be have to contribute at least 10% from local funds” to the basic funding per student. In fact, they will not “have” to contribute any amount at all. Private schools will be entitled to up to 90 per cent of the school resource standard. They are perfectly free to set their fees at five per cent or even zero per cent if they think that sufficient.

This the same as the present SES system under which private schools are “expected”, but not required, to get at least 30 per cent of their resources from local fees or state governments because the maximum the feds pay is 70 per cent.

What the Gonski report actually says is:
“Australian governments should base public funding for most non-government schools on the anticipation that the private contribution will be at least 10 per cent of the schooling resource standard per student amounts” (Recommendation 17).

There is “have to” about it.

Education is compulsory, and good quality education is in the national interest.
Therefore a portion of our taxation should go towards the effective education of every child, irrespective of the choice of school by the parents or the student - and poorly performing schools should either shape-up or be shut down.

Although it could be argued that the better results generally achieved by non-state schools ought be rewarded by higher state funding per student to those schools, the reality is that there is a form of non-discriminatory asset-test being applied, such that state schools receive higher per-student funding. The argument then becomes whether such asset-testing would be better applied to the funding provided towards the education of the individual child, rather than via the choice of school, for, in fairness, not all the parents of children attending non-state schools are wealthy, and may well be struggling to meet the relevant fees.

We have a strange set of blinkers, where non-state students are assumed to come from a 'privileged' household, yet those attending childcare or early education are considered to come from an homogenous background (no asset-testing on childcare rebates, no sirree). What a strange fish we are (or at least our governments are - too much influence of Labor state governments for too long, perhaps)?

If everything were equal, then there would logically be equal per-student public funding, to state and non-state schools alike, but some people can't help but hold prejudice against the supposedly 'denominational' schools. (Perhaps under a misapprehension that such schools make religious studies 'compulsory' and inordinately demanding? Do I smell some misguided bigots?)

So, compromise. Non-state schools receive lower per-student public funding than state schools. Not really justifiable, but a fact of life. But, to propose to further reduce the level of funding to non-state schools is nothing short of blatant and totally unjustifiable discrimination. Asset test parents if you like, but to asset-test a school is sheer folly - unless it be to provide additional funds to overcome deficiencies.

Look out Australia, your bias and bigotry is showing.

So where are you do gooders lining up to thank me for giving the government the funds so you can make yourselves feel good about having this debate?

Nowhere in sight. You people are totally oblivious to the bloody obvious.

If I was in government there would be a debate. But it would be about how cheap education would be without me funduing it. It would also focus on how much help, responsible parents, would give to ensuring their own (Unfunded Baby Bonus)children were educated to a standard the parents themselves set.

Come on now argue that point. Don't dodge it. If you do your children won't be able to. Because of the coming great depression, caused by you and your mates desire to borrow to finance the short fall in funds that people like me no longer raise and in future refuse to finance, they will have to face this issue in their lives. You people are far too self-centred and short-sighted.

Don't suggest I'm selfish ... I haven't received one skerrick of income or benefit from 'Government' in the last 40 years. Ops sorry I and my wife before we divorced got the child allowance. (Let's go back to that as the only assistance to families) After our divorce and after I had paid maintence for 5 years I took over responsibility for the children. I then got nothing, but so what it is what you get used to when you take total responsibility for yourself.

Don't grizzle that I'm well off, that to is the usual result from taking total responsibility for yourself.

There you go. Argue with me, you can't because you all expect me to supply you with some of or all of your money

imajulianutter,

Did your children attend school?

Because if they did, their places were funded by state and federal funds. Those funds were provided by other people, some of whom did not have children, or whose children were grown and out of school. Did you ponder how cheap your own children's education would be without other people funding it?

We homeschool, as you may be aware. Our child's education costs the state and federal governments zilch. Do you suggest that everybody do that....because I don't think it's going to happen.

I can assure you Poirot that my contribution in Taxation far outweighted any return I ever received in Education, health or any of the other 'services'.

Youcan't say the same thing.

I've also ditched all real estate. Guess what that means?

Now Poirot I pay for everything with cash, or shop on the net. I cop the discount and then ask the seller to deduct a futher 10%.

If others in my position start doing the same ... well you blokes will soon find yourselves up the proverbial.

I'll sail past and will give you a wave .

"I'll sail past and give you a wave."

You do just that, imajulianutter.

Don't forget to sail straight on past.....

With your attitude, it's probably for the best.

Dear Poirot,

Do not answer the question if you feel it's intrusive. However, if you don't mind answering why did you decide to home school your children? I have a stereotype of people who home school their children, and you don't fit the stereotype.

My stereotype is that some people who home school do it because they don't want their children exposed to the interplay of ideas in schools and want to indoctrinate their children with their own ideas. Some don't want their children exposed to people of other religions or ethnicities. Religious schools may admit children with other backgrounds than that of the founders and supporters of the school. Others may think that their children cannot cope with bullying and the other problems of being with other children. I think that we shouldn't be overpropective of our children. I feel there is an advantage to my children of mixing with children whose parents may have different ideas from mine, hearing views that go counter to mine and growing up to be independent thinking people so I do not favour home schooling.

However, you seem to me an individual who fits none of the above, and I have a great respect for the way your think in general. What is your reason for home schooling? I will not expect an answer since you may see the question as intrusive. In that case I apologise for asking it.

CARFAX: You need to be the one that stops digging and looks up Finland's official education page; but particularly if you believe any part of my second post is wrong.
If so, please feel completely free to point to any actual mistake as evidenced in the OFFICIAL page; or apologise!
And can the abusive abrasive nature of your next post, thank you! Common courtesy and civility cost nothing!
Parenthetically, Private schools that are fully funded by the state, are arguably, private in name only!
Rhrosty.

David f,

There wasn't just one reason for our deciding to homeschool, but a few.

Firstly, this was a second time round thing with educating a child. My son was born when my daughter was 19. I was aware that most of the influences that shaped my daughters intellect and her strengths were things she had pursued in her own time, not those she had been taught at school.

Being much older with my second child, I was a little more confident in following a path, not prescribed by our increasingly institutionalized society. Our son read very early, and being mildly autistic, excelled at following his own self-directed investigations. I found it very easy to guide him through his particular interests, and to introduce aspects of the various disciplines into the his areas of interest.

"Homeschool" is a bit misleading. He just lives in the community. He is the most confident child I know and mixes easily with other children and adults. He attends a theatre class once a week and mixes with other homeschooled children and with the children of our friends.

Kids with mild (high-functioning) autism/ Aspergers can tend to have high anxiety and social difficulties. All the children I know in this position are dosed with Ritalin in order for them to attend school (many taken off it in the holidays)and still they are often wracked with problems fitting themselves in at school.

Our boy is not dosed with anything - is confident, not particularly anxious, healthy, happy and bright.

That's why I homeschool.

Poirot,

it certainly one thing I can congratulate on. It takes some guts to homeschool and its not for everyone however done right it yields outstanding results.

Thank you, runner.

Dear Poirot,

It sounds as though you have reason to home school and have done a good job at it. I hope more of the home schoolers are like you.

Part of my prejudice against home schooling is that we have a business nearby that provides texts for home schooling. I visited them and looked at their texts. Most of them were from the US and seemed consistent with the views of the Tea Party in the US Republican Party. How did you select your texts?

Don't you like it that I am self sufficient and am independent and proud of that, Poirot?

David f.,

There are plenty of textbooks available written to conform to the Australian curriculum.

One of the things I find rewarding is watching my son react spontaneously and self-direct his own information gathering.

Example: a few weeks ago we learned of a severe weather warning from the bureau. Advice was to batten down hatches because it was supposed to be a once in five year storm. My son immediately took it upon himself to check out BOM's weather charts, and warnings. He then went to the State Emergency Service site to find out what preparations were recommended. He also filled a box with emergency provisions including radio with batteries, torch, thick gloves, non-perishable food, etc..and finally wrote it all up for a special report on his "news" (he produces a weekly news program for family and friends highlighting stuff that happens in our circle each week and distributed to the various households through youtube).

All this happened with me looking on from the kitchen bench making a cake...until I was roped in to film the "special report".

So he learned a whole lot in that episode and it was connected with his real-life experience. As you can see, textbooks aren't everything. It's valuable to have some continuity between what you're experiencing and what you're learning.

...........

imajulianutter,

Yes, I like that.

But for all that you've been through and all that you've learned, you appear quite resentful of everyone else.

I think a little compassion and humility may be the balm you're after.

Dear Poirot,

It sounds as though you are on the right track.

My mother was a teacher before she got married. This was in the era when a married woman had to quit teaching. Even though she was a qualified teacher I had no wish to be home schooled. My mother was crocked most of the time and was most unreasonable when she was crocked. I hated school, but it was better than home. I was expelled from kindergarten as a behaviour problem. It was due to my reaction to the reading readiness program. Mr. Carrot represented the letter i. Since I could already read I was bored silly and made a nuisance of myself. My mother was aware enough to get my IQ tested. It was quite high, and she went to the principal to get a special program for me. The principal looked at snot-nosed, tow-headed skinny me and intoned, "They must have made a mistake!"

One thing was very different from Australia. We public school kids looked down on the kids in private schools. In Syracuse, NY private schools were for slow learners, bad boys and girls and other problem children. The public school kids were the snobs. I remember my sixth grade teacher told us she had been to a private school. I felt sorry for her. She seemed quite normal, and I wondered why she hadn't gone to public school like a regular kid.

Oh yes Poirot

I am resentful that people like you refuse to debate whether schooling should be free or the resp[onsibility oif the parents.
I am resentful that people like you seem to think that the cost of education should just keep rising. ie that there is never any debate about the overall size of the education budget or whether that is justified.

Tell me why when times are tough, in private enterprise, costs are cut yet in the public sphere when times are tough spending is assumed to need to rise.

That Poirot sickens me. It is just one big con.

I also resent when I call on that debateto be held, no-one enters on the support side. I'm merely criticised for my attitude for holding my view. Where is our democracy: it's been trashed by the dogooders and PC idiots.

If you are serious why don't you argue my point rather than arrograntly endorsing the current unscruitinised fiasco and that what is occuring is in any way reasoned.

'But for all that you've been through and all that you've learned, you appear quite resentful of everyone else.

I think a little compassion and humility may be the balm you're after'

Why doesn't it surprise me that you can see adversity as only able to produce negativity.

You see Poirot after my difficulties I found I was much wealthier, healthier and wiser. I might add much more productive and contributing.

Your comment bears no relation to the debate I want to engage. You see how arrogrant is your current thinking.

Watch for my upcoming Novel. I might put you in it. lol

imajulianutter,

"If you are serious why don't you argue my point instead of arrogantly endorsing the current unscrutinised fiasco..." blah, blah, blah.

Forgive me, mate, but how is exercising our autonomy and homeschooling our child, endorsement of anything related to the current education system?

The difference between someone like you and someone like me, is that I actually "do" something tangible to mitigate my dissatisfaction - as opposed to just bellyaching about it.

A straw man argument Poirot.

I've never commented on home schooling. That you want or need to fudge my expressed point of view really just reinforces my views of you people.

Poirot please refer to your original comments and the subsequent abuse you directed towards me.

lol you really make me laugh. You lefties are never able to argue when points of view, that demolish your dogooder attitudes, are presented. You dodge and weave and try to cloud the real issues or are too dumb or lack the intellect to understand the underlying issues.

BTW here is some advice, when you homeschool your kids. For them to become functioning and productive members of the society in which they will live, and remember it's nature will be dominated by people with my attitudes, make sure they exel at Maths B, maths C, chemistry, physics, Latin and English. Thoise are the subjects that create the most imaginative, effective citizens who will ensure the dominance of our western society. And in case you are wondering why I think that. Well take a look at the greatest society the world has ever seen and the basis of their teenage education. It focuses, despite the lefties, on those subjects in adolesence.

good luck and I wish you well in raising your kids to achieve what they want. I hope you don't try to impoase your views on them. That is catastrophic. Let them work it out for themselves. It is best.

But since you are a leftie I know why you won't do that.. .

lol yep I'm laughing at you.

imajulianutter,

You know, I feel a little bemused by your attitude.

Having heard the battle you've had for your health, and also having heard of your so-called educating yourself by reading the Western classics (correct me if I'm wrong on those points).....together with your apparent independence and self-sufficient status, one would assume you'd be fairly content with your lot.

Instead, your present as a scornful man full of resentment, braggadocio and antagonism.

Seems an awful waste of mental energy to go about the world feeling like that - especially with what you've been through.

I didn't abuse you, imajulianutter. I merely reacted to the tenor of your posts. Why don't you chuck away your resentment and stop and smell the roses....

You're a lucky guy

Poirot,

'Why should taxpayers who don't have kids at school subsidise the education responsibility of anyone with kids at any school?'

'Tell me why when times are tough, in private enterprise, costs are cut yet in the public sphere when times are tough spending is assumed to need to rise.'

So why can't you just put up an argument?

Is it because you find it easier to attack personally than to exercise real intellect, assuming you actually have some. Or is it that you are merely clever?

imajulianutter,

Regarding your question....

Answer = Because we are a social democracy.

I mean, that's what we are.

People with views like yours take it for granted that the services and infrastructure that create and sustain our stable society just materialise out of thin air.

You tell me that you were happy for you children to enjoy school funding, some of which emanated from people without children or whose children were grown......dismissing the premise because apparently you consider you paid enough tax to negate it

That's your story - it doesn't invalidate the fact that your own children benefitted from other people's tax....or were you out there bellyaching at the time that people without children should be contributing to the education of your own kids?

I think not.

............

I've heard you praise the Sermon on the Mount as demonstrating "truth and beauty".

Jesus was a lefty.

Peace be with you, brother......

Kevin please read this article by Michael Kirby, Private schools foster prejudice -
http://www.theage.com.au/national/private-schools-foster-prejudice-exjudge-20130525-2n3yw.html

and Education Policy from the Secular Party of Australia and why religious segregation and inequality need to be addressed -

The Secular Party recognises the societal benefits of a well-funded and high-quality education system. This is best provided by teaching based on universal values and principles, and school curricula founded on reason and evidence consistent with academic expertise. Currently, funding is inequitable and fails to properly resource students with complex needs, leading to disadvantage. It also promotes the segregation of students according to their parents' faiths.

To address these issues and in accordance with the overarching principle of evidence-based policy, the Secular Party of Australia would broadly seek to implement the recommendations of the Gonski Review, with some amendments. Firstly, if the financial resources available per student in a private school, including those provided by school fees, exceed the standard resource per student, government funding will be reduced accordingly and used to help bring disadvantaged public schools to the required standard. Secondly, to qualify for government funding a school must teach a secular curriculum, admit students and employ staff regardless of faith, and all religious activity promoted by the school must be voluntary and conducted outside school hours.

The Secular Party also supports an adequately funded tertiary education sector. The future economic health of the country depends upon investment in education.
http://www.secular.org.au/mnu-policy-details#educationFunding

Just a typo correction.

That should have been -

"....or were you out there bellyaching at the time that people without children 'shouldn't' be contributing to the education of your own kids?"

Lol poirot
You make it to easy for me. Social democracy. Lol. Another leftie definition. We are a liberal democracy.
Is the purpose of your unimagitive labelling to disguise the failed constructs of socialism, communism, democratic socialism and all those other leftie constructs that take from producive people and give to both the deserving and undesrrving.
You really do need to try harder.

Lol intellect failure on display...again.

Okay, imajulianutter... a liberal democracy with social conscience.

But I'm inclined no longer to converse with someone who can't interact without casting aspersions, appears self-absorbed and uncommonly selfish and smug.

For all your "self-education"....you appear to have skipped the bits that could have bestowed upon you a modicum of wisdom compassion and humility.

What a shame......

There you go again. No argument just abuse.
Lol.
Too easy poirot

Poirot

Christ was no socailist. He called on us to respect the individual and not to judge. Socialism calls on you to judge the individual and operate a collective and ignore the individuals desires.

lol Check. You will find I am correct.

Now tell me is that Christs use of 'Brother' or the socialist use of 'Brother'. The two are quite different.

You know poirot I think you are way out of your depth here. I really don't care what you think as you have shown arrant disregard for the basic tenet of our liberal democracies.

In a Liberal Democracy we are all entitled to express our opinions.

Nobody has the right to attack us for merely holding opinions, which is what you have attempted here, especially when those opinions fly in the face of the current or assumed orthodoxy.
It is ok to attack the ideas, but you haven't don't that.

Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

No so with you hey. So perhaps it is wise that you leave the discussion... for whatever reason you claim. lol.

Say what you like, imajuianutter.

I mean it - go ahead.

Somehow I can't see Jesus chucking a tantrum at the thought of supporting the base of society, the less fortunate - through whatever means.

I'm fascinated that you kick up because someone replies to you in kind. You've spent the majority of your posts to me apparently laughing at me as "lol,lol,lol"....

Why, in that case, would you imagine that I'd engage you in a friendly constructive manner?

You seem rather fond of sneering and scorning, and then you complain when someone calls you out on your style.

Fascinating......