Is this the sort of private education system Julie is advocating?
http://www.fightingbob.com/article.cfm?articleID=351
Not all schools are equal just because they are called schools. At least with the public sector you know there is an expected standard.

If schools accept public funds surely they must accept some form of public accountability? If you want such schools to be independent, then let them be. Currently, private schools are private when it comes to whose kids they will and won't educate, but public when it comes to the handing out of money.
Most public schools, by the way, Julie, are not failing. Parents who spend ten or more thousand bucks a year on private schools have to say they are to justify their expenditure. The damage such rationalisations do to the local public school, by the way, are incalculable.
Public schools do a phenomenal job of educating all comers, it is infuriating to see private schools cherry-pick the brightest and the most socially advantaged and then smugly claim to be doing a better job! Given that I send my kids to a comprehensive, co-ed state school that routinely outperforms most of its private school competitors in the HSC, they may not be doing quite as good a job as their spin claims. And please don't talk to me about pastoral care. Public schools demonstrate pastoral care via the care and attention they pour into the kids private schools reject. Many private schools talk good values, but demonstrate the opposite.
Making public schools schools of last resort is not just radical, it is tragic, and will have consequences for all of us. We cannot isolate ourselves and our kids from the rest of society however much we might like to.

As a teacher for 10 years, and a writer, this is the kind of thing that makes my blood boil; schools and communities feeling the need to seek funding from the private sector to operate and expand.

The primary function of governments is to provide adequate essential services including education, health, and law-enforcement. As far as I'm concerned federal and state governments have failed on all three fronts over the past 5 years. Federal and state governments (WA) in Australia now collect record levels of taxation and budget surpluses. The fact that this is the case and they don't adequately fund and fix these three services, is politically immoral, and bordering on corruption.

Teresa van Lieshout

Let me begin by stating my bias. I thoroughly approve of private enterprise running schools and making a profit, but am implacably opposed to augmenting their fee structure with public funds. If the rich want to pay for little Kerry to have expensive tuition, that is entirely their own affair, but it disgusts me the way they also bludge off the taxpayer.

Having said that, let me cast an unjaundiced eye across this little piece of special pleading.

One of the cardinal rules, Ms Novak, is to use credible examples. Your first hero, Edison Schools, is an out-and-out dud. Here's a couple of quotes from a recent press release, announcing the closure of another Edison school... "Edison schools have never been shown to perform better than other schools, and many school districts complained of Edison’s higher costs" and "the company is in trouble with other clients around the country, including its second-largest, Chester-Upland schools in Pennsylvania. Edison is blamed for many problems in the beleaguered school district, which is in financial meltdown, and several officials are calling for non-renewal of Edison’s contract."

They must have worked very hard to “lose” all that money (read: divert it into their, and their shareholders', pockets), because governments are suckers for their pitch. In the UK, the government funds 80% of the capital cost of a new school in the private sector, then delivers all the cash to run it. Does that sound like capitalism, or licensed extortion?

One aspect that is totally ignored is that the financial risk remains entirely with the taxpayer, even after the entrepreneurs have taken their cut. When W S Atkins pulled out of their deal in London's borough of Southwark stating, "[t]he contractual arrangements have been increasingly financially challenging...", they "transferred back to the local authority individual schools with financial deficits of up to £500,000, and an overall bill of £2.2m in exit costs" (Demos UK)

By the way, when on such shaky ground, sneering ("shrill criticisms by a range of vested interest groups") does not help.

Let's look at a more balanced view.Private schools provide land and buildings with no burden on the tax payer.The State Govt. pays each school both private and public an amount based the number of students attending.Now the Federal Govt.gives an additional amount to private schools to compensate for capital expenditure.If all the private schools both Catholic and religious others were closed tomorrow,our Govt would have to increase taxes immensely.Guess who would bear the brunt of this additional tax?It certainly won't be the rich.
I used to be a teacher in the public system in the western suburbs of Sydney and from annecdotal evidence of those still working in the system discipline has declined a lot more since the late 80's.If there is no consequences for poor behaviour,how can we have a viable
society?My view is that our left wing Teachers Federation have destroyed our public system with their soft option antics and the public have rightly searched for responsible and more disciplined alternatives.If you can't behave in the private system you have to find another system.If you can't behave in the public system,you can deprive the majority of the right to learn,since it is very difficult to be suspended or expelled.The expectations of behavioural standards are so much lower in the public system . We have to balance the scales of rights V's responsibilities.

"Let's look at a more balanced view" says Arjay.

"the Federal Govt.gives an additional amount to private schools to compensate for capital expenditure." And this money is somehow provided 'with no burden on the taxpayer'? I think not.

"If all the private schools both Catholic and religious others were closed tomorrow,our Govt would have to increase taxes immensely"

Rubbish. Pure propaganda. If you had been lucky enough to attend a public junior school when you were eleven*, you would have spotted the logical and mathematical error in this statement. If the same amount per student of our taxpayers' money - plus a little extra for capital expenditure - is being poured into the private sector, why on earth would taxes have to increase at all, let alone "immensely?"

Amid all the blather about commie teachers and declining discipline, what you have failed to do is give one single cogent reason why the ordinary taxpayer should pay twice, once for his own kids' education and again for the rich kids'.

*My eleven-year-old, who is in year six at a local public school, spotted this one straight away

I agree with Pericles in that if people want to pay for the privilege of sending their children to a private school, I won't have any objections - but why should my taxes be used to support that personal choice.
If use my private car rather than public transport, I don't expect the government to subsidise my running costs. The sort of arguments Arjay uses could apply - if everybody using private vehicles opted to use public transport, the government(s) would have to increase expenditure , meaning either increased taxes or charges, or both.

Current Australian university agency agreements with offshore private providers supplies us with an apt model of what to look forward to with further privatization, unless very costly strict governance measures are put in place. Here, already, all too many offshore private providers recruit students, who often have not achieved matriculation into their home country's universities.

In this "student" pays for the qualification environment, owners place significant pressure on lecturing staff not to fail students, lest the business be harmed by word of mouth. Soft marking, selective assessment of learning outcomes and plagiary quickly follow.

In secondary schools, I see politically motivated principals and their whimpy direct reports quashing staff having genuine academic concerns and issues with students; wherein, parents run the school and the teachers take orders and receive the brunt of cover-ups, favouritism and towing the commercial agenda.

Pericles,look at the total State and Federal funding for each child.You are only looking at the Federal funding per child.At a state level it is less per child for non Govt schools.At a Federal level it is more.Let's have some honesty in the equation.

Schools basically reflect your community and there are still a lot of good primary and infant scools in our states,still with committed teachers and parents with high expectations.The number of good Public High schools have declined over the years,due to lack of discipline and falling teaching standards.We now have a high school system that selects the best for Schools like James Ruse,Manly High,North Sydney High whether you be rich or poor.Many rich attend these schools with no additional impost.They have the best teachers and good facilities all at the cost of the tax payer.

When I first started teaching high school in Western Sydney in the mid 80's I was appalled at the lack of discipline and lack of support particulary for female teachers.No one really cared.Many of these male students were totally out of control.I was determined at this point to leave this perverted system.There have to be serious consequences for bad behaviour,and under our present soft option lefist mentality nothing has changed,it has got worse.

Arjay, I have taught at UWS, where I found no behaviour problems. Maybe, a few students struggled with courses. Perhaps the latter situation is merely a reflection of the University's sub-70 TER, low entry requirements. By third year the remaining students were typically good achievers.

As for secondary schools, some Western Suburb schools have suffered from the combination of really poor teachers and unmotivated students, since Adam wore short pants. On the other hand, in the West, there are some very good schools in the Hills District.

Not quite sure what you mean by "Leftist". Marx was a middle class intellectual.

Bravo Julie! It is refreshing to read such views in the education sector.

Private participation in education is much more widespread than most people recognise and encompasses a wide range of activities. This document provides some detail: http://www.educationforum.org.nz/documents/speeches/private_sector_participation_1092004.pdf

Forum members might also be interested in an online discussion on contracting in education that the World Bank is currently hosting (until 1 April). Those intereted can join in the discussion at:

http://rru.worldbank.org/Discussions/Topics/Topic61.aspx

Arjay, you ask for honesty, but carefully avoid the question.

"Pericles,look at the total State and Federal funding for each child.You are only looking at the Federal funding per child.At a state level it is less per child for non Govt schools.At a Federal level it is more.Let's have some honesty in the equation."

So tell me, "honestly", by how much would taxes have to rise if these funds were invested into the public school system? It was your claim, remember, "If all the private schools both Catholic and religious others were closed tomorrow,our Govt would have to increase taxes immensely" that I am challenging. It is an argument that is regurgitated every time this topic surfaces, and is entirely specious.

As I said before, I have absolutely no problem with people paying for their children to be educated. What disgusts me is that commercial enterprises should extort taxpayers' money before they can provide this service. Please, "bring some honesty into the equation" by justifying why the ordinary taxpayer should pay twice, once for his own kids' education and again for the rich kids'.

Pericles,now we have to look at the total picture.Capital cost of land and buildings,plus cost of employing staff plus administration,plus the total costs of all students divided by the number of students.Can some one please supply this data.I'll gladly do the arithmetic.

Arjay, I'd just like to point out that it was you who made the claim in the first place. Now that it is clear that you have absolutely no evidence to back this up ("Can some one please supply this data.I'll gladly do the arithmetic"), it would be the honest thing to do to retract it, with an apology for wasting our time.

Pericles ,I herad the stats about 2yrs ago,I dont have the memory for the exact numbers,but since you have issued the challenge ,I shall find out.

I look forward to your numbers Arjay, but I promise not to hold my breath.

Think of it logically for a moment.

For land and buildings, governments can borrow more cheaply than commercial concerns. As a result, debt servicing costs (cost of equity) will be lower for a public school.

Cost of staff, administration etc. is the same.

Take out the profit element which has to exist in the commercial sector, and public is cheaper still.

There are any number of reports available on the topic, for example on PFI in schools in the UK. Many of them detail the financial sleight-of-hand required in order to present a win-win proposition.

Please note, I am not talking about the better facilities etc. that can be obtained if the parents throw in extra cash, just the like-for-like comparison of the cost base. There can be absolutely no circumstance in the real world where a totally public school system can become the additional drain on the taxpayer that you suggest.

Which brings me back to my original point. If parents wish to allocate a portion of their after-tax earnings to the education of their children, that should continue to be their absolute prerogative. If companies wish to cater for this need by establishing themselves as profit-making entities, this should also be their absolute prerogative. What is iniquitous and indefensible is the allocation of our taxes to achieve this. This is not even economic rationalism, it is an open subsidy of a particular market - the private education system - from the public purse. A form of market protection that we would be well rid of.

I just took another look at the Australian organizations involved in the joint venture Julie Novak mentions in relation to the Springfield QLD project. The body that will receive the government funding is - as required - a not-for-profit organization. But the entity that "provides services" to this company (ABC Learning) is a listed public company that expects a 20% return on its investment from year one.

It is a shameful system that allows an essential service to be subverted to the greed of the entrepreneur, by allowing public funds earmarked for the education of our children to be diverted into their pockets.

Pericles: You think that is bad. The financial arrangements and iffy goings-on of many offshore private providers offering Australian university courses are far worse, as I think we touched-on in another Forum:e.g., "Holding" Strategic Business Units milking other education SBUs. Hence, my unsolicited advice to always look at the total organisational structure and ownership.

It would be interesting to see how this NPO's Memorandum of Articles is worded, as to allow the situation you describe: But guess, we wont have that opportunity.

Oliver,
your point about 'iffy offshore providers' Well said !
Arjay,
your point about the soft discipline in the public sector is also due for credit. The stupidity of the "The only thing to believe in is that there is nothing to believe in" mentality of our public education sector is lamentable. They will speak about 'rights' and come up with something very similar to 'Do for your fellow student (neighbour) as you would have them do for you" which is fine, but as usual, they provide no real 'reason' for believing this is a good thing, apart from it should theoretically produce the intended outcome.
Pericles,
nice NOT to see words like "Penumbral" or "Exeguious" in a recent response to me, for which I had to consult a dictionary . P.S. U asked me to respond to your question in the other thread, which I did, but u have not yet responded to mine, about your interest in the White Rajah's .. mind ?

Personally, I feel the idea of education for profit is to be condemned, for the reasons Oliver brought out. The more enmeshed the various entities become, ABC learning pushing the deal, but also having its child care centres on site, puts the cringes up my spine. So many profit motives which conflict with many values important for a sound education.
I shudder at this scenario for the same reason I shudder when the State retreats from its Corrections responsibilities giving the role to private providers who are guided by 2 main values 1/ Cost cutting, 2/ Increased shareholder Value. Though on the surface these may seem laudable objectives, when they are guided by materialistic and selfish motives they always end up dehumanizing various people.

If private providers want to set up 'for profit' education centres fine. but ZERO tax payer funding ! Private Schools run by Churches are not for profit, and I am more sympathetic to some taxpayer contribution as long as they remain not for profit as they seek to instill enduring values in the children as well as the ABC's

What is going on here? I agree with Boaz again. Where profit competes with value, unfortunately there is only one winner.

I have stated in a previous forum that my children attend public schools and I resent my tax dollars going to fund private schools. Education is not a privilege it is a fundamental right - to bring in a profit based system further alienates lower and middle income families from the wealthy. Profit in education erodes the very idea of values for our children. How can one teach compassion, tolerance and empathy when the bottom line is the dollar? All our children will learn is that to get anywhere in life all you need is enough money. And if you don't have any you'd better get it - somehow.

I feel that commercial private for-profit schools should not be Government subsidised. The sending of children to a commercial private for-profit school is a matter of parental choice. All children should be provided taxpayer funding – and they are. However, where parents “choose” to opt out of the system set-up for their children, I don’t see why the Treasurer must follow on their silver coat tails waving a wad of money.

The not for profit church systems are different because the school environment emphasises holistic values and pastoral care. Moreover, often times the school fees are “reduced” to help poor families.

If public schools are not delivering, then, address that problem. Make it academically harder to become a schoolteacher. Today’s Week End Australian has an article on this very topic in the Higher Education section. Also, provide the public schools better support. Make principals and teachers job tenure performance based. Make special provision in the public schools for “gifted” and “challenged” children by having Government paying big bucks for excellent and highly trained teachers. The latter can be payed-for by redirecting funding away from the private schools to selective public schools and special purpose public schools. Herein, gaining greater utility from the best teachers in special gifted class populations and challenged class populations. Thus, we have streaming based on merit and need.

Boaz,your comment finds suport from George Orwell, who said never use a big word when a small word serves the same purpose. I think this advice is generally apt for 350 word posts to a general audience. "Penumbral" is okay for an astronomical journal or a literature essay, but, perhaps not here. Trust this remark is not too direct, but, I did not want to "shade" my meaning :-).

Albeit, maybe, there is an exception, where two or three contributors with specialist knowledge make a connection; wherein, there could be multiple embedded threads. Penumbral? Anyone for celestial mechanics or debating whether Beacon wrote Shakespeare :),;)?

>>Private Schools run by Churches are not for profit, and I am more sympathetic to some taxpayer contribution as long as they remain not for profit as they seek to instill enduring values in the children<<

I knew you couldn't get through a post without a little religious boosterism Boaz, but I'm curious how broadly you define "Churches" and "values".

Or might you actually be sympathetic to public funding for Muslim schools?

No? What a surprise.

Incidentally, there shouldn't be any words here that you need to look up. Except possibly "tolerance".

Here is another comment on "charter schools" in the US.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0330-20.htm
Seems the reality does match the hype!

Oops!Should be the reality does not match the hype!

Arjay, I realize I am wasting my time asking, but having been challenged on your statement "[i]f all the private schools both Catholic and religious others were closed tomorrow,our Govt would have to increase taxes immensely", I think it would be polite of you either to retract it with an apology, or provide some justification.

The reason I am reluctant to let you off the hook is that this is classic propaganda material, which you have perpetuated without thought or question. It has become such a regular feature of our everyday lives; I hear something that chimes with my beliefs, and then mindlessly regurgitate the next time I'm down the pub.

It is good practice to be sensitive to the glib "if... then" statements which tend precede many a specious (sorry Boaz) argument.

To iterate one point, I made earlier, "academic" utility is best served by matching the best and most appropriate teachers with the correct student populations. This just described circumstance does not occur under the private versus public system. Therefore, the public system must pay its teachers on merit; enrichen the high performers and sack all lazy, incompetent, underskilled dregs. Herein, "A"s must count for more that straw hats. Meritocracy over crony "old school tie"? Guess, I am a dreamer.

Moreover, challenged students need the greatest opportunuity to develop their full potential.

So we pay taxes, the private schools access those taxes to build infrastructure, and then that "company" pay cash dividends to share-holders who send their kids to private schools. Profit and education can work - for some.

Rancid, you identify a relevant population cum classification "for some". But is that "some" the most deserving? Should not the best resources be targeted at the most capable? With non-selective private schools, we have the best resources directed towards a normative population.

No - Oliver, we have the best resources directed at a "normative" population that can afford it. The public system does not exclude people according to disposable income. Not to worry - have you heard that the latest trend is for those who can afford private education and who would rather be a good parent than hold down a dozen jobs and leave it to the education system to teach their kids morals etc. are setting that money aside to help their youngsters into their first home instead. Perhaps when the fold return to the public education sector the government will be more enthusiastic about directing decent funding towards the unqualified normative population.

Read the front page of the SMH today (6/4/05) and it seems these exclusive private and selective schools don't do as good a job at actually educating kids as public comprehensive schools. They're great for hothousing them up to an exam, but 3 studies (in Britain, WA and now Melbourne) agree that kids from public comprehensive schools do better at Uni than their more privileged counterparts.
How sad so many well meaning parents are actually being sold a very expensive pup.
Perhaps, profit in education these days refers to what the school gets, not the students.

My comment relates to an “embedded” normative private student population based on the likelihood that private students are distributed over a normal distribution curve, yet have the best teachers. A better situation is to have the best teachers available for the gifted and special needs children at the extremes of a larger general population in special purpose public schools. Rancid, I agree with you. Have the best resources available where the need is greatest.

Sorry, I was not clearer.

PART I

MAN FRIDAY SYNDROME

Enjay, about eight years back, I was told the very same thing by a senior TAFE educator. Primers and guided tours through the last three years of examinations and handholding generally give advantage were the task is to learn something and repeat it against an established standard - competency based learning. However, where understanding and self reliance are involved, the prepies can become a little lost: Herein, Higher Education is something of a challange to ex-private school students, when greater levels of autonomy are required.

HOWEVER,

GOOD NEWS FOR PREPIES

The good news for private school graduates is that with today's commercialisation of university education, entry requirements have eased considerably encouraging those responsible for the governance of education to lessen standards, so to enable students to pass. Increasingly, learning is just walking through the textbooks in class, because students don't read their chapters before class, to facilitate classroom discussion. Thus,undergraduate education is starting to become just High School Mark II, rather than commencing a journey by taking the first steps on the stones of true scholarship. Actually, that is not fair: High School students tend to be more disciplined with regards to preparation.

LOOK OUT FOR PART TWO

PART TWO:

OFFSHORE PROVIDERS

With university - offshore provider partnerships, the situation is essentially out of control with regards to governance of education. The offshore providers often target students failing to matriculate into local universities. Log-on to the ICAC's Website to see a blow-for-blow description of consequences: Here, look for the University of Newcastle / Wira transcripts. Also, look at Auston International and Informatics under the Google "News" engine and please remember to sort by date.

Minister Nelson and the Australian Vice Chancellors Committee (AVCC) were forewarned about similar happenings and while, it was happening. Nonetheless, both demonstrated the characteristics of the three wise monkeys. But, in fact, their response in ignoring repeated warnings and goings-on was not wise, but irrational.

Who audits universities? Answer: The Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). Who pays for the AUQA? Answer: the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. Who participates in these audits? Answer: Sometimes, retired Vice Chancellors. Simply put, it's a closed conclave.

How often are universities audited? Answer, every five years. What was the response to the suggestion that in addition there also be one wildcard (ad hoc) audit each year, to keep all on their toes between scheduled periods? Answer: No reply.

EDUCATION SENATORS

Would readers of this Forum, please provide feedback on the suggestion that Educators, Student Unions and interested & concerned parents run three or four Commonwealth Senate Candidates at the next election or by-election.

Please think about the above. Discuss amongst your friends and come back to this Forum, unless the sponsoring universities block comment.

If Minister Nelson and the AVCC cannot handle our education system. We must have concerned people with review power in the Senate

Relatedly, the media need to hasten deep invetigative journalism into offshore providers to establish why so often Australian universities deal with offshore private providers, when the local universities usually do not. Journalists go to it!

enaj,while those who do get to uni in public system do it largely on their own ability,there are many others in that public system who have grossly under achieved because they have needed pressure on them to find their latent abilities.There is no one size fits all,but really bright children will achieve no matter what the environment.They don't necessarily need the dedication of teachers.Real teaching ability inspires ordinary students to achieve beyond their potential,and that is not a bad thing.These days ,it doesn't often happen in the public system.There isn't the same dedication because teaching is no longer valued as it once was,like nursing and many other professions, we have lost our sense of values and perspective.

Dear Arjay,
If what you say is true (and I suspect there are just as many rotten teachers in private schools as there are in public), what should we do about it? Give up on the public school system? Allow it to become a system of last resort for the most disadvantaged? What will be the long term consequences of that, for all of us, I wonder. Yet this is the radical path our Fed Govt seems to be advocating. It is an absolute tribute to the dedicated teachers in public schools, and there are such teachers in all of them, that their students continue to do well under very difficult circumstances.
Of course true equality will only exist when the most ordinary kids do as well in public schools as it is argued they do in private, but by removing resources from such schools and pouring them into already highly resourced private schools, by talking about schools for profit, rather than schools for all our kids, we are, in fact, guaranteeing the opposite. And blaming the only people and institutions (our public schools and public school teachers) who are still battling to do something about it.

Nicely put, enaj.

As I said in an earlier post, arjay, "I look forward to your numbers Arjay, but I promise not to hold my breath."

If you recall, you committed to supply some corroboration to your assertion that "[i]f all the private schools both Catholic and religious others were closed tomorrow,our Govt would have to increase taxes immensely".

The polite response, the honest response, the admirable response, would be for you to retract your statement as being simply a propaganda line that you unwittingly passed on to us, and to apologize for doing so.

But I guess I shouldn't hold my breath for that either, eh, arjay?