I am no socialist, but I think Vinnies are on to something.
The headlong rush to inequality is happening and it is happening in the opportunities or lack thereof we are offering our children.
30 years ago we had government education policies that at least attempted to counterbalance the inevitable inequalities that are visited upon all of us at birth. We, as a community, at least paid lip service to the idea that equality of opportunity for kids was important, no matter who their parents were.
No longer. We now have government education policies that entrench advantage at one end and entrench disadvantage at the other. The results of this will be horrendous for all of us. As a teacher battling in a tough, underfunded, disadvantaged public school said to me recently; "If the govt doesn't spend some more money on public schools soon, they better start building a lot more gaols."
I'm all for competition amongst adults, but not if we've already loaded the dice against kids as young as 5. That's not competition, that's bloody cheating, in my book.
If a church organisation like Vinnies is advocating for an end to public subsidies of private schools, I'm writing them a cheque immediately.

Enjay,
I’m all for raising spending on schools, and especially those with students from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds, but kids at non-government schools are also entitled to public support.

The key question is how we ensure that kids get the best education they can. In my view, that means: allowing diversity and experimentation in the provision of education, so than innovation leads to improvement; levelling up not down (though competition, if you will, but between schools not 5-year-olds); encouraging the good schools (government or private) rather than penalising them for fear their students might get an unfair advantage over kids from worse schools; and providing the poorer schools with the incentives and the means to do better. The worst thing we could do is blame or penalise good schools for being good or popular.

Non-government schools are attracting a growing proportion of students because they offer what parents want for their kids, to the extent that many families even on even modest incomes prefer to pay to send their kids to non-government schools than send them to government schools free of charge. Rather than complaining about “bloody cheating”, it might be worth looking at why government schools are losing popularity.

Enjay, you seem to share with the Vinnies report the need to back up your ideas with horror stories about how much worse things are now than they used to be. In the 1970s, fewer than 5% of adults had university degrees, nowadays its approaching 20%. In the 1970s, about a third of students stayed on to year 12, now its more than 70%. Education opportunities are absolutely crucial for out kids, and we need to debate how best to deliver them, but I for one would not turn the clock back 30 years.

Rhian,

As I wrote, you didn't need a degree in the 1970's to get a decent white collar job with good career prospects. For example, only a few weeks ago, Kevin Andrews, the Federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, when interviewed on Radio National's "The National Interest", "defended" the decline of the proportion of people with disabilities employed in the Commonwealth Public Service from 5.3% in 1996 to 3.8% today by saying similar to, "well back then we took in school leavers. Today you normally need a degree in order to get a job in the public service."

So, obviously that makes it OK, then! It is only fair that people with disabilities miss out, because today anyone without a degree is also denied a career in the Public Service!

For many, it has become a necessity, rather than a choice, to attend University, and in the process, incur massive HECS debts to be paid off over many years.

Is that progress?

I would suggest that this huge new cost, which has been imposed on many in order to be able to earn a decent livelihood, is only one of many factors that have not been properly taken into account when the figures, upon which Peter Saunders makes his claims that we have all have become twice as prosperous since the 1960's, were calculated.

St Vinnies should be congratulated for having the courage to stand up to this Government, and its apologists such as Peter Saunders, even if, as I wrote, earlier, they have made the mistake of trying to argue their case using the same flawed measures of prosperity as are used by Peter Saunders.

Dagget – you ask do I think it is progress that more people have degrees than used to, even if some are doing it from necessity not choice, and people now need degrees for jobs that they previously didn’t?
Yes I do, for three reasons:
Firstly, from the point of view of society as a whole, it is probably a good thing that our teachers, journalists, accountants, public servants etc are more educated than they once were.
Secondly, surveys and economics literature suggest that investing in education yields both a positive private return (people with more education attract higher earning than those with less, making that HECS investment worthwhile) and also a positive social return (the standard of living rises in countries that invest more in education, for the whole community not just the educated). Incidentally, this mix of public and private benefits seems to me to justify a mix of public and private (HECS etc) funding for degrees.
Thirdly, I believe that higher education is a good thing to have in itself, not just as a vocational requirement or ticket to higher earnings. It adds to quality of life in the broadest sense - a theme your earlier post touched on.
I’m the only person in my family ever to go to university. My father was very bright, but his family was poor, and poor working class kids didn’t go to uni in his day. My mother’s family was lower middle class, and she was offered a scholarship, but her father believed that higher education was wasted on girls, so she didn’t go either. Both of them lived productive lives, both were well-informed and inquisitive, but both would have enjoyed greatly, and benefited hugely from, the education opportunities I’ve enjoyed.
I’m no believer in the good old days!
Your earlier post raised some interesting points about the usefulness of GDP as a measure of quality of life. I’ve used up my 2 posts in 24 hours for now, but will comment on that tomorrow if I get time.

Rhian,

Of course having a more educated society is generally a good thing, however my point was that, it has become a necessity to get a degree in order to be able to get the same kind of jobs that our parents could get with year 12.

Again, I ask, has this, as just one of many examples, been taken into account, and many others when people like Peter Saunders claim that we have become twice as prosperous as we were a generation ago?

This is one aspect of what has been referred to as the 'credentials creep' where people not only have to get degrees, but also have to spend many further years amassing post-graduate qualifications in order to secure employment either because it is now a requirement for their chosen profession, or because the marketplace has become so much more competitive.

I think a good many now in Universities, would be happy if they could finally finish their education and just be able to get on with the earning an income and with the rest of their lives.

I would be interested to see if there is any evidence to suggest that today's professionals and public servants are that much better than they were a generation ago, or even if they are, if it necessarily warrants so much more time spent with little income and accumulating ever greater HECS debts.

I also suggest you also have a look at the next 4 Corners on Monday which will be about the effect of Government cutbacks on the quality of our University system.

Rhian, and everyone else...
Level/Quality of education does not equal quality of life...

Yes we are 3-5 times richer than our parents/grandparents but we have not improved our levels of happiness or life satisfaction. Research by the Australia Institute shows that people are actually less happy today than 30-50 years ago. How has a 'better' education (dare I say societal indoctrination into consumerism and blind, irresponsible capitalism... perhaps a little too radical? Or too close to home?) helped then?

But back to the topic of Mr Saunders paper. Coming from a single parent/4 children family (3 of whom went to private schools on a nurses wage: lets see that done today! Ha!) I think that if we (the well off/better off - of which I have become) tried to live as those who rely on the services of those such as St V's do - we'd go crying to our banker/financial planner for our money back. I don't think many actually comprehend the struggle some have. Our comfort has made us... well it's too uncomfortable to think about isn't it...

Perhaps the greatest misused words in these discussions are 'need' and 'want'. What is truely needed as opposed to what we simply want? What about the more onerous words - 'social responsibility'? Have people forgotten the reason for the formation of society was the mutual support and protection it offered? We now act more like the predators we hid from!

I am not saying that the poor don't have a responsibility to help themselves (there are plenty who work hard and try) but if one continues to expect more and give less (as so often is the case), then when/if the time comes around for oneself to seek help and compassion, remember ones own thoughts of "help thyself"...

Greed is growing and it is killing the world as surely as pollution.

Best of luck too all... try to see it coming.
JustDan