Well Alan I think that's the point. Religion is a tool, for these people it's a way to justify their actions, not to live better lives. The only growing part of Christianity is the happy clappers. These churches teach their followers the good news bible (get rich quick) not the follow the rules and help your fellow man version. But don't think you can turn this around, Christianity displaced other religions because it offered individual reward, there was some personal reward in Christianity that the pagan religions didn't have. So what's been happing to Christianity these days is just an extension of that. Faith has become the servant not the master.

Public education? Yeah, I think this country had that once.

I think it will be an interesting process coming up to the next election. Howard has thrown so much money at the 'independent' school system, both Christian and non-Christian. How can he then propose that certain (non-Christian) groups be forced to assimilate into Australian society when he funds them to be separate? By the same token, Christian schools such as the Exclusive Bretheren are entitled to receive funding from both the State and Federal systems, and the parents of those children refuse to participate in the electoral process of voting.

Rudd nearly had my vote until he stated he wouldn't seek to remove funding from wealthy private schools and redistribute to the public system. Education for all means just that, and only public schools are committed and willing to take all comers.

I'll know when politicians and 'religious' leaders are serious about raising the quality of education in Australia when they send their own children to the local state school. Has anyone seen the figures on MPs and their children's schooling?

Slightly offtopic:

"But don't think you can turn this around, Christianity displaced other religions because it offered individual reward, there was some personal reward in Christianity that the pagan religions didn't have."

Are you sure? Christians were heavily persecuted for the first few centuries A.D., the time during which it spread the most. (The same happens today, in the many parts of the world where Christians are equally persecuted, yet many continue to convert to Christianity). I don't think that Biblical Christianity can be followed solely for personal reward.

Oh, and btw, the "happy clappy" churches you're talking about have had a STRONG focus on poverty and social justice in the last 5 years. Its about time for them to join the party, considering so many millions of schools, charities, hospitals, etc. in the third world were started by Christians over the years.

It really clouds the issue when commentators discuss 'government' funding because there are two governments and their motives and obligations are different.
The government schools are funded by the state governments, yet in NSW, the poor state of our schools hardly got a look in at our state election. Presumably the voters don't care about the local schools because the Labor govt was returned with a large majority.
The Federal government is funding the private school sector but the Feds have no obligation to fund state schools. It is quite correct for people to question the large amounts of money going to elite schools but erroneous to suggest it is being redirected from state schools. If the Feds stopped funding private schools, it is unlikely that any of that money would find its way to government schools.

The irony of it all is that the kids who go to the government schools generally have more successful outcomes at tertiary level. Of course that is if they manage to get a place because they have to compete with the spoon fed kids from the private schools who get better marks in year 12.

This isn't a recent phenomenon either. It has been happening for at least the past fifty years. Parents who want their kids to have a successful tertiary education are better off saving their money for just that instead of squandering it by sending their kids to prestigious private schools.

I think the answer is simple. These so called "Christian" schools that the author discusses are not - going by his description alone - actually Christian schools. I think Capitalist schools would be a more apt classification. The word "Christian" seems to be used in the same way that a Communist would use the word "freedom", ie a total perversion of the concept. I would call it blasphemy, but i'm no priest on a pulpit. I imagine such "Christian" schools maintain their status as "Christian" by having some watery Religious Ed class and saying the Lord's Prayer at assemblies and Grace at supper, and that's about the extent of their "Christianity".

The author conveniently ignores the fact that many middle and low income parents make great sacrifices in order to send their children to a school where there are at least some resemblance of Christian values. The hopelessly drugged filled, discipline free public social experiment has proved a miserable failure. At some schools the only thing free are the needles and condoms.

Whinging about the Government spending money (less per student than public schools) on private schools is a convenient way of not having to address the failures. As Frank Gol points out that the Pollies on all sides of politics send their kids to what they perceive to be the best schools. Many even on the left of politics who supposedly champion public education don't believe their own rhetoric.

FrankGol

I am a supporter of good public education. Have been for years. I have worked in the public edcuation system and presided over bodies advocationg for community involvement in public education. Both my sons went to state schools.

What has always disgusted me was less how many politicians send their children to state schools, than how many teachers and vocal AEU members send their children to private schools.

I was shown a document by a principal a few years ago in which the AEU expressed concern because in one state, slightly more than 45% of its members had enrolled their children in private schools.

In my own experience I have been offended by educrats with whom I have worked deinging to tell me what is good about public edcuation, and why I should desist from being critical, while sending their own children to high fee private schools.

Makes you wonder about quality, when the providers won't use the product!

I think we need to simply the funding for education. I favour a school voucher system where every child receives the exact same dollar value per student.

The more complicated you make it - the more chance of abuse of power.

In this way if a school can provide better education to students, parents will gravitate toward it.

http://www.stewartglass.net/policies/education.htm

Wees don't need no schools or edgymication we gots the newsprint to keeps us informed and how wees shoulda feels about stuffs. Those riches gots the money cuz ther dads gonna look after us. Theys owes us tax monies and a lotta others stuff from before that thes stol from us ans the unions. But my ol lady says the kids gotta have some place to go wiles shes watchn the soaps. Ohterwis hows she gonna no how to be a sucsesful woman an stuff.

What a revealing article. It says more about the author’s world view than it does about education funding in Australia.

Alan Matheson’s article is not a critique or a reasoned argument, it is a polemic. The so called examples he cites are unverified, and there’s no indication as to their source.

Apparently in Alan Matheson’s world all public schools have broken toilets, and all Christian schools have “heated swimming pools”. Both ideas are equally absurd.

This author either does not know – or chooses to ignore – that the diversity in the Australian community applies equally to all school settings.

And what exactly does he mean by the term “Christian” school? Does he mean “church” school? Does he mean community based Christian school? Parent-run Christian school? Denominational? Non-denominational? Systemic? Independent?

I represent about 150 Christian schools, member of Christian Schools Australia.

CSA member schools are representative of the very thing Mr Matheson apparently despises: local faith-based schools which have been growing in number and enrolments over the last 20 years as parents increasingly exercise their right to choose a school on the basis of faith, beliefs and values and ethos.

Christian schools in this growing sector have been established by local, individual, churches and parent groups.

They are all not-for-profit organisations. Individuals – mums and dads and community volunteers – took the financial risk of seeing the school established, providing for its growth, and in ensuring it has a sustainable future.

The growth of these schools represents a very substantial investment by mums & dads and their local church communities in the education of Australia’s children.

They invest family income to make up the difference between public funding and the cost of providing education services to the community. The amount invested each year by parents of non-government school children as a whole is about $ 4 billion.

So how much public funding do Christian schools get -- those singled out for attack by Mr Matheson?

See my next post in this forum for the details (continued.....)

(Continued...)

This is the research Alan Matheson should have done before posting his uninformed opinion. First, federal funding.

What he should know is that all non-government schools in Australia are funded on the same basis. All are funded according to a formula which links the socio-economic status (SES) of the school’s community with their level of funding.

Schools in well-off communities get less funding. Schools in poorer areas get more funding. None of them get as much per student as the local government school – by definition.

The growing Christian schools have generally been in working class and lower middle class areas, providing choice not previously available to these families.

The average SES score for schools in CSA is 97 (on a scale where 85 is the lowest and 130 is the highest).

An SES score of 97 qualifies for funding at 55% of the AGSRC. What’s that? It is a measurement of the Average Government School Recurrent Cost – the average cost of educating the equivalent child in a government school.

The average CSA school receives, in federal funding, 55 % of the per-student funding of government schools.

Not more funding than government schools – less. Just over half as much.

Non-government schools also receive a lesser amount of funding from state governments. It's different in every state.

The best comparison comes from the Productivity Commission’s analysis of the level of public funding in all sectors, taking into account ALL funding from ALL governments.

The Commission’s study shows the average public funding for a student in a government school is $10,715. The average public funding for a non-government school student is $6,054.

For every $ 1.00 invested per student in public education by Australia’s governments, the same governments invest $ 0.67 per student in non-government schooling.

(continued in a third and final post...)

runner: "At some schools the only thing free are the needles and condoms."

Why is it that some "Christians" feel the need to tell lies?

Name one Australian school - government or otherwise - where needles and condoms are freely distributed.

Well I am an atheist and a confirmed believer in public education. You really have to be gullible to believe that people setting up and running Christian schools are doing so because of an overwhelming commitment to Christian principles. Take away the government subsidies and see how long that commitment lasts.

With all due respect to others with genuine and legitimate concern for justice in education, I want you to know that Christians, and Christian schools, vary enormously.There are wealthy Christian schools and wealthy Christian school parents. There are wealthy state school parents too. There are wealthy non-Christian schools. I personally work in a small Christian school which has a high proprtion of families who earn well below average wages and work hard to raise funds for our simple facilities. I know of other such Christian schools who work on tight budgets and serve many struggling families who wish to make educational choices for their children. We have quite low fees and substantial discounts for people in particular need. I personally work fulltime for a parttime salary. Please do not look at the examples of a few well-established and well resourced schools and make sweeping generalizations as if we are all wealthy, elitist and working in luxury.

CJ Morgan

You accuse me of lying even though at no stage did I say the Government schools provide condoms and needles. This is not because some in public schools don't want these machines installed. There have been many calls for them. The only thing that prevents them is the public outcry. All you need to do is read last weeks Herald Sun to see how teachers were taking children to receive the 'morning after pill' without the parents knowledge to realise how sick the mentality of some of our social engineers are. I don't need to lie or exagarate the lack of morals taught in many (not all ) of the Public schools. Just ask the Labour and Democrat members who send their kids to private schools.

"Rudd nearly had my vote until he stated he wouldn't seek to remove funding from wealthy private schools and redistribute to the public system."
So who you going to vote for?

There is no way any Australian politicians can stop funding non-state schools.
The Greens were amazing in their bravery? audacity? stupidity? in saying they would deny funding to 90 rich private schools. The thing is a lot of the High C of E probably vote Green; but not when their kid's education is at risk.

Lets face it we have a "haves" and "have not" system.
The best we can do is stop the worst abuses like creationism being taught as science.
Perhaps some Teretary and Tech. scholarships and bursaries would be nice.
Perhaps decent funding for TAFE would be nice. The present funding is a bad joke.
Instead of a "Future Fund" (weasel words) for politician's pensions we could have a Future fund for Education that would be nice.

Many schools in my area (Central Coast) are as poor as church mice and have to share HSC texts.
Many are just perpetuating a "looser" mentality with kids frightened to go to the toilet ( no doors or glass)
or
admit they learn a musical instrument after school (Paid for by struggling working class parents).
The Conservatorium on the Central Coast gets about $1 per student.
We recently saw 100mil spent on Sydney Con.renovations.

Justice equality forget it, the battle has been lost.

Stuff we even have style mafia
"There is no need for that many question marks. Remove them to continue." put in your own "?"

I am a firm supporter of public education. I am also dubious of the mantra of "choice in education". Here are a few stories from my own experience:

1. I went to a high school in a small country town, the only high school within 80kms in any direction. Choice? Unless you had the money to send a student to boarding-school, there was no choice.

2. My daughter has special needs and goes to a well-resourced small class (7 kids) at a state school. Choice? Until the private system offers this level of support the state system is my only choice.

3. Acquainances with a special needs child chose to send their son to a Christian school. After the child was bullied (because he was different) they had to send him to the local state school.

4. Aother acquaintance was having problems with their child at a small Christian school. When my spouse suggested she talk to the school counsellor, she said there was no school counsellor.....

These anecdotes are not proof of anything, but illustrate that some people don't have a free "choice in education". A lot of this rot about "discipline" boils down to "I want the school to chuck out any child that might do anything I don't like". Some parents make sacrifices and choose to send their children to private schools, away from the riff-raff. That's fine, but the state sysem is the only refuge for the misfits that the private system doesn't have to put up with.

Regarding a voucher system (as suggested by Stewart Glass). Are you seriously suggesting that the Federal Government double its education expenditure? Or do you think States should reduce their funding of schools? Equality of funding is either going to cost a LOT more, or lead to much worse state education. Vouchers are only popular with neocons and the NCC.

Runner, hyperbole and bile are no substitute for a logical argument. Sad really, coming from a self-professed Christian. Get back to us when you can come up with something better than a strawman story culled from the Herald Sun.

Public education is vital. So is the private education system.
Maybe the author of this tripe remembers the great State Funding wars and maybe he should consider 1- the pre funding days, and 2-the added billions it would cost the State to deliver to all those now in the private system.
One more thing Alan; the sentence"The plundering of the inclusive, government school dollar.... is unlimited" is offensive in its inaccuracy, its bias and in its intellectual paucity.
God help us all if this article is the level of debate.

stephen@csa,

you can quote all the numbers in the world, but its clear you've been up on your high horse so long that you can't actually see that THERE ARE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND CHRISTIAN (PRIVATE) SCHOOLS.

if you don't agree that consistency of education rolls in capital australia, then just say it - that's a line of argument many australians agree with. but don't fart around covering your bottom with "statistics", its just as ridiculous as quoting your line of work in "the name of god".

The problem with religious schools, is that they take little 5 year
old innocent children and brainwash them with a heap of claptrap,
for which there is no substantiated evidence and which would not
stand up in a court of law.

Many of these kids are damaged for life by all this. IMHO its
basically child abuse.

Yabby writes "The problem with religious schools, is that they take little 5 year old innocent children and brainwash them with a heap of claptrap,"

I think you meant State schools Yabby. That is why so many Politicians of all persuasions send their kids to private schools. They don't care to much about the religion taught in private schools but they hate the fruit of the religion of secular humanism taught in State based schools.

"That is why so many Politicians of all persuasions send their kids to private schools. They don't care to much about the religion taught in private schools but they hate the fruit of the religion of secular humanism taught in State based schools."

Runner, I agree, we have our share of religious fanatics in politics,
as in the rest of the community. That they care about which religion
is taught, is a fact! Most want their own kids brainshwashed, in whatever they were brainwashed with as children and still believe.

If you think I'm wrong, then perhaps you could suggest to Fred
Nile that his kids or grandkids should go to an Islamic school.
Or perhaps Hilali could send his kids/grandkids, to a JW or
Bretheren school :)

Think again about the nonsense that you wrote.

You're all barking up the wrong tree. Stick all the little buggers up chimneys again. That way, you'll 1) save heaps of money on the education budget (and let's face it, no one remembers anything they were taught in school anyway), and 2) our economy would go gangbusters with all those new chimneys that would have to be built.

Problem solved. Next?

I don't think I know enough about this subject to say much. However, what I can say, is that both my kids went to a Catholic high-school where they received quite a good eduction. Both were able to go on to university (one is now a veterinarian, the other doing his PhD). (By the way, both are still, like their parents, atheists.)

Our impression of the kids attitude in the state high-school in the same regional city was that serious students were ridiculed.

It is a great pity if kids have to go to private schools (religious or otherwise) to get a decent education, but that does seem to be so at least in some places.

I owe my education (primary, high, and tertiary), as well as my first job (high school teacher, SE suburbs of Melbourne) to the State system.

Though I am grateful, I must say the State system is not perfect, having lost its philosophical rudder (no pun intended) a while back.

To CJ Morgan,

Where I taught, he only time I saw condoms given out was by a visiting speaker. The teacher who invited the speaker was horrified and got the students to give them back.

However, I was a bit concerned about the Sex Education unit that was included in Science years 8,9,10, which included some teaching on contraception. I wondered that for the kids who are under the age of consent, isn’t that teaching them how to break the law?

To Michael2

While creationism is a little off the topic, since you raised it,

I know of no Christian school that teaches creationism without thoroughly discussing evolution as well. In that, kids get practice at analysing and criticising competing philosophical theories. In other words, they are getting lessons in how to think, not just what to think. I suspect that you believe that nothing exploded and became everything because you were only taught what to think.

When the luny left took over our public education system,they took our 5 yr old kids and brainwashed them with a heap of claptrap.

It all depends upon who is trapping and clapping I guess.
Our public education system is predominately controlled by a left wing mentality and it only natural for level headed people to seek more balanced alternatives.It is a free enterprise market and people are willing to pay a lot more to get the balance.

Perhaps the public system should cater for the needs and aspirations of the general populace instead of trying to surrepticiously inflict their personal views on the rest of us.

We have a whole generation who cannot spell or use grammar correctly or even demonstrate skills in critical analysis and it does show.

Quite interesting the comments posted here.

State school teachers are diverse. Many go to church. Many were private school educated. It's about half and half in our staff room. We get along and don't discuss (usually due to time constraints) the issues others are so focused on.

Someone commented on State Governments funding state school and Fed Government funding private schools. Not quite the case. The Feds allocate the funding to the states. The states do the best they can with the inadequate funding. There's strong stipulations on how the funding is to be used. Schools tend to market themselves so they can receive extra funding. They compete against each other.

Another poster criticised Rudd because he said he wouldn't take funding away from private schools. Although there's no argument with me that the funding has been discriminatory as far as the Liberals have been concerned, I do believe private schools also should receive funding. They have taken a lot of burden off the state system. And besides, the parents pay taxes too and are entitled to funding for their children regardless of whether they are state or private. By the way, many state school teachers send their kids to private schools.

I like his idea of sharing resources. If a private school has a brilliant sports field or pool or science labs or auditorium, I think it's a equitable decision to share that resource within the community.

Just my thoughts.

Arjay, a few comments:

"Luny" is normally spelt loony or occasionally looney (as in Looney Tunes).

"Surrepticiously" is normally spelt surreptitiously

It's customary to put a space after a full stop, or a comma.

You say the "public education system is predominately controlled by a left wing mentality." I wasn't aware that a public education system had a mentality, left wing or otherwise. Ditto for the public system's "personal views".

You say we "have a whole generation who cannot spell or use grammar correctly or even demonstrate skills in critical analysis and it does show."

Yes Arjay, it certainly does show, doesn't it?

We also have a generation of State educated people who deny absolutes and yet are quick to pick up grammar and spelling mistakes. Something does not add up!

I'll tell you why it does show Johnj.I'm just a tradesmen who was taught in the old school and I can match it with best of what the modern day self flagellating,egocentric Dawin Ankers of your ilk.My intelligence quotient is far below yours,yet your perception of reality is well below mine.

Arjay

Remember these words that I have cut and paste:

'I was a teacher from the mid seventies to the late eighties.I have taught children from K to 12.'

In all my years of teaching, I have never met one teacher who has taught from kindergarten to year 12. What is even rarer is a male kindergarten teacher, particularly during the 70s and 80s.

Now you are a tradesman with a passion for hating teachers.

stephen@csa

‘For every $1.00 invested per student in public education by Australia’s governments, the same governments invest $0.67 per student in non-government schooling.’

You cite the latter amount in a way that implies this is a ‘small’ offering. I disagree. $0.67 in the dollar is actually a high percentage (over two-thirds) of that spent per student in the public sector. This is in addition to the fees charged by non-government schools, plus tax concessions received, as well as the freedom to pursue tax-free fundraising activities.

I doubt that this combination of extra revenues adds up to $0.33 per non-government student for every $1.00 spent per student in the public sector. Operating at such a clear financial disadvantage, it is amazing that public high schools achieve the impressive results they do.

Liz: Wow, you're amazingly generous towards the private system. I don't think it's typically that way with people who teach in the public system.

I suspect that this is the sort of debate, like abortion, that brings most people out strongly entrenched on one side, and that there's little likelihood that people will change their ideological stripes or meet in the middle. I'll freely admit that I have almost complete contempt for the government system and see those who are very opposed to the private system receiving funding as leeches off someone else's tax dollar. That's hardly going to win any friends or influence people though. Likewise, I suspect that there are plenty on the other side of the fence who view people like me in the same way and they're probably not going to win many friends or influence people either.

Still, it will be interesting to see the future of education in this country. Personally, I plan to either homeschool my children or send them to private school, but wild horses couldn't drag them from my arms into the state system.

For Mick V
An article for you to read
http://www.alternet.org/rights/49811/
" Ironically, at the outset the movement seemingly encourages people to think "independently" or "courageously."

At first all have, in the totalitarian belief system, a right to an opinion, or, in short, a right to believe anything.
Soon, under the iron control of an empowered totalitarian movement, facts become worthless, kept or discarded according to an ideological litmus test.
And once these movements achieve power, facts are ruthlessly manipulated or kept hidden to support the lie.

Creationism is not about offering an alternative.
Its goal is the destruction of the core values of the open society--the ability to think for oneself, to draw independent conclusions, to express dissent when judgment and common sense tell you something is wrong, to be self-critical, to challenge authority, to advocate for change and to accept that there are other views, different ways of being, that are morally and socially acceptable.

We are beginning to see the growing intolerance that comes with the empowerment of these ideologues. There is a bill in the Texas Legislature to strip all mention of evolution from Texas school textbooks and institute mandatory Bible classes for all students. This is just the start."

I'm revolted to see the christian right's real estate porfolio & indoctrination centres get padded with my taxes, but i know i'll win in the long run.
My daughters inner urban govt school is tooling her up her with communication and cooperative (&3Rs) skills to die for, while her christian peers sit rigid in rows repeating dogma: i know which is better preparation for the world as it is. If child protection were not in crisis i'd be pushing them to study the legality of religious fundamentalists (of all stripes) forcing their stupidity on others, but most people grow out of the God=Man-in-sky fantasy as they grow up anyway (though why ALL women don't is a real mystery).

At the risk of bringing the wrath of hell down upon myself, I'd just like to point out that the Public School System was given a great kick off by that bloody minded old womanizer and judicial murderer, much revered by the town of Tenterfield and Australian History Books,
Sir Henry Parks, adulterer and Antipodean Cocksman of renown as well as Premier of NSW.
It was he who said in one of his Parliamentary and no doubt un-sober moments that his Public Education Act would be '...the death knell of Roman Catholicism in Australia..." or words to that effect.

He was wrong, and the continued wrangling over private schools is part of his legacy to the Nation.

Get over it, realize that without the private/church schools we'd all be paying more taxes. If you want to improve the Public School system then MAKE the Government apply the law as it pertains to those schools. MAKE the Government live up to its obligations.

I think ultimately, the solution lay in a needs based formula, rather than an arbitrary hit-list. The funding-by-heads system just doesn't work properly, paying to little attention to the differing needs of students.

The public sector, put bluntly, requires a lot more per head. One prominent cause (out of many) is that the public school system, not only provides for disabled students, but picks up the slack where the private school system neglects to cater for disabled students. Not only is the a massive disparity across sectors, but also between schools within a sector (specialist disabled schools vs non specialist and so on.)

Those chrisitan schools that tackle neglect are also disadvantaged by a funding regime that doesn't recognise neglect, so in this repsect, it's not necessarily a public vs private debate.

Then there's the problem with the rorting of various schema; schools inflating their LOTE enrolments to access special funding for example. Reform is needed, and it needs to be based on genuine needs.

Liam: Maybe you've been to different private schools than I have. Christianity isn't really a big focus at many of the more mainstream private schools, even the Catholic ones. A lot of the staff, students and parents couldn't give a proverbial rodent's earlobe about the religion and everyone seems to be going through the motions. Think of the Myer Christmas displays in the windows on Bourke Street -- they're a fascade for the real business of Christmas. Likewise for "Christian" schools.

Liam....
I'm curious about something ....why do you describe Christian schools as the 'Christian Right' ?

Why not just 'Christian' ? To add the word 'Right' to them in a blanket way is rather biased to say the least mate.

You might find some are quite different to your understanding of 'Right'.. though I suppose if you consider standing for moral principle and eternal truths 'Right' ok... But the 'Right' is more a political term and related to economic rationalism and Capitalism as far as I can see. There is nothing particularly 'Christian' about Capitalism, but I'm sure there are many Christians who are of that political economic persuasion.

You say you are 'revolted' about 'your' taxes being used thus and so, but I'm equally revolted that MY taxes are used in such and such a way, particularly to fund 'Multi' culturalism. I'm revolted, offended, insulted, dismayed and even worried.
But my one recourse is the ballat box and public activism, as it is for you.
See you at Federation Square :)

Christians schools are a last resort to re-claim and hold fast to enduring values. If the State taught them, we would not feel so much need for our own schools.
But as long as our public education system has as its primary philosophical foundation "Truth is relative, and the only thing you can believe is that there is nothing to believe in" we will diverge pathways and have our own schools.

You might suggest that is not the philosphical basis of most modern education, but we can debate that another time. I've done it to death here in the past, probably more so than my anti Islam rants.

"why do you describe Christian schools as the 'Christian Right' "

David, I guess its because so many born again Aussie churches
are branches of US churches and rattling the tin for Jesus,
is so incredibly profitable!

I keep telling them, I was born fine the first time :)

You cannot deny that religion is huge business. Hundreds of
millions of $ pour into the so called US bible belt, from
all those TV programmes. Its an enormous industry!

Pushing peoples emotional buttons and extracting money
is clearly highly profitable, so it can't really be called
left wing.

In fact I can think of few industries as profitable. Sell
people a dream, on which you never have to deliver or
even prove that your product is any good, beyond fullfilling
emotional needs. The true believers cough up big time
and millions role in. Sheesh, thats alot easier then
farming, I should have been a preacher :)

BOAZ_David, a few questions:

What sort of ENDURING VALUES do you expect state schools to teach? How are state schools failing to teach them?

Which curricula do you disagree with, and why? How do Christian schools teach these curricula differently?

What is the source of your information?

What makes your view any more valid than mine? (Marks deducted here for any reference to the Bible.)

Arjay, I'm merely judging your post by the standards you set up for yourself (ie spelling, grammar and logic). As a moral relativst I couldn't possibly impose my own standards, now could I?

David

I await with bated breath your answers to JohnJ's pertinent questions.

Many Christian schools teach kids to bully, cheat, lie and to feel morally superior (even when they aren't). Hypocrisy and greed are other prominent values. Look for example at the prospectuses of wealthy Christian schools touting for academic students and sports stars. Look at how they treat students who show signs of not performing well in exams.

Can you provide the evidentiary sources of your opinion that 'our public education system has as its primary philosophical foundation "Truth is relative, and the only thing you can believe is that there is nothing to believe in"'? If you believe in Truth, you won't mind providing the truthful evidence for your claim, will you? (Or are you pulling an April Fool's Day stunt?)

Don't do a Pontius Pilate on us now, David.

It's always nice to hear from the Christian haters, and I see the nihilist are out in full bloom . The approved tool of the political correct and lefties seems to be reverse discrimination. Nothing two faced about that eh?

Yabby, I read your posts, you are a preacher. And if your looking for an industry that offers the world and never has to deliver I give you your leftist theology. The left has never had to deliver anything. Not one promise. Unless it was earned by the sweat of someone else's brow, someone else's money, or someone else's labour.
The Left is a social parasite supported by parasites who are constantly demanding more and doing less.
Superficial people.
And if you want another example of such an industry I offer you the industry of Cosmetics.
Superficial features.

BruceRaveRant, there are privately funded school for disabled or educationally challenged students. One of my sisters has a Downs Syndrome child and has been sending her to private schools since kindergarten. It cost a little more but, pays off with special attention and consistency.

FrankGol, "Many Christian schools teach kids to bully, cheat, lie and to feel morally superior (even when they aren't). Hypocrisy and greed are other prominent values."

I was going to refute this retarded view then thought better. Someone this bone deep ignorant has hatred and loathing so deeply ingrained into their victim psyche that letting them rant on might be the only cathartic experience they have in life. The emotionally constipated.
Way to blame Christianity and the Private School system FrankGol for the distasteful expression of low end human nature that can be found in every corner of society.

To Michael2
You flatter creationists by being so worried about them taking over the world. They are largely a collection of Bible students and science geeks, and get no government funding. If their ideas are catching on a bit, it is largely because of the paucity of real evidence unearthed supporting evolutionary belief in the last hundred years or so since Darwin and others made it popular.

Trying to stay on the topic of Christian schools and their place in education, Christians would champion many of your values expressed above, that education is about the ability to think for oneself, the courage to dissent, and the ability to be self critical, and to see another’s point of view. Part of the value of independent schools is that they can more freely follow such educational convictions, rather than the monolith of a State system which bows to the lowest common denominator.

However, try critiquing the sacred theory of evolution. If the occasional school board (in America, thankfully we’re not there) dares suggest that understanding the problems with evolutionary theory might be a valuable learning experience and help develop critical thinking skills, they’ll quickly be served with a writ from the ACLU. Not much tolerance for others' views shown there!

For these types of reasons (philosophical rather than money), there will always be a demand for independent schools to balance the State system.

runner: "At some schools the only thing free are the needles and condoms."

"You accuse me of lying even though at no stage did I say the Government schools provide condoms and needles"

Yes. Yes you did. Now you're trying to deny it, but it's there in black and white. You didn't say "some schools would like to have free condoms" you said, "at some schools, the only thing free are the needles and condoms"

When asked to back this up, you backed away from your statement and tried to tell us that you never said it in the first place.

You were being misleading, so you could rail against the state school system and pretend it is worse than it is.
I'm afraid that you have been caught out, and now you're doing it again in trying to deny it.

I for one, think the separation of church and state should extend to the school system. Religion should of course, be available to anyone who wants it - via a church each sunday.

Not everybody can afford to send their children to a better school. For the poorest students, the local public school is their only choice. If that school is a bad school, then these kids are going to have to work much harder to get ahead.

wow :) a Jab from JohnJ and a kick from Yabby, and a left hook from Frank.. almost feels like a batman episode with all those 'biff/punch/pow' signs which crop up as the poor Joker is belted by Batman and Robin....

JohnJ "evidence" ? I could always turn that question around and ask you for proof of what values ARE taught, apart from the one I often heard from the local high school "Don't do anything which would restrict fellow_students educational or social opportunities" which is reasonable. UN.....fortunately, secular schools cannot offer a 'reason' for such selfless behavior, apart from 'opinion'.

So, that's all the 'evidence' I need. Scratch a peacenick under neath you find a sentimentalist but not a philosopher.

Secular schools must pass on the prevailing philosophical trend, which at the present time appears to be humanism with a strong dose of existentialism and post modernism. The side effects are more serious. Thinking students will realize that they are left with 'Nihilism'.

Take away "In the beginning God created" and you have 'It all just happened' so "nothing really matters.. any more" (Freddy Mercury, Queen song Bohemian Raspsody)

I can refer to such things as the challenge to conservative values in various novels students are required to read (or can choose to read) which question traditional attitudes to sexuality etc,
"The Outsider" by Albert Camus is one such example. Has such a book had influence ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1752084,00.html
[For years, I have thought of myself as one of a small, discriminating group whose members, touched by a common emotional quirk, regarded Albert Camus's L'Etranger (The Outsider) as the most important and influential book they have read. Imagine my distress, on reading last Thursday's Guardian, to discover that a whole swathe of English male media types, academics and students were claiming similar intimacy with the book, and attesting to its significance for them.]

In short....yes.

I'm sure there are many lovely Christian and Catholic schools - I don't personally subscribe to their values and wouldn't send my kids to one. My daughters have attended ordinary state comprehensive co-ed schools, one is now at Uni the other in year 11. They were never handed a condom, or preached Marxist, or lefty propaganda. Instead, they were cared for, encouraged, disciplined - when necessary- and valued, as I would expect from any professionally run modern day school. Compared to our neighbours - whose children look, sound and have achieved much the same as my children - we estimate we have saved $250,000 over their school life for exactly the same outcome - nice, well mannered, well educated kids, all now in further education following their dreams. None are on drugs - the only one who smokes went to the expensive private school, and they all seem pretty normal and well adjusted. Be careful before you believe all the doom and gloom stories about public schools - it could cost you a packet for little actual result. Remember, anyone who is spending money on something they could get for free has to justify their decision by slagging off the free service - or what kind of snobby twit are they?
Also, the cost of educating kids in a public school has to be carefully considered before being used to justify more money to private schools. Only public schools have a legal obligation to take all our children - however expensive they may be to teach. And expensive can mean disabled, disadvantaged, in a remote or rural area (those kids cost tens of thousands to educate), new to Australia, disturbed or just damn difficult. Private schools of whatever complexion - however nice, or charitable, have no such obligation and by and large teach the least expensive to educate kids. Comparing raw funding dollars simply doesn't stand up for that reason.

aqvarivs, throwing labels at people's ideas is always a safer tactic than debating their ideas. So in today's short post you give us: 'Christian haters', 'nihilist', 'the political correct', 'lefties' , 'preacher', 'leftist theology', 'social parasite supported by parasites' and - irony of ironies - 'Superficial people'.

Concerning my own posting, you claim your were "going to refute this retarded view then thought better". Instead you preferred to attack the person: 'someone this bone deep ignorant', 'hatred and loathing', 'victim psyche' and - more irony - 'emotionally constipated'.

OK aqvarivs, now you've got that out of your system, have you got any ideas on the actual topic?

David, your ideas are under attack from several fronts. What a lovely war!

I marvel at your conscious inversion of the onus of proof. JohnJ asks for your evidence and you ask him for his. Could it be that you have none?

Oh, I nearly forgot: you have heard from the local high school: "Don't do anything which would restrict fellow_students educational or social opportunities". Since that value seems to run counter to your claim about State schools being value-free, you quickly hop in with another sweeping claim: "secular schools cannot offer a 'reason' for such selfless behavior, apart from 'opinion'". Now come on David, that's a bit rich even from you, the expert in not offering reasons, just opinion.

And your next line is so revealing: "So, that's all the 'evidence' I need." Is it any wonder your opinions are under attack? Time for a white flag? POWs are treated so well nowadays.

While in Guantanamo, you'll have time to read the prevailing philosophical trend, which, according to you, "at the present time appears to be humanism with a strong dose of existentialism and post modernism." What all three, simultaneously?

If I were the military panle, my punishment would be less severe: I'd just sentence you to actually reading (as distinct from hearsaying) "The Outsider" by Albert Camus.

TurnRightThenLeft,

You say that I have been caught out lying. I wonder what moral basis you have for even saying that lying is wrong. It is convenient to use that moral basis selectively. Of course if it wasn't for the bible we would not know that lying is wrong. Yes I did exagarate in making a point and if that makes me a liar I apologise. I maintain I never stated that State schools hand out condoms and needles but did imply which was wrong. I used a humanistic method (the end justifies the means) in making a point.

A friend of mine claims that State Governments are using private schools to limit the cost to their budgets of education. The claim is that they are developing fewer state schools per capita than they used to as a strategy. Fewer state schools means that more private schools are needed and that the cost of education can therefore be shunted-off onto the Commonwealth Government and the parents.

I was wondering if anyone knew of any studies or figures that might bear this out.

runner - yes religion has shaped society. Pretty much every society on the planet has been shaped by religion.

That isn't to say it's still necessary. Let's say the ancient egyptians stopped pillaging for fear of the fury of Ra, or one of their more savage gods, Set.
Because they stopped believing in these gods doesn't mean they should resume pillaging. There are plenty of areligious people in wider society who have morals without religion. What's more, these morals are inculcated without the need of the heaven/hell reward/punishment system... another version of the wrath of Set.

As for lying, I didn't actually state it's wrong - sometimes it may indeed be necessary to save people anguish... as for using those methods to persuade people of a particular politico-religious view, that's a different matter. Regardless of their religion, I would hope posters on sites such as this single out claims for scrutiny, and exercise their own reasoning, rather than blindly following popular claims. (DB, I suspect you'd agree with that, even if it is from a drastically different viewpoint)

Anyhow, back to the education topic...

Mick V - I agree, there's some gaps in evolutionary theory, but at least it's based on basic scientific principles.

I note you say there's little honest criticism of evolutionary theory - and I dare say you're right in that we could benefit of it.

Though in these critical analyses, I'd also like to see the claims of religion being brought to bear. I for one, would love to see students dissecting creationist theory without fear of bias from an overtly religious teacher.

Dinosaurs. The idea that the world is about 5000 years old. The lack of biblical information on Australopithecus and Neanderthals. The fact that there's hundreds of other religions all with the same schtick.

All holes you can drive a truck through, that are simply begging for critical analysis...

FrankGol says, "Many Christian schools teach kids to bully, cheat, lie and to feel morally superior (even when they aren't). Hypocrisy and greed are other prominent values."

I answer, Way to blame Christianity and the Private School system for the distasteful expression of low end human nature that can be found in every corner of society.

FrankGol then chooses evasion. Jumps in on every other word except for those directed specifically to FrankGol. Then again since you've responded so readily FrankGol they may indeed identify you. Who am I to say. I'm sure your well aware of your personal motivators. Being a hypocrite seems to be the one your always trying to hide.

When I was a youngster walking to school I had to pass a public school and endure the name calling, the spitting and the dirt and stone throwing. Until your post I hadn't thought that those children where taught to behave like that by their teachers. I had always assumed it was my nice clean pressed uniform that had a few morons frothing to get dirt on it. Punk jealousy FrankGol. Just immature kids trying to look cool in front of their friends FrankGol. Not one of your conspiracies.

The saving grace for us all is the Public School System, ....... non-sectarian, non-racist, inclusive, where all the kids, get to be Aussies first, mixing, learning, expanding, enjoying the backgrounds and cultures from all over the world, and healing divisions. There are simply wonderful achievements to be found in the public system and plenty of choice e.g. single gender, comprehensive, selective, agricultural, performing arts, special needs, special talents, distance, senior, junior, etc schools. with a proper factual curriculum, where the scientific truth prevails, and logical arguments are pursued, and realistic philosophies are studied.

However it didn't take long for someone like this loose-with-the-truth howard to poison all the waterholes, to give us an apartheid by stealth with incubators promoting paltry values of snobbery, religious division, fundamentalism, race, wealth and school tie coterie privileges, with no friends across their divides, problems with basic social cohesion and the deformity of the educational wealth of this country. This of course sows these very seeds of disruption, contempt and breeds intolerance with silly headed superstitions inculcated into baby's heads for decades to come. It always has.

graham says:- "A friend of mine claims that State Governments are using private schools to limit the cost to their budgets of education. "

I would tend to agree. The State and c'weath would not cope if all the private schools just stopped.
As it is, governments spend so little on our kid's future especially at TAF< preschool and UNI level.

Disadvantaged schools are still disadvantaged as principals spend what little extra monety there is on security, not books or computers.

If you want to see what a rich school look like look at Bush's alma mater. We have nothing to compare. We also have nothing to compare with unis like Stanforsd in the USA Our Uni standards are now a joke and set by who pays the bill. Soon Asians will realise it is as easy and quicker to get an Internet "Mail Order" Degree.

Why should an Ozzie kid start out life with a $50,000 education bill because his government wanted to put their money into a "Future Fund" for their own pensions instead of education?
We are being overtaxed and the tax is being used for the wrong things.

Young people are going to have to spend most of their working life to put a roof over their heads as it is!

Education IS our future and it is about time both Federal , State and Local governments realised this.

There is a broad range of private education in Australia, from coaching colleges through to the so-called church schools. The Left lose credibility through singling out 'Christian' schools for attack and not (say) Islamic schools, or the various independent schools.

True Shorbe, Christianity isn't a big focus at many 'christian' schools, but i wonder is that any consolation. Jesus Christ had some pretty good ideas, problem is they are antithetical to consumerism and the prosperity gospel so central to most of the newer and many of the older churches. Weren't swathes of priests in central & s.america in 60s-80s excommunicated for following too closely to JC's ideas - they turned communist, at least according to the US School of the America's trained death squads that hunted them.

What kids in christian schools are taught is, "heres this list of impossible things that you must learn and publicly support, even if only at xmas mass". Being forced into that deceit, to accept the impossible due to the social rank of those pushing it, i think has an enduring effect on peoples engagement in the world and trust in own senses. i.e. make a christian, make a broken mind that is accustomed to lying or believing impossibilities, AND is willing to defer all expectation of justice until after death (very handy is you're the local Lord). Not for nothing did they call christianity 'the slaves religion'.

As one who left school early in October 1934 to drive a wagon team carting wheat, is shocked these days to find ones' grandkids and great-grandkids with very little interest in history.

Possibly it is something to do with our long-serving Prime Minister's remark about Aborigines, that the so-called cruelties we inflicted on them, must be regarded simply as part of human progress, and thus we owe them few apologies over it.

Unfortunately, it just now seems the way of the world, look ahead not back behind.

Probably why we never hear the term insight used these days, or even the so wonderful words wisdom and understanding, now regarded by our younger Onliners as Old Pap.

The use of Blogs also sounds so much like the old Morse Code, lacking personality and the lyrical sweetness that can give the finishing touches to sound reasoning and commonsense.

George C - WA

To Mick V
To Michael2
"You flatter creationists by being so worried about them taking over the world. They are largely a collection of Bible students and science geeks, and get no government funding. If their ideas are catching on a bit, it is largely because of the paucity of real evidence unearthed supporting evolutionary belief in the last hundred years or so since Darwin and others made it popular."
What nonsense, typical of the "Christian" view of sf science. The funding is strong from USA bigots and authoritarian, christian idiots on the web and with their CDs and other propaganda.
A 3,000 year old book of potted history and fables takes presidence over all
SEE
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF
ScientificAmerican.com
60-Second Science Podcast from Scientific American

June 18, 2002

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

By John Rennie

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
The arguments that creationists use are typically specious

runner: "You say that I have been caught out lying. I wonder what moral basis you have for even saying that lying is wrong. It is convenient to use that moral basis selectively. Of course if it wasn't for the bible we would not know that lying is wrong. Yes I did exagarate in making a point and if that makes me a liar I apologise. I maintain I never stated that State schools hand out condoms and needles but did imply which was wrong. I used a humanistic method (the end justifies the means) in making a point."

Doesn't runner's bible make a defintive statement about bearing false witness (i.e. thou shalt not do it)?

I reckon runner needs to engage in some pretty heavy self-flagellation to atone for his self-confessed sin. At least it would keep his hands away from... the keyboard ;)

And of course BS Boazy: "The Outsider" by Albert Camus is one such example. Has such a book had influence ?

... In short....yes. "

As a graduate of the NSW public school system, I'd never heard of Camus or 'The Outsider' until I reached my early 20s. My son is now in Year 12 in the Queensland state system, and he'd never heard of Camus until I just asked him.

Pray tell, Boazy you old "scallywag", in which schools is Camus' 'The Outsider' required reading? Are they the same ones in which runner's fictitious needles and condoms are distributed?

Or is it the case that the most vocal 'Christian' contributors to this forum are pathological liars? Remember, I've detailed your porkies in this forum before, and would be happy to do so again :)

Earlier, I was thinking about an article I read in one of the Melbourne newspapers last year. It was about the relationship between schools and housing prices, and the notion of people in private schools "buying" a better education and how this also happens in the state system.

Apparently, most state schools have a catchment area, which some enforce very strictly. In other words, you have to live within a certain zone to attend each school.

This article was basically saying that where there's a high-performing suburban state school, or one with a high reputation in a particular way, people will actually move into the catchment area specifically so their children can attend that school. The effect of this is that houses within the catchment area cost significantly more than those even just outside the catchment area. This would intuitively make sense in terms of supply and demand.

So, what in effect happens is that parents don't buy an education through school fees, but through being able to afford a higher mortgage. Regardless, even in the state system there is division based on class and money.

The plot thickens!

CJ Morgan

It is amazing how 'non believers' are quick to judge believers by biblical standards. Of course a non believer would never exagarate to make a point and even if they did who is to say its wrong? I will be the first to admit that I fall short of biblical standards. That is exactly why I need a Saviour. The fact that you use God's laws as a moral compass for others shows you have some idea of right and wrong. I wonder if you ever use that compass on yourself? Take that moral compass away and you have every man doing what is right in his own sight. That is exactly what is wrong with the humanistic philosophy that leaves children who are not taught right and wrong without morals. No one is yet able to explain why so many non religous people are choosing to send their kids to private schools

Shorbe,

You do not have to live in a school’s catchment area to go to it. You are free to go to any government school you like in Victoria if it has room, and have been for decades. The zoning gives you the right to attend your local school – even if it doesn’t have room.

Graham Y,

Victorian government schools are mostly funded on a voucher system of about $5,000 per student (the exact amount depending on the level of the student), so funding is determined by student numbers, not the other way around.

CJ Morgan,

There is no reason that Camus’ The Outsider would not be taught in a school. I have taught his The Plague to year 12. There are changes made to year 12 booklists every year, so it is no surprise that neither you nor your son has studied Camus.

The problem in the growth of private schools is that the government system will become politically voiceless and the children in it neglected, yet they are part of our society and need to be educated as much as anyone else.

I resigned from my government school at the end of last term, not because it was a hot-bed of lefty pink trendy Marxist relativists who do not teach facts or know what truth is, but because the government “system” is no longer a system and does not treat its teachers with respect. It consists of competing fiefdoms in which teachers are abused and exploited by principals who have too much power. Government schools do need higher standards of discipline and higher expectations of achievement. If they do not get them, parents will continue to buy the company of children they see as more suitable for their own in private schools.

BOAZ_David, I posed my questions seriously. I guess I'll have to turn the sarcasm level down a bit in future. Apologies for any offense caused.

I simply don't agree that the public school system is a "value-free" zone. My opinion of public education is based on my own experiences. My father was a teacher of 30 yrs experience and a self professed "secular humanist". I won't go on about his qualities, suffice to say his view was that education was designed to teach students to think for themselves.

I'm not suggesting the public system is perfect, but it is simply not the drug-addled, pinko-nihilist hell portrayed by some posters on this forum. And speaking of existentialism, what's wrong with Camus? Literature should be challenging and thought-provoking. Camus is not a personal favorite of mine, but a writer worth studying nonetheless. Who else would you like on the banned list?

GrahamY, you may be right about cost shifting, to an extent. However, a public school must accept kids if they are in the catchment for a school. It is probably more a case of not building more schools near a disadvantaged area, forcing parents to choose a private school over a public school with real problems. Bits of Campelltown in south-western Sydney are in this sort of situation

runner: you're effectively saying that religious morals are inherently better than humanistic ones, and that this is why non religious people send their students to christian schools:

I have a big problem with this. Essentially runner, you are saying that a moral code based on god's view is superior to reasoning without religion.

Are you are saying that people should simply follow the tenets of a religion, rather than exercising their own judgment?
Funnily enough, this is precisely the argument used by Islamic fundamentalists to justify the most heinous crimes.

This tends to be the point where Christians like to point out how much better their brand of god is.
Funnily enough, Exclusive Brethren are capable of interpreting the christian faith in a manner that doesn't allow women to cut their hair, or have contact with people outside the religion.

The crusades, the inquisitions, the witch hunts - all interpretations of christianity.

My point is, that just like a humanistic philosophy, christians have to interpret morality. They have to make their own judgment calls.
Unless of course, you are going to take the bible literally, and start hunting witches. If you start taking the minutiae of religion too seriously, you will end up being a fanatic - and fanaticism causes humanity much more grief than humanism ever will. In fact, any one of the major faiths, historically speaking, has much more blood on its hands than all the humanists in the whole wide world.

You can say that there is one proper interpretation of christianity. Funny... was that the Anglican version or the Catholic version?

With regard to the schooling: I went to a christian school for the last two years of my schooling.
There wasn't any private sectarian schools. The vast majority of private schools are christian.
Private schools get funding from private means as well as government means. They often have better resources.
They also have the ability to reject troublesome students that make it difficult for genuine students to learn. State schools can't. Thus, private schools can cherry pick students, and have been known to poach them.

TurnRightThenLeft,

'Runner: you're effectively saying that religious morals are inherently better than humanistic ones, and that this is why non religious people send their students to christian schools:'

You have summed it up better than I could of. People look at the outcomes of the philosophies (taught or implied) and choose what they believe to be the best. Obviously many non believers choose those outcomes from private schools.

Humanistic/atheistic philosophy I believe leads to nothing more than death. This is reflected suicide and abortion. The ignoring of man's soul and spirit lacks reason.

You also should know that it is by not taking Christ's teaching (love your enemy) literally that led to the witches being burned. The problems are when we don't take Christ's teaching literally. The problem commences when we don't take Christ and His teachings serious enough not when we take Him to serious.

I’d like to respond to Michael2 (or perhaps even to John Rennie).

When we agree on so many individual points above, its funny how we come to opposite conclusions.

We agree that the public at large remain unconvinced about the truth of evolution.

We can both note that creationists are present in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has seen. Although, I don’t see this as a contradiction. Bible believers and science have always gone together. Or maybe it is just a coincidence that science advanced most quickly in the countries where reformed Christianity had been preached most solidly (namely, Western Europe).

We could even agree that scientists in Darwin’s day were persuaded by the arguments for evolution that they were presented with.

However, my contention was that scientists of the 19th Century only knew a fraction of what we have since come to discover. For example in biology, Darwin thought that a living cell was like a simple blob of plasma. As our knowledge has progressed to reveal more and more detail of the intricacies present in a living cell, beyond our conception of how we envision a city (factories, roads, transport, waste disposal, etc.), it has become more and more counterintuitive that a living cell could just spring into life from non living matter. And increasingly, many have become sceptical.

Looking at some others born in the 19th Century, even the ideas of Marx (economics) and Freud (psychology) were once considered as ‘scientific’ but these since have been relegated to fads or philosophies.

At which part of the story is science really confident that it can explain how the protozoa became the pelican or the pineapple

To TurnLeftThenRight, I would roughly agree.
If an ideology is worth believing, its worth dissecting.

I don’t deny that there are holes and difficulties with creation theory. My goodness, we are arguing about what happened thousands (if not many thousands) of years ago, and ultimately science is not capable of deciding a question of history anyway. That is why murder cases that happened only weeks before are settled by jury on the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

However, I’m not sure what point you were making about dinosaurs, etc. Dinosaurs and Australopithecines were animals, and thus (if you believe the Scripture) were made and once lived concurrent with people (note the legends of ‘dragons’ from around the world, & Job 40, 41). We could argue about dates but ultimately, the bones don’t come out the ground with little “use by” dates stamped on them. Neanderthals, the latest theories suggest, were human. Give them a hair cut and a shave and let them catch the train with everyone else, and no one would look twice.

Regarding Boaz, and Albert Camus’ ‘the Outsider’.
I once read it (though I haven’t actually read that many books in my life, which people who have read my posts probably would not find surprising) and found it impacting, and thought provoking, even if quite depressing and melancholic.

I also struggled to see the point of what Boaz was trying to say about it. However, the main character is hardly a desired role model, and I would agree, from my dreary experience of English in High school, that these types of books could be balanced with something more encouraging and uplifting to the spirit

"You do not have to live in a school’s catchment area to go to it. You are free to go to any government school you like in Victoria if it has room, and have been for decades. The zoning gives you the right to attend your local school – even if it doesn’t have room."

ChrisC: Sure, and theoretically, anyone who was born in the U.S. can become its president.

There was an article in today's Herald-Sun about the desperate measures some parents are going to in order to get their kids into good state schools.

The fact is that schools do have enrollment zones because the demand is too great. See this link as an example:

http://www.mckinnonsc.vic.edu.au/enrol.htm

Taken from the third paragraph on that page:

"Typically, we have to reluctantly turn down 100 year seven applications each year because there are no places available."

Likewise, have a look at this study:

http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/pdf/SchoolQualityHousePrices.pdf

"We find that a 5 percent increase in test scores (approximately one standard deviation) is associated with a 3.5 percent increase in house prices. Our result is in line with private school tuition costs, and accords with prior research from Britain and the United States."

Christianity is about Christ who said “…he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed...” (Luke)

So Christ would not approve of Caesar (government) funding of Christian schools. The funding should come from Christian churches

Philip: Fine, but Caesar also didn't tax people at a marginal rate of 45% + Medicare, or even a marginal tax rate of 15%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_Australia

http://www.unrv.com/economy/roman-taxes.php

"In the late 1st century BC...each province was required to pay a wealth tax of about 1% and a flat poll tax on each adult."

Huh! We should be so lucky!

Shorbe, you might be interested in this link to work by economist Andrew Leigh. He attempts to quantify the cost to parents from having to buy houses near good schools. He says:

"We find that a 5 percent increase in test scores (approximately one standard deviation) is associated with a 3.5 percent increase in house prices. Our result is in line with private school tuition costs, and accords with prior research from Britain and the United States.".

The link is http://andrewleigh.com/?p=268.

shorbe, You can not simply compare taxation habits across national histories. What one got for their 1% taxation by the Romans was no where near the cradle to grave socialist blanket demanded by Australians today.

Sloppy educational habits stay with the students for their life time. Students that are taught what to think and not encouraged to learn how to reason do not in the main at a later date acquire the ability to reason via osmosis. Which is why in the '80's the left controlled Teachers Associations adopted the EQ over IQ. Which is why studying any college or university curriculum finds them heavily weighted with social programmes. Public school teachers can barely get a class year out the door proficient in the 3R's. This is not my complaint but, something frequently on the front pages of our newspapers. Give the Teachers Union credit though. They're always right there with an excuse. Which is much easier than being proactive using reasoning skills to problem solve

I wouldn’t send my children to a private Christian school if they paid me.

I find it hard to deal with in the first place that my tax dollars are being spend on schools that are discriminating against certain groups of people.

Look what is stated on the website of the Anti Discrimination Board of NSW:
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/adb/ll_adb.nsf/pages/adb_general
“Private educational institutions are allowed to discriminate against people because of their sex, marital status, age, homosexuality, transgender status or disability. However, they are not allowed to discriminate against people because of their race. In addition, they must not allow or tolerate sexual harassment.”

Wonderful, how the government is supporting discrimination within religious schools.

My children might have had to hold toilet doors shut for others who were on it because they were all falling off their hinges, they might have had to scrape blue tack off the windows and walls so the teachers could re-use it, they might have suffered from extreme temperatures so high that a girl fainted and the teachers were walking around with plant sprayers to cool down the children while the dept were still making up their minds about installing air conditioners, but at least they talked about discrimination and were taught about equality, at least their school dealt and talked about with issues such as homophobia.

To be continued…

Continued…

Now compare that with the new EU Declaration (Brussels declaration) https://www.iheu.org/v4e/html/the_declaration.html and you will see how far Australia is socially lagging behind.

* “We affirm the right of everyone to adopt and follow a religion or belief of their choosing. But the beliefs of any group may not be used to limit the rights of others.”

* “Parents have the right to impart their own values and religious beliefs to their children but states have no obligation to support them in doing so. States do however have a responsibility to provide information and education about all religions and widely-held beliefs.
Teaching that one religion is the truth whilst ignoring all others, or teaching that they are false, is not education but indoctrination."

* "The public funding of faith schools must be called into question since they can be both socially divisive and discriminatory. Governments should ensure that in both state and privately-funded schools, all students have access to education about our common heritage and our shared values and ethics.”

Runner, even IF condoms were handed out free at schools, a number of unwanted teenage pregnancies, abortions and HIV infections could be prevented. Wouldn’t that be a positive thing?
And if teenagers happen to be drug addicts, I would support free needles as well as long as the addicts were under supervision and participating in some withdrawal program. Clean needles will prevent infections. Ignoring teenage sex and drug problems is not going to make the problem disappear.

If public schools do such a rotten job - and my kids and many hundreds of their friends would appear to give the lie to that - not to mention the 68% of kids who still attend public schools in Australia - most of whom are perfectly fine kids with good values and good opportunities - how come study after study has shown that kids from comprehensive public schools outperform their selective and private school peers at university? One study said that by the end of first year, they were outperforming them by an average of 5 marks. Their level of drop out is much lower also.
Does this perhaps indicate, amongst other things, that our much maligned public comprehensive high schools actually teach kids to think, rather than simply pass an exam? Does it actually help students, rather than hinder them, to get used to learning amongst kids of different backgrounds, beliefs and ability levels, rather than sitting in one-note class rooms (you know, all the same religion, or same sex, or same ability level, or same SES level)?
I stand by my previous post, don't believe the propagandists, if you're choosing a school for your kids, do your homework, go visit them, talk to the principal, tour the school, talk to current parents. You'll get a much clearer view of your local schools than by listening to ideologues busy justifying their own decisions.
And if your local public school looks good, you'll save yourself a bucket of money, which you can put towards your kids uni education, or invest in their name. A much firmer guarantee of a secure future than any of the dubious claims made by some private schools and their supporters.

Graham Y: Thanks for the link, but I essentially posted the same information in my post three before yours.

aqvarivs: I was being somewhat sarcastic and more than a little absurd with my comments about Roman tax.

Celivia: Whether I agree with what gets taught in a private school, or how they determine who they will or won't accept is, frankly, largely irrelevant. If they want to behave in a certain way, that's largely up to them. If there's a niche for that, then they'll continue as a school, if not, then they'll have to change or go under. I don't believe it's the role of government to legislate morality any more than it is the role of any church or other organisation to do such.

As for referring to those overblown nanny states in Europe, the great irony will be that within the next couple of decades, when they realise they're being outbred by Muslims, they'll drop the PC facade and go back to doing what Europeans do best -- running a good old-fashioned inquisition, pogrom or holocaust. It's precisely because no one can mind his own business on that continent that they swing from one extreme to the other. I'd hardly look to them as an example.

ena: You might well be right. However, I wonder then why all those top businessmen and high level professionals who seem to be really good at investing in shares and property, and often make quite sound financial decisions in running big companies would make such poor financial decisions regarding the education of their children. Something doesn't add up in your analysis.

As a Depression kid who left school in early October 1934 to drive a wagon team carting wheat, might say the only thing learnt about religion was how to say a prayer about Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild, saying God Bless Everybody besides ourselves. Also we had reminders from our part German mother about the Sermon on the Mount, which we always thought meant not so much to think about bettering ourselves, but to help others, still giving reminder about how us boozy ex-army guys back in the bush all joined in and helped out a badly burnt neighbour by putting his crop in.

It was so interesting that a couple of well-established farmers who had had special permits to keep on cropping during the war, did not join in to help the injured farmer.

Maybe these so-called select farmers thought us too boozy, it is hard to say, but later experience does show that it is not always the so-called good Christians that help each other, but more the no-hopers, as some used to call some of us trying to get going with a young wife and kids just after the war.

After studying about all religions using a background of Greek philosophy during retirement, have become concerned how our Hale-School tutored grandkids seem more concerned about getting on personally than working in with neighbours as we tended to do, especially while battling after war service.

One often wonders what has caused the change, yet has it always been this way, as people get richer and have their kids go to special schools, they think far more about themeselves?

Shorbe

Sorry for the late response.

As I said in my previous post, teachers within the state school system are not anti-private. Many of us are products of a private education. Many of us send our kids to private schools. Two teachers from within my staff room hail from the glorified Brisbane and Melbourne Girls Grammar. Three are from Lutheran, Catholic, and Anglican schools. Another from a Pentecostal school. The rest are from state schools. It's a non-issue and one that we do not judge each other on in regards to professionalism or 'quality'. We're loyal to our students and their families.

We would argue that the funding in many state schools is appalling, and undermine our teaching and student learning.

'I'll freely admit that I have almost complete contempt for the government system and see those who are very opposed to the private system receiving funding as leeches off someone else's tax dollar.'

I think your comments are misguided on a number of levels:

* You have misinterpret opposition as opposition to private schools receiving funding altogether, rather than opposed to an inequitable distribution of funding

* That those who oppose the distribution of funding are 'leeches off taxpayers', rather than tax payers themselves.

* That everyone who sends their kids private are taxpayers.

Regardless, for the wellbeing of the country's future prosperity, we should educate ALL children, and care about the education of ALL children, that includes yours, mine, the neighbour's down the road, and particularly that kid that's going off the rails in some far-flung suburb...particularly them. Might keep them off the dole in future.

Good luck on your homeschooling. Apparently kids who are home schooled do extremely well on average. As do the kids whose parents participate in their education ... you know, sit down and ensure they do their homework.

Liz: My experiences have been that there is considerable anti-private school attitudes within the public education system, but maybe they're just my experiences.

I don't believe there is inequitable distribution of funding. If we did an analysis of money paid in (via taxes) versus money received (via funding to schools), we'd see that people who send their kids to private school pay far more in than they get out. As such, I don't see it as inequitable that people should expect to get back what they put in.

I'm not sure what you mean by your third point. Presumably, there are a few people who do slip through the net and don't pay any tax. I don't know that there's a whole lot that can be done about them anyway. Perhaps you mean people who find ways of minimising their tax? I think whilst they may minimise tax, they still pay a lot of tax into the system to begin with.

As for educating all children, I don't believe this to be a necessary thing for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I honestly believe a lot of what is taught, as well as the way it is taught, is wasted on most people. Most people neither use what they learn in school to benefit the economy, nor do they use it to enrich their own lives.

Secondly, if we were really serious about education as a means to improving the country's prosperity, we'd be really, really hardcore about turning everyone into a budding scientist or entrepreneur, and we'd also be devoting a lot of time to an area that presently receives little to no attention -- financial literacy. I personally believe one of the biggest challenges/threats we face in this country is that many people are completely irresponsible with money. We shouldn't/wouldn't accept anything even remotely mediocre in the field of education, and we shouldn't/wouldn't make excuses for anyone.

As for social consequences of failure in school, I don't believe in the dole, and I think we make too many excuses for people to fail in our society.

Shorbe

There is an inequitable distribution of funding, even amongst state schools. Some state schools receive a lot more funding than other schools. It's how they market themselves basically, and what funding they are aiming for, and what area they are located in.

My third comment related to the private school sysem, particularly schools such as Catholic schools, that often take in students although the child's parent/s is not working. Essentially, it is a charitable act. The parent is a non tax payer. Therefore, the assumption on your part that private schools students are from tax payer families and state school students are not, is not correct.

We'll have to agree to disagree on your belief that not all students are worthy of an education. I believe that students benefit from it significantly, particularly if there is early intervention. I am sure you would not like others deciding your child/ren are not worthy of an education.

Also, remember that I am not against private schools receiving funding. However, when I go into a classroom and I have to provide my own supplies, and the photocopier is dodgy, and there are not enough computers to share, and so on and so on, and I get to make comparisons with my friends that have moved over to the private school system, then I think between us we can see where the funding is not going.

Christians schools are really not all that different from Muslim schools. Both indoctrinate and brainwash children from an early age.

These children have no capacity to question, reflect and criticise what they are being told and have faith that they're being told the truth. Not only that they are taught about eternal punishment and the consequences of not believing. This shock factor and fear based teaching ensures that as their ego develops, it encloses around this core false, belief implanted by strangers.

In my real world guise I have just finished a radio interview looking at the deceitful and dishonet AEU campaign over funding of schools, so I thiought a few facts might be helpful.

To understand the issue of school funding, it is important consider the combined funds from both the Australian Government and the State or Territory governments. Each level of government contributes funds to schools with the State and Territory governments having the major financial responsibility for their own state schools, while the Australian Government is the primary source of public funds for Catholic and Independent schools.

Overall, state schools receive considerably more public money than Catholic and Independent schools. There are 2.2 million students who attend state schools and they receive $22.7 billion of public funding. There are 1.1 million students who attend Catholic and Independent schools and they receive a total of $7.6 billion of public funding.

In other words, state schools enrol 68% of students and receive75% of total public funding for schools, while Catholic and Independent schools enrol 32% of students and receive 25% of total public funding.

Under the Australian Constitution, state schools are the responsibility of State and Territory governments. The State and Territory governments own the state schools, manage them and provide about 88% of their public funding. The Australian Government is a significant contributor to state schools. Australian Government funding has risen by an estimated 93% since 1996. Inflation over this period was about 22% and enrolments have been steady.

The 2005 Australian Government Budget delivered an estimated8% increase to state schools including a 35% increase in funding for school buildings and maintenance. Meanwhile, the average State and Territory government budget increase to their own schools was only 3.9%.

The Australian Government funds non-government schools according to a formula which measures the socio-economic status of the communities they serve.

Schools which draw students from the neediest communities receive from the Australian Government 70% of the cost of educating a student in a state school. Schools serving the wealthiest communities receive about 13.7% of that cost.

(cont)
The States and Territories also provide some assistance to Catholic and Independent schools. The formulae vary from state to state, but their contribution is small relative to the Australian Government’s.

If all the students who currently attend Catholic and Independent schools enrolled in state schools, then taxpayers would need to contribute an additional $3 to $4 billion a year.

The Australian Government’s funding formula for Catholic and Independent schools does not take into account the size of a school’s fees or a school’s existing asset base because such an approach would penalise parents for spending their own money on
their child’s education.

The Australian Government believes that every parent, having paid their taxes, deserves some level of public assistance to support the education of their child, regardless of which school their child attends.

The higher fee schools (sometimes referred to as the former Category 1 schools) are funded according to the same formula that determines the funding for all non-government schools. Because the communities they serve tend to be wealthier on average, the higher fee schools receive less money per student from the Australian Government.

A student attending one of the 59 higher fee schools attracts about 1/4 of the public money received by a student attending a state school. In some cases it is as little as 1/7 but all students receive some support.

It is sometimes said that Catholic and Independent schools only serve wealthy families. This is incorrect. For example, 2001 Census data shows that one in fi ve students from families earning less than $20,800 per year attend Catholic or Independent schools.

Half of all parents with children at Catholic and Independent schools pay less than $1,857 per annum in fees per child (2003 data). In comparison, 49% of students from families earning more than $104,000 per year attend state schools. Nearly all the growth in Catholic and Independent schools has been in low fee schools.

Simon Templar has included ONLY Catholic and Independent schools in his initial thread, and conveniently obscured the mention of Federal Government funding towards other private schools until the conclusion of his second thread, aiming to overwhelm and mislead readers with obfuscated percentages in between. Were you hoping the reader would give up before then young Simon?

Simon Templar further states that ‘… State and Territory Governments … provide about 88% of public funding’, but fails to inform of the inadequate initial funding provided to the States by the Federal Government OR that funding is based on a measure of spending by State and Territory Governments towards public schools using what is referred to as an Average Government School Recurrent Cost Index (AGSRCI). The problem with this is that the AGSRCI is determined by the Federal Government and NOT the State and Territory Governments. The Federal Government artificially depresses the State and Territory Government contributions to minimise their own frugal funding. They then decrease or increase their contributions accordingly to this depressed figure.

Simon Templar further fails to mention that there are strong stipulations attached to how the State and Territory Governments are to use the Federal contributions in the first place. Although the Federal Government are vocal in asserting that States and Territories are responsible for public schools, they do not allow them autonomy in deciding how that funding is best used. Therefore, funding can be whittled away on some Government minister’s personal agenda, rather than used where the principal knows it will best serve the school community. The Federal Government dictate to the schools that you must spend this money on 'success for boys', and that your teachers must sit through a 'professional development' seminar, run by 'non-professionals', who happen to be the mates of minister so-and-so.

The Federal Government’s ‘creative accounting’ practices for funding public schools illustrates an all-too-common theme of the Government to conceal their intention to provide as minimal funding as possible, while claiming the opposite.

I realise that this will seem a crude a summary of where we stand on this debate. We live in a country that claims be secular in governance and institutions. We have the predominant religion which is christianity claiming to be exclusive in nature, establishing schools that are inclusive by operation.
It looks like the riddle of the sphinx to me!

If reading the above post; please read exclusive when reading inclusive and vice versa - it may make more sense. I don't think the issue is about christians and their schools, so much as the issue of secularity. If we are a secular state, we need to confirm that in our institutions and education is one of the most important apart from the judicial system. The big issue now is are we a secular state within which multiculturalism operates or are we a multicultural state. If we are a multicultural state; then how do we reflect that in our government and institutions? Personally, I think that a secular state as a structure for a multi cultural society, is our best option. However, if we take that road we will have to be clear about our secularity in government and institutions. In relation to this thread, it means that we as a state only support a secular education in our education system. We would certainly, provide cultural education for all cultures within our curricullum but our schools must reflect our secular status. For this to work, all cultures must agree to it including christian.

In other words, if a christian / muslim / hindu community wish's to establish their own school, it firstly will have to apply the secular model and give no more time to religious / cultural teaching than a secular school and will not recieve assistance from the secular state.

And ve vill all live in dis freedom and ve vill be happy. or else.
First of all in a free society people get to choose who and what they believe and just how they live as long as they conform to the laws of the land. It certainly isn't up the God haters and non believers to dictate how and where people are educated. Religion is part of culture as much is cooking with peanut oil or olive oil or corn oil. Now if people want to petition the government to stop public funding separate schools that's another matter.
Secondly, I don't know what is taught in a Hindu school nor an Islamic school in Australia but, having been educated almost exclusively in Roman Catholic schools I can tell everyone that religion is not a subject I remember. I know I had catechism early days when Nuns and Priest were the teachers but it wasn't anything more than what I got at Sunday Mass. I took the same boring studies my mates in public school had.
Some differences I do remember is that the text books were different for maths and sciences and the literature and language studies were more in the classical vein. That and we had to sit up straight, mind our P's & Q's, dress properly, and speak respectfully to the teachers.
Oh ya. And punishment for being disrespectful was corporal and immediate. My mates didn't get any of that. They could wear their farm clothes to work. I had white shirt, grey trousers, black oxfords, a blue blazer and my school tie. The horrors of private school.

What Simon says and doesn’t say

Simon says, ‘In my real world guise I have just finished a radio interview looking at the deceitful and dishonet [sic] AEU campaign over funding of schools, so I thiought [sic] a few facts might be helpful.’ Isn’t it marvelous – in the ‘real world’ a ‘few facts’ can explain everything to those of us who don’t live there?

Simon didn’t think to tell us that his ‘few facts’ were lifted from a Howard Government propaganda sheet titled ‘School Funding – the Facts’.

Simon doesn’t tell us that the current funding arrangements are - in historical terms - a recent development; nor does he tell us why governments came to fund private schools in the first place given that the Constitution gave no role in education to the Commonwealth. The norm for the majority of Australia’s history has been that governments stayed well away from funding religious schools – and if people wanted something other than a State education for their children, they fully paid for it. This history is another ‘real world’ – a cocktail of special pleading, powerful lobbying and political opportunism.

In Simon’s ‘real world’, funding is loaded against the private schools: ‘state schools enrol 68% of students and receive 75% of total public funding for schools…’ Not so long ago State schools received 100% of the total funding for schools. The dramatic increase in funding of private schools has come at a cost – the diversion of funds that would otherwise have been available to improve State schools.

Simon’s crude accounting concedes nothing to parents’ relative ability to contribute to schooling costs – and ultimately to parents’ capacity to make a choice. He disingenuously remarks that ‘The Australian Government funds non-government schools according to a formula which measures the socio-economic status of the communities they serve.’

Everyone who understands the Government’s (SES) postcode funding method knows it is a dubious and highly unreliable method of identifying students’ needs.

To be continued

Part 2

Why doesn’t the Howard Government take into account the size of a school’s fees or a school’s existing asset base? Because, Simon says, ‘such an approach would penalise parents for spending their own money on their child’s education.’ Meanwhile, who cares if poor parents are penalised?

Simon's an old line: ‘If all the students who currently attend Catholic and Independent schools enrolled in state schools, then taxpayers would need to contribute an additional $3 to $4 billion a year’ is a mischievous tactic intended to threaten and intimidate. Can’t you imagine hordes of Scotch and King’s students clamouring at the doors of Collingwood and Footscray schools, just to prove the point?

Simon even gives us the poor-kids-go-to-private-schools-too line. ‘…2001 Census data shows that one in five students from families earning less than $20,800 per year attend Catholic or Independent schools.’ Self-reporting income levels, mind - and a canny aggregation of all private schools as if you find a poor student in every five in each school.

The wealthy pay accountants to see that their income looks like the battlers. And where’s the private school statistic equivalent to Simon’s claim about students from families earning more than $104,000 per year? Let's take $200,000 as a base line.

What Simon won’t reveal is that State schools enrol around 80% of students from the lowest SES decile. And that hundreds of under-resourced and poorly-serviced State schools are located in rural and isolated areas; the only time private school kids visit these areas is when they visit their schools’ country camps.

Simon won’t tell you that under Howard government administration, Sydney’s elite private schools have been receiving more money than they were actually entitled to. Nor will he tell you that despite massive injections of public funding, fees at elite schools have increased by as much as 53.4% in the past four years. The extra funding was supposed to make private schools more accessible to low income families but “The reality is that the massive increases in funding have had the opposite effect.” (Sydney Morning Herald 11 Sept 2006)

What Simon also failed to mention Frankgoi, was that although under the Constitution the Federal Government are not responsible for funding to schools, they are responsible for funding to public universities.

He failed to mention that the Federal Government have contributed more funding towards private schools, for which they are NOT constiutionally bound to fund, than to public universities, in which they ARE constitutionally bound to fund.

Go Liz, go FrankGo.
Those are the facts.
The SES formula, as i have explained elsewhere, doesn't measure the incomes of the families of the kids that go to private schools, it measures the incomes of their neighbours. This leads to situations where the kids of wealthy landowners in rural areas, say, are treated as if they came from an indigenous family. The extra money they attract then goes to the schools those wealthy kids attend, schools that can charge as much as $15 -20,000 p.a in upfront fees after tax, simply because they live in a census code designated disadvantaged. The really disadvantaged kids go to the local public school that often as not gets no extra funding, and then, worse, gets slagged off for "failing" by the very same government that created this appalling system, and by the wealthy families who so unjustly benefit from it.
Worse, there is now a no loser clause, so that such schools can never lose funding no matter what sort of kids now attend, and the neglected public school with ever increasing concentrations of disadvantage and all the problems that brings, continues to slip behind. This is not Christian, it is just wrong.

The Australian Education Union is again campaigning to challenge the constitutionality of the Commonwealth government grants to non-government (that is,private) schools.

There is something noble about those who advocate lost causes. Provided, of course, there is a recognition that the cause is in fact lost. What's more, the AEU national President will be encouraged by the vociferous response by some teacher members, many paradoxically (35%-45%) of whom send their children to private schools!!

It is not clear how many of those vociferously responding teachers have read the decisions of the High Court judges when the issue of state aid or government funding to non-government schools was last adjudicated. On February 2, 1981 - by a majority of six to one - the High Court held that the Commonwealth government can provide financial assistance to non-government schools. There is little reason to believe the present High Court would come to the view that section 116 of the constitution (which forbids the Commonwealth from legislating with respect to religion) prevents the granting of Commonwealth funds to independent schools, religious and non-religious alike.

What's at issue is that the growth in public enrolment in private schools has been considerable. There has been an increase of 15.5 per cent in non-government school enrolments since 1996. The comparable figure for government schools is 1.5 per cent. Clearly there is a growing demand for non-government schools - and politicians of both the right and left feel an obligation to respond to the aspirations of a significant part of the electorate, an electorate which ranges across all seats and lifestyles.

It is true that some schools, such as The Kings School in western Sydney, seem to be over-generously treated by the funding system introduced by the Howard Government. But it is also true that some of the wealthiest Australians, living in the best-endowed suburbs, send their children to good government schools for virtually no cost at all. In any event, the demand for non-government schools is greatest from suburban and regional-based Australians who are prepared to pay moderate prices for a service they value.

Caedmon

As a teacher from my own daughter's private school stated, 'why pour more money where there's already plentiful'.

I'd love to take politicians on a tour through the classroom I teach in and the classroom my daughter attends school in. Surely, I shouldn't have to supply my own whiteboard markers and other stationary.

A friend of mine told me that the school she teaches at has a ROOM ... can you believe this ... a ROOM of stationary. Teachers go to the stationary ROOM. My God ... what bliss.

Another friend teaches at a school where they provide teachers with lap tops. I had to go and buy my own for a considerable sum.

I'm looking to get out of the profession, as are two other teachers in my staffroom. I'll use my first degree to hopefully develop a new career.

One teacher is going overseas. Another is going back to uni.

It wouldn't be happening if the Liberals hadn't demonised us to divert attention away from their own incompetent performances.

... and to think, here I am a private school girl, from a blue ribbon Liberal suburb, and I just have to shake my head at the 'quality' of Liberal Ministers that have turned me away from voting for them in a very long time.

I must be one of the 'doctors wives' they've managed to disgust.

Liz: Point taken about Catholic school charity. I wasn't aware of that.

"I am sure you would not like others deciding your child/ren are not worthy of an education."

It wouldn't worry me because I don't intend to ever put myself in the position where I depend upon the state for a handout. I could think of nothing worse. I also don't intend to put my children through the state system just because it's free (even though it will be more costly for me to do otherwise). Ultimately, I think people should pay for anything they use in our society, including education. I know it's anathema to say this, but with the exception of a very small percentage of people with mental or physical disabilities, poverty is a lifestyle choice in our society. When people choose to smoke a packet of cigarettes a day, drink a slab or two each week, gamble, etc., they are simultaneously choosing not to pay for their kids' educations and to make someone else foot the bill.

But Shorbe, think this through, in your user-pays education world, who actually suffers if parents refuse to pay for their kid's education? Not the parents, their children. Is this right, do you think? What sort of a society would we create if we said to kids - at birth - Oh, sorry, you drew the short straw in parents, no matter what your talents or potential, because of the accident of your birth you will get no schooling.
This is in fact the society we used to have until compulsory free education was introduced in the 19th century - you know, the wonderful world of Dickensian slums and child labour.
Under our current education policies, we are rapidly returning to a version of this where children with poorer or simply less interested parents will be penalised by only being able to go to a residualised public system ( kids of such parents don't tend to live in middle class areas where there are still some excellent public schools), while those children lucky enough to have wealthier parents can be bought a subsidised place ina private school.
Remember no child is disadvantaged through their own doing, they are disadvantaged usually because their parents have been less able to negotiate their way through the world than another child's parents. An education system that rewards parents either because they are better off or even just more "self-sacrificing", rather than focuses on helping children can only increase the advantage of the already advantaged and the disadvantage of the already disadvantaged. School isn't about helping or rewarding certain types of parents, its about helping kids reach their potential, regardless of who their parents are.

Ena

What you say worries me greatly, because it is a good example of the quasi-socialist mentality that permeates education, public education particularly.

Schools are there to provide an education, legislated for by the community on behalf of the community. In other words, when my kids go to school, the teachers and the school in which they work are teaching my kids on my behalf. Now you will no doubt say that schools act for society and parents don’t count. In fact that is what you have said, in so many words.

I have sent my sons to public schools. But I have chosen the schools they have gone to, sat on their governing bodies so I can have a direct say in what happens at the school, and worked at state level to advocate for community governance of schools so that there is no illusion as to who the system works for.

But many parents, and the majority using private schools are very ordinary and not rich families, do not trust the public education system to give them what they want, and so yes, they sacrifice.

It is interesting that all the growth in private schooling is in the low fee end of the market. There is virtually no growth in the so called rich schools. So the constant harping about the alleged wealth of families choosing private schools is an absolute furphy, a lie and a deceit – much as is the current AEU campaign which is about as dishonest as you can legally get away with.

Re the money thread
Isn't there a difference in funding between capital works (buildings etc) and other expenses?- books, teachers, pencils, chalk etc.
As someone said there is a big difference in a 100 year old private school in its asset base (where the old boys can chip in a few million every year) compared to public school full of portables in a domitory suburb.

Anyway why do churches and chuch businesses get a free ride taxation wise (eg Sanitarium, Anglican property developments etc)?
I am told the weekly "plate" at Hillsong is 7mil. Nice business.

I just know in my area (CC NSW) many headmasters have to spend book money on security or repairs. For a year 12 student not to have continuous access to a set text is scandalous.

On the housing thing.
In the USA schooling is paid from 'rates'. So many move into an area with "good" schools and the move out when their kid's schooling is done.
USA's private schools like Andover (Bush's School) make even our very best endowed (private or public) schools look like poor relations. But then throwing money at something doesn't make it the best (eg USA Health System)(But a little more might help many schools.)
Well paid, respected, well trained, well resourced and well supported teachers are needed. Trained counseloors (Psychologists) are also much needed, in socially disadvantaged areas,- a long time before Old Bonsai's "chaplains in every school" christian-pork-bellying nonsense.

The current intake (UAI of 50ish?) and training of many new teachers is an embarrassment.

On the creationism thing
The argument is to cretinous to waste time on. If you want to believe the world is 5,000 years old do so, but don't use public money to peddle that crap.

By the way I went to a Catholic school and my kids went to private schools. Interestingly the standard of religious education they got was appalling. My wife and I have had to 'home school' them on very many religious matters, doctrine and simple bible stories despite us both being atheists.

ena: Where we will ultimately disagree is that I do not believe that I am my brother's keeper, and I think we need to purge our society of this Judeo-Christian ethic (and all other such ethics) that lingers in its modern socialistic guise. We need to purge ourselves of this slave morality and be strong and noble.

You may well claim that by accident of birth, it's not the fault of children of poor people that they were born poor. Conversely, I would argue it's also not the fault or responsibility of anyone else (including the rich) that such people were born poor.

A 'Christian' school, if it is based on the principles of the Gospel, would have 2 purposes from what I can see.

1/ It would provide education to Christian children.
2/ It would offer affordable education to the less fortunate. (Christian or none)

Point 2 would not mean they should 'hide' the gospel for the sake of non Christian children, who would know that it is part of the package.

I suppose Christian schools could be 'run' in a manner which contradicts the Gospel, and that would be sad. My son went to a private 'Christian' school for 2 yrs, (Until we ran out of money and coincidently they ran out of patience) and it was abundantly clear that the emphasis was on keeping the school name and 'score' high, rather than catering to the various needs of students. It was the only school where my son obtained an "A" in Maths, in one year. He had a very dedicated 'Christian' teacher. But a different year, a different teacher, down down down.

CONCLUSION it is quite possible that Christian schools can contradict the Gospel, but not neccessarily so.

Shorbe, making sure all kids are educated to a reasonable standard is not just about being unselfish. In fact, considered intelligently, its actually about being selfish. After all, talent and potential are not just born into rich and lucky families, it pops up all over the place. In a globally competitive world like ours, countries like Australia with highly segregated education systems that entrench privilege and underprivilege, put themselves at a distinct competitive disadvantage to most of our competitors who have much more equitable education systems and therefore are much more likely to develop talent wherever it appears.
So, the kind of narrow I'm-all-right-Jack philosophy you espouse is not simply unjust, it is also foolish. In the end, we will all suffer and our economy will too. Developing the talent of all our children -whether your direct offsping or not - is simply sensible policy which benefits all of us in the long run.
"No arbitrary obstacles should prevent people from achieving those positions for which their talents fit them and which their values lead them to seek. Not birth, nationality, colour, religion, sex, nor any other irrelevant characteristic should determine the opportunities that are open to a person – only his abilities" a quote from Milton Friedman, and another from Alan Greenspan, "… we cannot expect everyone to be equally skilled, but we need to pursue equal access to knowledge to ensure that our economic system works at maximum efficiency and is perceived to be just in its distribution of rewards." Perhaps you don't have to be a socialist to recognise the wisdom of good universal education.

"After all, talent and potential are not just born into rich and lucky families, it pops up all over the place. In a globally competitive world like ours, countries like Australia with highly segregated education systems that entrench privilege and underprivilege, put themselves at a distinct competitive disadvantage to most of our competitors who have much more equitable education systems and therefore are much more likely to develop talent wherever it appears."

WELL SAID!
I talked to a specialist's wife yesterday (at a party) who was pleased she could get 25% discount on Uni. fees by paying for her three kids up front.
She thought the "Future Fund" was a great idea
and
she no longer listens to the plebeian, leftist ABC.

Strangely her husband was quite nice.

ena: If you seriously think Milton Friedman would be advocating government funded and controlled education, then you're seriously taking him out of context.

Anyhow, I don't buy your argument about education being for the benefit of the entire nation for a second. If we were talking about a country where everybody became a scientist, perhaps. However, what good does anything beyond about year 7 do 90% of people in this country? I value knowledge and education, but I think beyond simple arithmetic, spelling and reading, most of what people "learn" in school is soon forgotten, and thus, a complete waste of time.

What we need is less of a lowest-common-denominator system and more of an elitist, streamed system where the dumbies and "behaviourally challenged" would be kicked out as soon as possible so that those who showed some inclination to learn could do so in peace. If you were to argue for that to be funded by the public, I would begrudgingly agree, even though I'd rather see it funded by private scholarships. I can't possibly advocate the present system where the ~20%+ of hardcore troublemakers are kept on until at least year 10, and possibly longer because they don't have any other options, very much to the detriment of everyone else. Likewise, the ~60% of people who aren't bad kids (but won't use most of what they've "learnt" once they get into the real world) should be culled at an appropriate age.

Or, you can have a private system where if people want to stay longer than their abilities dictate, they should pay for it.

"...and "behaviourally challenged" would be kicked out as soon as possible..."

This would be disastrous for not only the education system but also for the country. So what are these kids going to do after they are out of school at an early age? Instead the less academically inclined should be encouraged to take up apprenticeship schemes at a much earlier age than is currently.

But the reason they stay on is neither their fault, nor the school's they attend. It is driven by our changing economy and technology. In the 1980s half of all the full time jobs for teenage boys disappeared - most of them either unskilled or apprenticeships in manufacturing industries. And if you think those boys had it bad, think about the girls, fully two thirds of the full-time jobs for teenage girls disappeared at the same time (in offices, textiles and factories). That's why the kids stick around - they have no job to go to.
Worse, just at the time the teenage job market contracted so catastrophically, govts decided to cut spending to public institutions - including public schools. So just when the least academically inclined kids were forced to stay on at an institution they hated, govts made it harder for those institutions to cope. This is the major reason behind our current sense that something has gone wrong with our schools. It has, but its not the teachers or the kids or even the much maligned teachers unions who caused the problem; it was change that we'd neither prepared for nor - even to this day - actually recognised. The increasing VET (vocational education training) courses - mostly in public schools are almost our first attempts to actually start to do something constructive about this remarkable yet largely unspoken change. They are proving extremely successful, by the way, its just that its taken so long for us to work out that we needed them.

Philip Tang: Frankly, I don't care what happens to the ratbags, so long as they don't affect the good guys or expect such people to give them handouts. If they do affect everyone else, then they should be dealt with through the criminal justice system. I'm sick of the lowest common denominator holding everyone else to ransom, as though we have to bribe them to only make our lives a little bit intolerable.

ena: Whether they stay on or not because there are or aren't other options is not the issue. No one makes people misbehave (and this misbehaviour starts in primary school, long before such children could do an apprenticeship even if they wanted to). That is a personal choice, and it's about time these clowns stopped holding everyone else to ransom. There might not be other avenues for them, but that's hardly the fault of some kid who wants to learn (or teach!) but has to endure these ratbags on a daily basis. The world does not owe them a living as "protection" money from their antics, although people are increasingly having to pay a form of protection money in the form of private school fees to escape such other people.

Whatever happens though, never blame people for their own misbehaviour. It's always someone else's fault, unless of course you knuckled down to acquire money, education or some other secretly (or not so secretly) and jealously despised asset. In that case, you're a fair target.

You are correct about their behaviour, it is their own responsibility. However, accepting that there is a reason why kids who would once have left school are still there, is not the same as excusing their behaviour.
And, you know, Shorbe, I don't know about you, but when I was young (and even now that I am old) I sometimes behaved badly, particularly if I was trapped in a situation that made me feel stupid and useless and undervalued.
That's perhaps the essence of the difference between the underprivileged and the privileged, those with money can buy their way out of an unpleasant situation, while those without are much more stuck. It may be fair enough to escape if you can, but I do find the sense of superiority those who have the means to get out, sometimes exhibit towards those who do not, rather unattractive.

ena

I do hope you're on a P&F committee. The wisdom, life experience, concern and respect for others, makes for successful relationships between schools, parents, teachers, administration, communities.

If only all schools in Australia had the input of community members such as yourself.

I first started attending a Christian school in kinder because the local state school wouldn't let me in because I was a month and half too young. When I first started my school had only recently moved campus and consisted of 2 buildings. I continued there until grade 4, when I changed to a public school for 12 months. It was a complete culture change and a waste. The year was spent revising all the work I had done in grade 2... going over things such as 2 times table and basic spelling. You may think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. It was at that school that I first learnt to swear, was first subjected to bullying and first learnt what it was to be hated before someone even knew who you were. At the end of that 12 months my parents sent me back to the Christian school. by now my school consisted of 4 buildings and educated up to Grade 10. We had what was then considered a huge student body of 97. The improvements to my school were achieved through a lot of fundraising, while still fundraising for other charities. We were closely associated with John Arul orphanages in India, and supported other causes in our local community. By the time I left in grade 12 last year my school was still expanding, with a student body of 386, a gym/performing arts centre, library, and a plot of land out the back for continuing horticultural studies. This year it became the largest school in our district, and yet we still had to hold 6 months of fundraising just to get enough bricks so finish our buildings. Yes, government funding was a blessing, but the school community is the reason so much has been achieved.
Yes bullying occurs, but teachers are actively trying to stamp it out. Funnily enough, and I say this as an eye witness, it is students from both backgrounds that bully, and the school treats both groups with equal discipline.

ena: With very, very few exceptions, anyone can afford to send their kids to a private school. There are plenty of kids at private schools of Vietnamese or Greek origin (amongst others) whose parents or grandparents came to this country with nothing, including no English language ability. They worked hard (often in their own businesses) to send their kids to private schools so they could have better lives.

There's no such thing as not having the means. There's not having the balls, or not having the work ethic, but there's no such thing as not having the means. Personally, I find the sense of entitlement many people in this country exhibit to be rather unattractive.

Shorbe, you claim that "with very, very few exceptions, anyone can afford to send their kids to a private school..." And then you can't resist going further: "There's no such thing as not having the means." Where do you live - in a social cocoon?

Australia’s poverty rate is nearly 13% - the second highest of all OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) countries. Only the United States was higher (19%). Depending on how you define it, research using three different income poverty lines, estimated the number of children in poverty in 2000 as: 479,000 (half median income poverty line); 743,000 (half average income poverty line); and 1,037,000 (Henderson poverty line). Even the least exacting measure of poverty finds half a million Australian kids in poverty. What do you reckon are their chances of getting to private schools?

If you're really serious, but want to stay emotionally safe, you might want to read
(a) The Australian Parliamentary Library research paper called, "The Poor in Australia: Who Are They and How Many Are There?" 22 August 2002 (www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/poverty.htm); or
(b) The Senate's "A hand up not a hand out: Renewing the fight against poverty: Report on poverty and financial hardship" 2004 (www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/poverty/report/index.htm)

Or alternatively you might like to spend time with agencies like The Brotherhood of St Laurence or the Smith Family to see the unending work they do with families scratching to pay daily bills and who would never in their wildest dreams imagine it possible to send their kids to private schools.

Better still, you might like to meet some poverty-stricken Australians who live on the streets because they haven't got bond money to rent a home. Now we won't even mention Indigenous Australians or those who can't work because of serious disabilities or sole parents.

I am saddened to learn that you find "the sense of entitlement many people in this country exhibit to be rather unattractive." I suppose you would find kids from poor families "rather unattractive" too.

Frank: Yet they always have money for alcohol, tobacco or gambling, not to mention take away food and other consumer wants that are hardly a necessity.

The poor in this country (and other developed nations) are fat and have televisions. If a Vietnamese family can come over here on a boat with nothing, not even a word of English, and make something of themselves, then the white (and black) trash in this nation can get off their backsides and do the same. I have no sympathy for 99% of the poor in this nation because they're a pack of bludgers who waste what money they get and then expect someone else to pick up the tab for their children. Likewise, I'm sick of people making excuses for them.

I have known poor people, and I've worked in schools where kids come from poor families. Likewise, some members of my own family have chosen to avoid being the next generation of white trash, whilst others have not. I am acquainted with poverty, but I chose not to make excuses for it, let alone elevate it to the status of national icon.

Shorbe

I wrote about the estimated half-a-million Australian kids (minimum) growing up in poverty and your straight-from-the-heart response was: "Yet they always have money for alcohol, tobacco or gambling, not to mention take away food and other consumer wants that are hardly a necessity." I must tell my homeless friends that joke when I catch up with them outside Scotch College.

You have "no sympathy for 99% of the poor in this nation because they're a pack of bludgers who waste what money they get and then expect someone else to pick up the tab for their children."

As one who was charged with being "without sufficient means" when I was three and placed in an orphanage ("An Orphan's Escape", Lothian 2005) I take exception to your callow and callous dismissal of poor people as deserving everything they don't get. How was I going to have the means to get to a private school? Mine is only one story of hundreds of thousands of Australian stories about children growing up in grinding poverty (See Senate Report "Forgotten Australians" 2004).

They've stopped charging children with the crime of poverty these days but my grandfather died in gaol while he was serving a six-months sentence for being "without sufficient means". Nice symmetry, eh? People like you hate poverty being in-your-face. In the old days you locked us up. Nowadays you just slander us as undeserving and bludgers.

I don't make excuses for people living in poverty. I want them, and especially their children, to have a reasonable chance to get into the opportunity structure where they can mingle with decent folk like you...or do I?

frankgol, why would you want them to be able to send their children to private school? Surely the best education in all Oz is to be found in the public system. Private schools only churn out ignorant right wingers who by their vary being cause poverty. The system of public socialism aka the welfare state, is the only way to make the able pay. Careful sir, or they will be calling for your leftoid badge and you'll get the boot from the marxist book club too. :-)

As the man says, in the morning give the poor a dollar and it will be in someone elses pocket by noon. Money is not an equalizer. Money is no different than any other commodity. If it means everything to you, you will find a way to acquire it by the barrow load. A study of the richest men in the world some years ago showed many had less than a year 8 education. What they had can't be taught or given. It must be earned old school with sweat and stick-to-itness. Most of them came from poor to "middl'n" families. They did have one common trait. They at no time considered themselves victims of society. Those poor stupid fools. And they got rich to boot.

Aquaviravis

I don't get your behaviour - Attack a poster for outlandish comments that they DIDN'T make. Then pat yourself on the back for taking posters to task for the ridiculous comments that YOU made.

How about responding to what was said rather than attacking someone for what they didn't say.

By the way, can you give us a reference for that 'study' you're mentioning? It will just give it a bit more credibility given your already over-the-top comments.

Thank you Liz.

aqvarivs, I think you don't read too well - did you go to a private school by any chance? I don't hanker to send my children to private school because, I agree with you, the best education is to be found in the public system. Many private schools exist to transmit privilege, to train children for the ruling class, not to educate them.

You say: "A study of the richest men in the world some years ago showed many had less than a year 8 education. What they had can't be taught or given." Is that why the thich rich rush to get their kids into the 'best' schools and to buy a university place? Stupid buggers wasting all that money - if only they knew that leaving at Year 8 is the secret elixir of the rich and infamous. Now that you've put me right I know why the ranks of the rich are so full up with kids whose parents were too poor to buy them privilege.

I just love your logic aqvarivs. I'm sure you must have been trained in a private school.

"I don't get your behaviour - Attack a poster for outlandish comments that they DIDN'T make. Then pat yourself on the back for taking posters to task for the ridiculous comments that YOU made."

Aqva seems to be well known for that. I'd say either he is
involved in politics, so dirty is what its all about, or
perhaps he learnt it at that good little Catholic school he
attended. :)

FrankGoi and Yabby

I'm a product of a Catholic school education. I send my children to a Catholic school.

His problem is not associated with Catholic schools. It's what I see with a lot of posters on the net. Just plain aggression and not much substance.

frankgol wrote,"What do you reckon are their chances of getting to private schools?" My comment on that was tongue in cheek sarcasm hence the smiley face. Sarcasm - an ironic utterance - for the stunned blamers who cant read, o.k. liz and yabby.

As for the study, it was done some time in the late seventies and highlighted some of the days top millionaires and how they got started. Surprisingly many(let me put a disclaimer in here for liz and yabby; many does not mean all or the majority, I could have easily said, quite a few, or many more than expected) had only year 8 or equivalent. Ross Perot was one of them. The most interesting part was their personal recollections of the journey to becoming top earners. None claimed social victim but relished the challenges and did not suffer fear of failure. Guys like Walton of Wal-Mart talked of failing 70 times out of a hundred.

Lottsa folks out there with way more education than many a millionaire and they're not rich by any standard. Education is no guarantee of wealth.

It is the sign of a weak mind to be unable to bear wealth.
Seneca

Though I am grateful for the blessings of wealth, it hasn't changed who I am. My feet are still on the ground. I'm just wearing better shoes.
Oprah Winfrey

If you would be wealthy, think of saving as well as getting.
Benjamin Franklin

Many a rich man or woman have come from humble beginnings. They were the ones to whom you gave the dollar in the morning and by noon ten years on they still had it.

I must admit, I'm surprised that you leftoids don't believe humble folk can ever achieve by their own resources. Who says the nanny state hasn't had a impact on social thinking?

FrankGol: Well, I don't know. Tell me how someone growing up in grinding poverty in Vietnam (or any other third world country) comes to this country with nothing, not even a basic grasp of the English language, and moves into the middle or upper middle class within his lifetime, and sees his children become doctors and lawyers. Then tell me why people who don't have to overcome that massive cultural and linguistic hurdle can't (or won't) do the same for generation after generation. You are making excuses.

aqvarivs: If you haven't already, you might want to read the book, "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas Stanley and William Danko.

http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-Americas/dp/1567315682/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-8614351-6836735?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177425997&sr=8-1

The authors spent twenty years interviewing the financially independent to find out their attitudes and behaviours (and here's a hint: they don't buy new Porches every couple of years). It's an absolutely fascinating read.

"for the stunned blamers who cant read, o.k. liz and yabby."

Seems you who can't read Aqva :) I remind you that I never
said a word about your postings on this thread, simply
pointed out your history. Like umm on the magically
disappearing abortion thread.

Shorbe, thanks for the link. I've visited Amazon.com to read the reviews. Most were very helpful. So many people spend the entirety of their lives watching the grass grow on the other side of the fence that wealth has become associated with materialism. Little realizing that the folks next door with the new high end sports job and the five bedroom house with all the latest gadgetry are just as likely to be debt ridden and a paycheck away from being homeless than actually wealthy.
The hard lessons of self-discipline and frugality, the not living above ones means but, rather below that means in order to save are not lessons one learns in school. To the contrary, any type of discipline seems out the window thanks to the socialization of the victim mentality. We need to acknowledge that it is an individual goal to become wealthy and not a right of the less motivated to take from those who have done the hard work and made the lifestyle choices to have a successful bank balance, rather than filling their yard and homes with trinkets. As one reviewer, a financial adviser stated, “the real key to making money is aggressive and successful debt management”. He also offered, Rich Dad Poor Dad by Richard Kiyosaki was well worth the read for those that enjoyed The millionaire next Door.

Here are a couple of links to understanding poverty in Australia and how the Government qualify poverty.


http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2004-05/05rn49.htm

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/poverty.htm

http://www.ibge.gov.br/poverty/pdf/australia1.pdf

Cheers

"I don't get your behaviour - Attack a poster for outlandish comments that they DIDN'T make. Then pat yourself on the back for taking posters to task for the ridiculous comments that YOU made."

Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 9:10:18 PM

Seems you who can't read Aqva :) I remind you that I never
said a word about your postings on this thread, simply
pointed out your history.

Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 3:16:48 PM

Puts the lie to your phony claim of innocents eh yabby. It doesn't matter who said it first if you pick it up and run with it, it becomes your statement. If you thought for yourself and weren't directed by the knee-jerk artist emoting all over this web site you would probably have some credibility. But to be found nothing more than a liar. How terribly sad. Such a petty little simpleton you've become.

Aqva, if you open your eyes just a bit, you will see quotation marks
around the remark. Perhaps you are an online newby, so unaware that
when we quote other peoples posts, we use quotation marks. It makes
it easier for others to understand as to what the post refers to.

We can then loudly agree or disagree with the quote. Because
we quoted somebody elses point, certainly does not mean that it
becomes our statement. Look around OLO a bit, most posters land
up disagreeing with the quotes they envelop in quotion marks, for
good reason.

There are some amazingly clever posters on OLO. They present substantive
points of reason, which destroy the arguments of others.
Then we have the frustrated, who turn to ad hominem arguments when
their emotions take over and their reasoning skills are shown to
be deficient. Then we have the straw man types, who simply want to
win arguments for the sake of it. So they distort what others have
said, then argue against their own distortions Strawman arguments are
well known in debating. Then of course we have the people who simply
don't read what others have written in the first place.

Given your history of strawman arguments when debating with me,
I simply pointed that out, so that others are aware. I remind you
that I pulled you up time after time over this, during our abortion
debate.

Your ad hominem attack above, won't win you any brownie points either,
sorry :) Either you can present substantive points of reason or
you can't. What you think of me, I really don't care lol. But I
do enjoy those gems of posts, by people who can present great points
and don't need to divert to various debating fallacies to try and
win their arguments. Some people might be intimidated by your style,
not me sorry :)

Yabby

That's a good summation of OLO posting protocols and 'types' of posters. I couldn't help but think of particular recurrent posters when you described:

(a) the logical reasoners,
(b) the personal attackers,
(c) the straw man demolitionists and
(d) the aggressive non-readers.

Post your own examples into each of the four.

I think you'd agree that some people fit into more than one category from time to time (and even within a single post).

There's another type of poster - those who use OLO articles as an opportunity to push their barrows without heed for the topic under discussion. These include the religious nutters, the political aspirants and the know-it-all extremists who come to OLO with their minds firmly shut.

Aqvarvis

"I don't get your behaviour - Attack a poster for outlandish comments that they DIDN'T make. Then pat yourself on the back for taking posters to task for the ridiculous comments that YOU made."

It was me that wrote the above. You posted back saying I didn't get your sarcasm because you tacked a smiley face on.

I didn't misinterpret your intent. I recognised the sarcasm. I thought you were a jerk to put a smiley face at the end of such sarcastic comments. didn't like it. I said as much.

Good for you Liz. Nobody is knocking you for your opinion. I make a lot of writing mistakes trying to make a point and equally as often when I use sarcasm. It's the pouncers like yabby who pick up other peoples postings and repost them as if it's a free ride with out having to answer for them. Then instead of acknowledging that, they wiggle and weasel with words like distorted, strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks reminding people how clever they are, and how they pulled someone else up over their opinions. It's all more lies and BS.
Then to top it off they have the unmitigated gall to suggest that, "So they distort what others have said, then argue against their own distortions Strawman arguments are well known in debating. Then of course we have the people who simply don't read what others have written in the first place." Something for which yabby is at constant fault. Proof is found in yabbys now second use of a thread that has been discontinued and therefore no one can bring forth examples to prove or disprove. So now not only is yabby a liar but, two faced.
And yabby honey this is not an ad hominem attack. Grow up. And quit sulking because someone disagrees with you. Nothing said on this web site is world changing and your opinion does not by any standard of virtue supersede the opinions or base assertions of any other poster.
A week on and your still obsessing over my pro choice stance on abortion. Give it a rest.

FrankGol, you've listed it very well! After some time we realise
which posters are the gems worth reading, which ones are hardly
worth bothering with, as its sure to be another religious rant etc.

Aqva wrote:
"And yabby honey this is not an ad hominem attack"

ROFL, you could have fooled me :) Now you've even forgotten
your stance in the abortion debate, so clearly you were arguing
just for the sake of it, which is what I had suspected.
Per chance I saved a copy of that thread to my hdd, not long
before it disappeared. So there is still a nearly
complete record of it.

What people post does indeed matter, for its a reflection of their
character and philosophies. Knowledge is tentative and we can
learn from others, if we have half a brain. Just the other day
a smart poster like Pericles made a classic gem of a point.
I thought about it, he was absolutaly correct in his analysis,
I changed my mind on the matter. Those are the gems of posts
that I enjoy on OLO and the people that I respect for their
intelligence. The power of ideas is in fact world changing,
if you think about it.

But if you want to argue just for the sake of it, thats cool,
best that I know that and that makes dealing with you real easy :)

What I suggest you do yabby is publish my pro choice opinion on abortion that I argued against your pro abortion stance IN FULL with out your usual restructuring to suit your own negative view. Don't just try to bludgeon me with such an empty threat. You don't seem able to tell the difference between pro choice and pro abortion, and are still obsessed with someone disagreeing with the almighty yabby, the one and only valid opinion. Your getting to be a right prat. Better yet, see a doctor. You've gone completely off the reservation sunshine.

aqvarivs: Have you read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" yet? I would suggest it's not that useful. Firstly, it's one of those books where it's told as a recollection or series of conversations, so it's really padded out. Secondly, it's really light on detail. What detail/advice it does provide is pretty standard stuff provided elsewhere, but it's provided better elsewhere. If you'd prefer something written as a story, I'd suggest "The Richest Man in Babylon" instead.

About the best bit of information I got from "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" was this maxim (and the accompanying diagrams and explanations):

The rich have assets (ie. things that passively make them money and/or grow in value, eg. shares, investment properties, etc.);
the middle class have liabilities (ie. things they think are assests but which cost them money and/or decrease in value, eg. new cars, houses too big for them, etc.);
the poor have expenses (pretty self-explanatory).

Also, there's a fair bit of bad press about Kiyosaki of two varieties: 1. that the "Rich Dad" he writes about is purely fictional; and 2. that how he makes his money is by aggressively selling real estate "investments" through his seminars (and through the seminar fees of course).

Still, take what you will from the book if you read it.

shorbe, thank you for that synopsis. I was actually thinking of reading the book but, hadn't fully investigated. I glad you gave me the inside on the possible slant coming from Kiyrosaki. Personally, I can't support that type of thing. Too much like telemarketing swindles or buying into timeshares. :-) *I will look into the other though.

cheers

Aqva, I can't help but be amused by your audacity:) You spend a whole
thread, arguing against my point, which was that third world women
should have the same choices that Western women, Australian women
have. Now you claim to be pro choice!

You would be well aware that I cannot repost a whole thread, which
was wiped by the moderators, for their own good reasons. I am still
curious as to why, but when it comes to religion etc, there could
be many reasons and pressures. I will leave that to their judgement.
I actually mentioned some of those pressures and lobby groups in
my postings.

I am not about to turn a debate about Christian schools, into an
abortion debate.

The best I can do is to point out to newer posters, that yes they
will find some gems on OLO. But there will also be characters who
just want to argue for the sake of it. They won't even remember
their points of argument from a few days back, so best to not take
them too seriously, for their agenda is a bit too obvious.

aqvarivs: I think unless you're interested in getting into some really specialised form of investment (which I'm personally not interested in -- both because I'm not a professional and because I don't want to put the time into it), then a basic kind of financial success overview book is the way to go. There aren't really any massively complicated concepts to be learnt. From what I've read so far (having gone from a relative novice to having read maybe a dozen or so books, plus other stuff, and having talked to various people over the past eighteen months) I think it's best to just side step the "motivational" writers/speakers all together. Maybe I'm just a natural cynic, but I don't go in for that stuff at all.

Stick with someone who, 1. provides pretty basic, common sense, long term principles for wealth accumulation (as opposed to a lot of hype about "if you dare to dream, you can be a millionaire next week" kind of stuff); 2. provides definitions/explanations (including the downfalls and potential pitfalls) of financial jargon and different types of investments, along with ways to get more information if necessary. Paul Clitheroe or even Scott Pape (he writes for a younger audience) are both good in this respect.

"The Millionaire Next Door" is also a very, very good book. I should mention that "The Richest Man in Babylon" is told as a series of stories that are almost like kids' stories (but still good -- it says all the same sort of stuff everyone else seems to say, eg. live within your means and pay yourself first).

yabby, a very self righteous attitude. Now form a quorum, then a party.
In the real world at 1000ft. your gravy. Sadly you don't even know what I'm talking about. Can you say protection.

Shorbe, I'm not trying to be smart about this stuff. I grew up around it. My father. A very uncomplicated man who spent 1939- 1945 fighting for a sense of universal freedom. A boy who came home a young man from that experience and made his first million at 45. I wish I had that talent. Pride. I wouldn't even ask any one to believe it. I'm stunned. I just hope my children have a life that offers such opportunity and advantage..and if I have to pay the extra for the full package... well mate, thats on me...right?