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.