Was it you or the sub-editor that chose the word intolerance for the title here, Stephen?

To what extend should tolerance extend to intolerance?

While organisations of christian schools are vigorously defending their opportunities to discriminate against minorities http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/adb/ll_adb.nsf/pages/adb_general#areas, and beat their pupils http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s246823.htm you’ve got to wonder who in fact is the more intolerant.

In any event, questioning the allocation of public funds to organisations that advocate intolerance is not of itself intolerance – it’s a valid and necessary part of the political process.

Mr O'Doherty does get a tad snaky about definitions ... and then his argument moves from 'Christian schools' to ‘Christian education’. Are they synonymous, Stephen? More care required too?

My objection to the Christian school movement is two-and-maybe-threefold. Firstly, they foster societal division whereas the public schools are, or can be, great 'ameliorators' of social difference (in fact this is one of the key reasons for school per se). Secondly, the costs are extraordinary and they are an inefficient societal mechanism. Robert Lowe in the 1830s in the NSW parliament sent such elitism to sleep for 150 years. A pandering populist under the guise of religion allowed a giant to reawaken. Finally, the folly is that they will eventually make education too expensive for the masses and we will be back to where we were in the 19th century. So read the history!

Read about Robert Lowe, Stephen. His biography may be informative and the reasons for his actions run counter to what you are promulgating, I believe. He ended up unloved in UK as Viscount Sherbrooke after being Gladstone’s Exchequer but that doesn't make him wrong!

I agree with the author that people shouldn't lump lower fee Christian schools in with the likes of the Kings School and Sydney Grammar.

But in the same breath he defends the million of dollars given to the richest schools, schools which simply don't need the money. The principal of Kings said it himself: his school doesn't need the money.

These schools get so much money from school fees and government funding they've got millions of dollars just sitting in the bank, just waiting for a new film theatre or swimming pool, while many public schools can't even afford repairs.

It's grossly unfair and deep down every reactionary defender of the current funding system knows it.

The rich schools regularly give out messages to parents effectively threatening them that if the government cuts funding to the school they will be forced to jack their children's school fees up even further. It's a lie, but that's why the parents squeal so much.

They should understand, their child's school increases their children's fees by 10pc a year simply because they CAN: they are operating in a sellers market and they don't care whether you can afford it. There are plenty of richer kids ready to take your child's place.

"the diversity in the Australian community applies equally to all school settings."

Where is the diversity in schools that are set up with the sole purpose of attracting one particular section of the community? Children attending religious schools are mixing with children from the same backgrounds and sharing the same belief systems as themselves. Hardly a setting that could be described as diverse.

True diversity can only exist in a universal education system which is open to everyone irrespective of race, religion, ability level or capacity to pay. The growth of independent schools has created an emphasis on difference. It is dividing society and breeding intolerance.

'The growth of independent schools has created an emphasis on difference. It is dividing society and breeding intolerance.' One could easily argue that State schools that embrace the religion of secular humanisn is more intolerant than most. As a result of this philosophy people can murder the unborn and then try and explain it away by science. The hopefully flawed theory of evolution is held on to and no other theories are tolerated. I thought that the religion of secular humanism celebrated 'difference'. It is the intolerance of the State system that aids the growth of the independent schools. As stated on previous posts many if not most people send their kids to private schools not for religous purposes but because of the failure of schools based on secular humanisn. If the State schools stopped preaching their religion then they might not lose people who make many sacrifices to send their children to private schools.

I suspect that if there were ever measures to introduce a reduction in funding to private schools, parents would revolt at the ballot box. The big, high fee private schools generally lie in blue ribbon Liberal seats, and probably draw many of their clientele from such areas. However, the smaller independent schools (where funding would be a much bigger issue/burden) generally lie in marginal seats. It would be electoral suicide to try to take the money away.

Also, I suspect that even if all of this managed to happen anyway, many of the people in the independent sector would simply switch to homeschooling or community schooling (and co-incidentally, there would be a rise in black market/non-monetary activity), like in the U.S.

I think a lot of people are missing the point that you can stick whatever ideology you want on people, but some people won't accept that. Some people genuinely don't like the state system for a whole lot of non-funding issues (the funding just makes things easier or harder), and every action has a reaction. People don't just get up one day and pull their kids out of the local state school. There's a whole lead-up to that. Also, aside from being unfair, it's innacurate to think that everyone who doesn't like the state model of education is some kook. If anything, it only drives them further away.

"They do this so that Christian education can be affordable and accessible. If Alan Matheson had his way, and government funding was taken away from Christian schools this choice would only be available to very wealthy families. Where’s the justice in that?"

Take a step back, Stephen-O. Where's the justice in funding based on SES (which you proudly sport) in a secular nation (in which you live)? Personally, I find more justice in seeing Christians pay top dollar to get their shiny education than i do seeing do-gooders like you continue to insist on separating kids based on their parents' religious beliefs.
Justice? pfft.

"If the State schools stopped preaching their religion then they might not lose people who make many sacrifices to send their children to private schools."

It's a nonsense to claim that state schools are "preaching their religion". State schools are broadly secular and humanist that is true but they certainly don't preach "secular humanism". You wouldn't hear that term mentioned in a state school anywhere. It's a loaded term being deliberately coined to unfairly brand people or institutions who don't fit the narrow world view of the user.

State schools don't teach religion or any other dogma that requires faith-based acceptance. They hold to the view which is the basis of all advanced civilizations that learning should require the application of reasoning and scientific evidence. It's an underpinning principle and not something that is preached or indoctrinated as implied here.

State schools are inclusive in every way and accommodate all religious beliefs. They allow religious groups to conduct education classes and many now have chaplains. In fact I doubt if any state school could truly claim to be strictly secular and humanist in practice even if they wanted to.

Stephen. "Christian" schools cater for the working class and lower middle class is what you're trying to spin. The Catholics in particular built near public schools to capture as many "lost souls" as they could. They also piggy backed on the State -funded infrastructure.

These million-dollar schools that Matheson refers to aren't catering for the “working class” sport. Matheson makes some very good points and all you can do is get personal.

Maybe in the old days Christian schools had some heart in relation to the poor but now it is just big business and elitism. I live near a private school and certain ones hate those who they perceive aren't on their level. "We all hate you and wish you'd piss off." "Why don't you go back to where you came from." Etc.

A lad in working clothes was walking through a public park which the school have hijacked. The students walked along behind him taunting:
“street bum, street bum" . Fair enough kids will be kids but a teacher stood there watching with a silly smerk on his face. Don't dare talk of intolerance to me in relation to Christian schools like this one. These are the words of representatives of your “tolerant” “Christian” school communities.

Moreover, I don’t know any working class people that get around in the mostly expensive vehicles that drop these kids off.

Having said that there are many lovely parents and children who attend that school but the management are only interested in prestige, reputation and money.

This school’s buildings and infrastructure is nearly all tax funded. And yet even though decisions that impact on my family (such as allowing builders to start work at 4:30 am during my daughter’s final year at High School – tentacles in the council?); we are not regarded as stakeholders and excluded (talk to the hand mentality).

The networking that goes along with private schools is going to see a lot of ordinary people excluded from proper treatment in society as the silver spoons spread their influence into employment services, unis, police, legal areas and so on.

The SES formula for funding private schools sounds good but is actually grossly distorted - to the detriment of lower fee schools, in fact, as well as to public schools.
Firstly, it doesn't measure the actual incomes of the families who choose a particular school (for disadvantaged public schools to access extra funding they must get actual parents to fill in actual forms about their employment and income status). Private schools - of all kinds - simply send in the addresses of their students. The more who live in a disadvantaged area, the higher their SES ranking and the more money they get. But, notice, the students don't actually have to be disadvantaged themselves, just live in an area where their neighbours are disadvantaged. So cotton farmer's from Moree who send their kids to high fee boarding schools (charging $15- 20,000 plus in up front fees) get a ranking as if they were from an indigenous family - 88% of whom go to the local public school. The high fee school reaps the money that should go to the kids in the public school- in essence.
Worse, there is a no-loser clause. So, even if all the students of a school live in Point Piper but they once had some students from a disadvantaged area, they still get funded as if they were still there - not that those students had to be actually disadvantaged in the first place either.
As for low fee Christian schools, even low fee ones in disadvantaged areas will still enroll higher SES kids on average, than the local public school will. Yes, some public schools in wealthier suburbs will have higher SES kids than some private schools in poorer areas, but, on average the public high school (in particular) will enroll the lowest SES kids in its area, and most of them get no extra money at all.
More than half of all private schools are now funded above their (already dodgy) SES ranking, funding that can now only go up, not down.
Sorry Stephen, but I am slightly intolerant about that.

If evolution is not a faith based religion then I have never come across one. You need more faith to accept this as science as you do creation. Also if biblical values are not taught then another set of values takes its place. That set of values is certainly not tolerant as many unborn babies find out!

When poorer private schools with normal working class families are lumped in with elitist private schools it shows the bias of the writer. They fail to mention elitist public schools, and don't say they don't exist, because it doesn't support their arguments. To say that public schools do not push religion is ridiculous when evolution is taught every day in every classroom and this takes more faith to believe in than an all supreme creator. There are many private schools where parents and staff give of their time voluntarily to mow the grounds, do the cleaning and maintain the facilities because they can't afford groundsmen and additional teachers aides which are simply just given to public schools. They work long hours and sacrifice a lot because they have found the public schools have failed them. They often have students with learning difficulties who have come from other schools where they are being ignored or at least let fall through the cracks and devote hours to support them. They know each child, support each family and work to make sure all of their students can read and write. They look at the state of our nation and the proclamation that students literacy and numeracy levels are way down on what they were 20 years ago and know that, despite public school opinion, they are doing a good job. If you believe your child is worth it you will make the sacrifice whether that means private or public education.

Ah, the old falling standards debate.
What these harbingers of doom never mention is that standards only appear to have fallen because so many more kids are staying on to years 11 and 12 than ever used to, and then going on to tertiary education.
This is due to half of all full time jobs for teenage boys disappearing in the 1980s and an incredible two thirds of all full time jobs for teenage girls also going the same way.
Kids who would have gone into apprenticeships or other practical/manual skilled jobs now stay on at school because such jobs have dwindled away. So standards appear to have fallen because their performance is now being seen in schools whereas one they'd left at 14 or 15 to take jobs more suited to them.
By the way, the funding formula applies to all private schools both high and low fee, and, as I pointed out it is unfair to low fee schools too - just not quite as unfair as it is to public schools.
As for kids with learning difficulties, disabilities, or other kinds of disadvantage, while some private schools may take some of them, the vast majority - in every category - attend public schools. Indeed, Cardinal Pell himself admitted that 69% of the poorest Catholics attend public schools because they cannot afford even "low" fees. So, if Christian values (you know, like ministering to -read educating and accepting - the poorest and most vulnerable in our society) are to be judged by actions rather than pious words, public schools - particularly those in our most disadvantaged areas - have a strong case when it comes to actually practicing them.

Ah yes, the old public schools are so under funded debate. If the unions weren't so set on making out how badly off they were maybe they could admit to the truth about funding outlined by Mr O'Doherty. It gets my goat that, particularly coming up to elections, they are always espousing that private schools get more funding. What a load of hogwash. However, I do agree that falling literacy & numeracy standards are largely due to having to retain students in school longer - the only problem is, if they were assisted to improve instead of forced to move on then we probably wouldn't see the same increase in problems the older the student gets.

It is demonstrable that the greater the religiosity of a society, the less democratic that society is - and vice versa.
Religious schools indoctrinate children with irrational notions of all-knowing, all-powerful supermen in the sky that not only control the universe, but take a personal interest in every individual atom, and are always ready to punish wrongdoers. What this does to their brains is obvious when you look at the results... all over the world people afflicted with religion are murdering doctors, hanging and stoning adulterous women, persecuting homosexual men and women, refusing abortions to rape victims, killing, maiming and bombing those who believe in a different god - or even a different way of worshipping the same god...
The rise in religiosity in Australia over the last ten years, has seen an equal decline in our democratic freedoms.
No child should be exposed to irrational brainwashing. Religion is something that should only be practised among consenting adults in private. Otherwise - goodbye democracy.

ybgirp: Whether or not there has been a decline in democracy, and whether there has or has not been a rise in religiousity, they may in fact have nothing to do with one another. There's also been a rise in the prevalence of type two diabetes. Is that somehow related to democracy, religiousity, or both? Is the increased number of speed cameras related to the decline in democracy, the rise in religiousity, and the rise in prevalence of type two diabetes? Also, let's not forget the increased exports of coal to China, which are clearly the result of all of the above.

Phew, it's hard to keep up! I haven't even touched on global warming or the decline in number of Japanese tourists to Australia, let alone the price of a loaf of bread!

Anyhow, back to the topic. For what it's worth, having taught in the public system, I won't be sending my children through it. I'm pretty anti-religious, but I'd rather send my children through a nominally religious private school (or even homeschool them) than make them part of some failed social experiment in egalitarianism. Ideology isn't really an issue for me as I think my kids would probably end up as sceptical as I am about the more virulent strains of both the secular left and the religious right.

Funding is only a tiny part of this issue. It's all about the dicipline and standards, which is why the public system drives secular humanists like me to consider the mildly religious as infinitely preferable.

In the public system, there's generally an omnipresent 10% or so of hardcore trouble makers who derail the whole process. I always tell myself I'm immune to all this, but then some kid will come out with an absolute pearler of a comment or do something so outrageous that even I get shocked occasionally. The mere fact that I'm generally so de-sensitised to a lot of this speaks volumes. I think a lot of the advocates of state education really need to be a fly on the wall in the average classroom.

Shorbe,
religion and democracy are two sides of the coin of power, because the aim of both is control over citizens. Religious control is exerted by edicts from 'above'... by reference to an invisible, all powerful adjudicator that absolutely and explicitly forbids all criticism, argument or disagreement. Worst of all, the 'laws' governing religions are deemed to erupt from the godhead and are therefore infallible, and therefore unchangeable.
Democracy allows individuals self expression; it permits debate, it encourages disagreement and, most important, it permits change. Laws that are bad, can be changed.
No society ruled by religion has ever been democratic. All have been dictatorial regimes that use torture, fear and coercion to obtain obedience.
The faults of State Schooling are there, but the philosophy governing them is good. Rather than dumping a system in favour of one that in the long term will destroy our democracy, it would be better to correct the faults. That can be done, and has been done in many State Schools. It depends on the Principals and quality staffing. I have also taught in State Schools, some huge and multicultural from disadvantaged backgrounds, and all were excellent, well-run, tolerant places with high standards because that was what the administration demanded and got!

Some religion promise heaven to their believers while others, entrance into a state of eternal bliss through a series of incarnations. Truth is that there are no scientific proofs to their claims. It is all a matter of faith. Religion is for heaven and secularism is for peace on earth because religious systems are subjective and often fight one another thinking god is on their side.

ybgirp is right to suggest correcting the faults of state schools rather than abandoning them. For many Christian schools have lost their first love, become elitist and evolved to be ‘brand’ names within the local community. As with all things ‘branded’, it carries with it a premium price. So if parents want to send their children to a faith-based ‘branded’ school they must be prepared to pay for it.

If it is truly a Christian school, it should be part of the ministry of the denomination or Christian group. The sacrificial donations of the faithful would then be used to help fund these schools. These donations can be considered for some sort of a tax allowance.

Government funding of faith-based schools is inconsistent with the aims of a secular state. As Christ said, “..render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.

ybgirp: I believe in a separation of church and state also, but there are two things to bear in mind. Firstly, I honestly don't believe Australia is becoming more religious. Australia, like almost all of the developed world, continues its slide into complete apathy towards religion. If we truly are suffering a decline in democracy, it's quite possibly for other reasons than religion.

Secondly, there are certainly politicians who are religious and who seek to implement policies driven by their world view, which happens to be Christian. However, everyone does that. Some people are driven to implement a "green" set of policies by the fact that they have a "green" world view. Likewise for socialists, those driven by free market liberalism, or even Aboriginals. That's politics -- to a large extent it is partisan. Now as much as I'm pretty opposed to Christianity, the last thing I want to do is run these guys out of town so to speak. If they get elected, then they get elected. Maybe they do have the support (though I don't think so), or maybe they're just better organised, are more clever at making preference deals, etc. In short, maybe they're just better at playing the game that everyone plays.

It is fallacious to equate "Green" philosophies with Religious dogma. The politics of conservation are based on the factual reality of an endangered planetary ecosystem, coupled with an honourable desire to preserve it. Religious dogma is based on the myth of supernatural gods, and contempt for this earth and life, seeing it as merely a 'testing ground' for the 'life' to come after death. Politics is not a 'game'. It has become a question of survival of not only the human species, but most of life as we know it. You may view the encroachment of religion into politics with equanimity, but I doubt if your children will thank you for it. No one wants to stop people's religious expression, but they must keep their unscientific, irrational supernatural mumbo jumbo out of political decision making.
Philip Tang's suggestion that religions put their money where their mouth is, is timely. A very public media degate about the claims of religion - especially in the realm of morality and supernatural promises, is long overdue.

ybgirp: You're missing the point entirely. Politics and political opinions are rarely black and white or scientific, especially in the realm of ethics or social policy. Various groups all believe they are correct and want to "do what is right". Frankly, while I lean towards the scientific over the religious, I'm still quite sceptical about much of what passes for scientific fact.

Given all this, and given political ideals born in the Age of Enlightenment, regardless of whether I agree with what someone says or believes, I still believe they have the right to say or believe that. In many cases, I do believe Christians who get into politics are a bunch of dangerous nutters (although they probably consider me and others to be the same!). However, to simply view their involvement in our nation's political process as some sort of back door invasion and enslavement is just as dangerous. To deal with this via some sort of green fascism is missing the point of how and why our society is so moderate to begin with.

People often complain about political apathy in this country, but I think it's not that at all. Most people are willing to let someone have a say, and if things get out of hand, they will generally haul them back in towards some middle ground. That's why I have faith in the Australian people not to let religion get too big for its boots.

Philip, the justification for giving public funds to religious schools is based on the idea that since education is compulsory, and government takes responsibility for the funding of public schools, it should also take at least partial responsibility for the funding of private schools.

Many will remember the vigorous “state aid” debates of the sixties, which were prompted by the catholic church threatening to shut down diocesan schools unless they got more public funding. With about 30% of Australia’s children attending private schools at that time, the education system would have collapsed. Government funding of private schools (“state aid”) was subsequently increased and formalised.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with some government funding of private schools, if only because it gives government a stick to wave at non-government schools when insisting on curriculum standards. However I believe that non-government schools should be allowed to promote their own values only after community values have been addressed.

By this I mean that it should be unlawful for non-government schools to teach values which conflict with community values, and they should not be able to avail themselves of exemptions to the important community standards represented in anti-discrimination laws. This, I believe, is what we as tax-payers should get for our contribution to the running of non-government schools. Unfortunately we don’t.

When you try to find out about the actual dollars flowing to non-government schools, the statistics vary widely. The NSW Teachers’ Federation believes that since the sixties, the pendulum has swung drastically in favour of non-government schools. Certainly there are very few complaints about private schools with leaky roofs and demountable classrooms, so perhaps they have a point. When lobbyists like Stephen start crying poor, you’ve got to remember that the people he represents are sufficiently cashed-up to pay his salary and run offices in most states.

In contrast, the case for public schools is being funded by public school teachers, through their union fees, rather than by the schools themselves.

It is unfair to describe public education as a "failed social experiment in egalitarianism".

In the first place, egalitarianism, if it ever was a social experiment, was a very successful one. It was an integral part of what made post war Australia a great country in which to live and why our lifestyle was once so admired by the rest of the world.

The fact that we no longer have an egalitarian education system is not the fault of public education. Egalitarianism has died as a direct result of the growth of private schooling.

Instead of a strong and proud universal system available to all, we now have a two-tiered system. The best of our students are creamed off into the private system, while the public system is becoming a residual dumping ground for those who cannot afford private schooling or whose children are excluded from private schools because of behavioural and disability issues.

Every parent who decides to send their child to a private school drives another nail into the coffin of both public education and egalitarianism.

Bronwyn: It is a failed social experiment perhaps for the reasons you list, but also because there are a great number of people within the system itself (students, parents, staff) who have degraded it. Those leaving the system are looking for some sanity.

shorbe

Public education is being "degraded" through a lack of government support and through people deserting to private schools, not by those who have remained loyal to the system. Teachers in public schools are working under increasingly difficult circumstances and the vast majority of them are doing a great job. They don't deserve to have their efforts denigrated as you've done and what's more without any substantiation of your claims.

Just because you've had a bad experience, please don't fall into the trap of tarring everyone with the same brush. I've worked in lots of public schools and without exception found them to be successful, vibrant and progressive places of learning. They are providing a much needed model of inclusiveness and collaboration and greatly enhance their local communities.

Bravo, Bronwyn! That's my experience too.

Bronwyn: In the end, it comes down to personal experience though. You've had good personal experiences, or have perceived them as such. I, and others, have had bad personal experiences, or have perceived them as such. I can't, and don't, presume to tell you what your experiences or perceptions have been, but neither should you to others.

Having independent alternatives in education is about personal choice. We allow personal choice in the provision of other goods and services (many, such as food, are at least as essential, if not more, than education), so why not with this one? If the government model of education is attractive enough, it should have nothing to fear from some competition.