Leslie Cannold is described at the end of her opinion piece (The Age.. 5.11) as an “author, ethicist and researcher”. She wrote of feeling guilty about her son being in a public school.

Does she, as a researcher, not know that the federal money for primary and secondary education is combined with state money and that no principal of any non Government school receives 100% of the money given to children in state schools. Every child who attends a non Government school releases money to be spent in Government schools. Parents of these children are not discriminated against by the Taxation Department. As an ethicist, does she think it right that they not receive equivalent funding for the school of choice for their children?

Leslie spoke also re students needing specialist teachers. In non government schools the proportion of public money, in comparison with state schools, is even more unequal. I have spent thirty years in education of deaf students and spent most of my time begging for the money that is available simply by census statistics for state schools or units for similar students.

Sr Joan M Winter OP

joanw_op

We know that federal money for primary and secondary education is combined with state money. Fact.

We know, too, that no non-Government school receives 100% of the money given to children in state schools. Fact too - on a per capita basis at least.

But your claim that, "Every child who attends a non Government school releases money to be spent in Government schools" is misleading.

Another way of putting it would be to say that every child who attends a non-Government school attracts money that might otherwise be spent in Government schools. Every dollar spent by governments on non-government schools is a dollar that government schools won't get.

The notion of 'choice of schools' is dishonest, Sister Joan. The overwhelming majority of parents have no choice as to which school their children will attend. They simply don't have the money, notwithstanding government subsidies allegedly meant to reduce fees but which do nothing of the sort.

The concept of choice is used as a subterfuge that allows conservatives to redistribute funds away from the needy to those who are, in the vast majority of cases, already exceptionally well-off. It's scandalous that you have to beg for funds for needy students while governments subsidise affluent schools who can think of nothing more educational than more swimming pools, theatres, boat sheds and rifle ranges.

Rather than hiding behind the concept of 'choice' the fairest method of applying taxpayers' funds to education would be to employ the principle of real need - as opposed to the current SES formula which is a transparent farce.

Under the real needs principle, your deaf students would be much better off than they are now.

The average per capita cost of schooling in both the public and non-government sectors is around $10,000. Many schools charge twice that amount and still say it's necessary - for the sake of 'choice' - to put their hand out for taxpayer subsidies. Many private schools receiving generous taxpayers' subsidies are already operating at three times the resource levels of government (and some poorer Catholic) schools.

Leslie's misplaced guilt would be better turned to trying to mend the broken system which has led to masses of parents voting with their money and feet. Paulo points out just one issue of the many failed social engineering philosophies prevalent in the State schools. He/she writes
'The ACT Labor Minister for Education who is very anti the private education sector managed to significantly increase parents interest in private schools recently by announcing that she thought the Government should provide condoms to year six'

Again your lack of money to send your child to a private school should not cause you guilt but more your backing and championing of failed philosophies.

Um, regardless of my personal opinions about the ACT Minister for Education, I do feel compelled to point out that Andrew Barr, MLA is in fact a male.

61,
If he is male, then he should be sacked, because he is male.

And all the boys in the schools should be thrown out as well, because they are male.

They should be doing someting more worthwhile, such as working so that they can be pay more tax to support the education system.

'The ACT Labor Minister for Education who is very anti the private education sector managed to significantly increase parents interest in private schools recently by announcing that SHE thought the Government should provide condoms to year six'

I was actually correcting a mistake in the above quote from runner and paulo, where they called the Minister "she", that's all. I'm afraid I don't really know what you're talking about.