My parents struggled to send me to a very nice private school which has a wonderful art centre, science labs and very flash swimming pool. I enjoyed being educated in pleasant surroundings but I hated the 1 hour train trip to school and wanted to attend the local high school, which had 100% university entrance in the age cohort 3 years above mine and 8% university entrance in the age cohort 2 years behind me.

My parents sent me to the private school so I had choice of subjects I could study and because they thought the teachers were better. In fact, our teachers were underpaid but keen to work at that school to be close to home and maths teachng was weak, as it was throughout the whole state.

If you want a strong education system, you must have a strong government school system. People only send their children to private schools to get a better education. If you have weak state schools you can have lower standards in the private sector.

Its immoral to have higher government funding for private school than government schools.

I've said it before:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6642#99463

and I'll say it again:

Diverting all the money currently subsidising the private schools would save the taxpayer $2 billion per year.

Don't believe what the private school lobby tells you - they conveniently forget to include the huge capital grants that are regularly flung their way.

The authors write about “parents” at the end of the article, but only mention mothers in the article.

Perhaps they don’t see fathers as being parents, or perhaps they find it too difficult to write the word “father”.

I do feel for those who are sending their children to public schools, and I am one of them.

I have no doubts at all regards the funding to public schools. The majority of public schools now have many more facilities then an average school when I went to school, and the average public school appears to have many more facilities than an average private school, some of which do not even have a sports oval.

However the public school system now appears to be run by the teacher’s union and feminists, and an average parent has no say in what happens after their child walks in the school gate.

There is much more ability for a mother and a father to have a say in the private school system, and I would think that this is the main reason why so many mothers and fathers are now sending their children to private schools, which often have less facilities (and not more) than the public schools.

Dr Leslie writes
'First we need to be frank - with ourselves and with others - about why the subject of school funding gets us so hot under the collar.
Simply much of the Public education system is a dismal failure and the financing of it has nothing to do with it. Also it costs the tax payer a lot less to have private schools as parents sacrifice their own money and labours. How much franker to we need to be

The trouble with this debate is that people don't think about what they say and merely quote slogans (i.e., unions run public schools, public education is a dismal failure, etc) and the rot continues.

Until the politicians and bureacrats started fiddling with it the NSW public school system was adired around teh world because it provided uniform high standards of education everywhere in the State, from Wilcannia to Vaucluse.

But since market economy has started to rule, we have ceased to be a community and have become a mere market, since the mealy mouthed pollies/bureacrats have tried to convince us that parents don't seek to educate their children but have become "consumers of education services", the muddying of the waters by ideologically motivated slogans such as those already used in this discussion has allowed the politicians to favour the rich schools - using the Catholic schools as a pretext - if we stop sending disporoportionate amounts of money to private schools (by which the complainers meand the rich private schools) this is used/distorted by pollies to frighten the Catholic schools into acting against any real equity in funding.
We expect governments to fund State schools so that we have a future as a country. If people wish to send their children to schools outside the State system, then let them do so at their own expense and not at teh expense of the poorer taxpayers who cannot afford teh choice but whose taxes subsidise those whose economic circumstances allow them to do so.

Actually HRS, go back and read the article. The first para mentioned mothers (in relation to mother-guilt and childcare) - the rest from para 2 onwards refered to parents. Dont be such a bigot that you cant even read straight.

Coutry Gal,
These authors frequently write about parents, and I can't remember either of them ever mentioning fathers, but they normally include the word mother several times.

Parent = mother only (is their hidden meaning).

There is less likelhood of such bigots being in the private school system. Or if a mother or a father finds such bigots in a private school, then they can complain to the school about it (because they are paying money) or they have the option of taking their children out and putting them in another private school.

Unfortunately if a mother or a father finds such bigots in a public school, then normally the mother or father has very little choice but to leave their children there.

So I do have sympathy for mothers and fathers who cannot afford to have their children in a private school.

Public schooling is very politicised in a manner beyond parental control.

l went to public school, as did my 3 siblings and have always had a bit of a chip about private schooling 'priviledge.' But l did grow up and now realise the insecurity driven sour grapes of that stance.

Parents of private school kids pay taxes too and usually a lot more than the rest of us, both in relative and nominal terms. So what if they earn more, they tip more into the community coffers.

All the kids in my family got uni degrees. Our parents, especially mum, were relentless in their push for us to do better than their immigrant selves. Two of my siblings got >90% yr12 pass and went to melb uni, then onto high flying careers earning pretty big bucks. But, they work like hell for it and trade off quality of life/balance for it.

l've seen people who went to private schools, couldnt cut the grade and got booted out. Fat fee or no, the private schools dont let the 'rubbish' through lest their status and thus pricing be effected adversely. They dont produce brighter students, they hold onto them. In my case, at uni most students were from private schools and they were all pretty normal, run of the mill types, not above average at all.

l think the impact of public versus private school education is vastly overstated. There is much, much more that impacts on child/youth development beyond schooling. Particularly the involvment, examples and lessons of the parents. They really set the standard. Sure we can blame our parents when things go badly for ourselves and when things go well, then that too is their fault.

This article is basically a mix of insecurity, hangups, inadequacy, emotional projection, envy, resentment all veiled in concern and caring.

Its basically the usual dose of Cannold solipsism.

Taxes collected go into a common pool, to provide infrastructure and public services. It is not for picking and choosing by individuals as to where their taxes paid are spent

Well said Trade215. If the parents encourage their kids to perform well it doesn't matter which type of school they go to, although I would give a slight shade of odds towards the public school child.

Having said that, and without wanting to be elitist, I would have to say that the majority of people from poorer areas would send their kids to public schools and a larger proportion of those would be more indifferent to their children's progress. I might get some flack for that comment, but it is based on a considerable number of years of personal observation of all socio-economic levels.

In defense of mothers, I would also have to say that in general, they are the ones who have most regard for their children's progress both at school and in society in general. Sorry fathers, that's just the way it is.

David

I have seen many 'middle class' people who sweat and perhaps even bleed a little so their kids can have a 'better' education. The problem is the amount of time and effort invested in making the money to meet the cost of school fees means the children are neglected in other ways.

The divide is an artificial one that is all about social class and status.

The authors have hit the nail on the head. It is all about the 'mummy wars'. Sorry HRS, I'm one and speak to many other mothers. Mothers do have a very large influence on where their children end up being schooled. You have no idea how important the uniform your child wears is when you go and get those last minute items at the supermarket.

Having said that. Isn't it abysmal that the education of our children has become such a political and social status driven issue? No Runner and HRS, it is not only the left union driven teacher's union to blame.

There has been in the last couple of years a lot of talk about 'Australian values' a favourite being giving everyone a 'fair go'. What value has it to mouth these sentiments when we as a nation cannot even agree that education of this nation's children should never ever be polarized as it increasingly becoming? If anyone deserves a fair go isn't it every child?

It has absolutely nothing to do with parental 'choice'. It has everything to do with status. The deep seated resentment of a generation that didn't go to a 'privileged' private school with all the perceived benefits and now can show it can either afford to do so or show they are willing to make the 'sacrifice' their parents weren't.

It is disgraceful that in this Western democracy there is such an emphasis on private education with enormous (and growing) fees while still receiving public funds. It doesn't happen anywhere else.

“Good parent, bad parent: private school, public school” article by Leslie Cannold and Jane Caro is the sort of socialist rubbish only found in left-wing rags like “The Age”.
They set up a “good” mummy versus “bad” mummy model based on women’s fears of performing as mothers. They mention childcare as a parameter, but might as well include breast-feeding.
They attempt to draw a parallel between the “haves” and “have-nots” and the ability of the poorer families and the rich middle class to educate their children in the State system versus the “private” system, and make assumptions about the motives of each group.
Upfront I should declare that I was educated at a “Public School”, one of the GPS in Melbourne. It was a church school, as they all are. It was a privilege that required a lot of money to support, but it was motivated by the desire of my parents to ensure I had a religious education, and a good education that they were willing to pay for.
I do not believe that the school I went to receives a significant amount of govt. support. I do not believe that it should receive a significant amount of govt. support.
But Cannold and Caro ought to recognize that the Whitlam Federal Govt. introduced the Federal Govt. support for the private schools because the Catholic Education system educated about 30% of the Australian school children and it was strapped for cash. Do your history. Read about the Catholic Bishop of Goulburn!
The Federal Govt. gives the states a huge amount of money to educate the children of Australia in the State System. The entire GST goes to the states. The Federal Govt. accepts the responsibility of the private system and does not impose the burden on the states in entirety.

The states waste money. In Victoria we are on 3A water restrictions. The Vic State Govt. could build a dam on the Mitchell River that would almost double our reserves for about ONE BILLION DOLLARS. The Vic Govt. has chosen to build a stupid desalination plant for 4.5 BILLION DOLLARS (a difference of 3.5 BILLION DOLLARS), and nobody knows how much fresh water it will harvest. But we all know the maintenance will be huge, the output small and the greenhouse energy required to push the seawater through a SPM will be massive,
Kevin Rudd is about to spend 600 MILLION DOLLARS to reduce the waiting lists in all Australian hospitals. How much better would our State Schools and hospitals be if we built a dam and spent the 3.5 billion dollars on health and education?

Yvonne
If fathers are not paying much attention to what goes on inside of schools then they definitely should be.

Many schools are becoming increasingly feminist, and there are now public schools that no longer celebrate father’s day, but they celebrate mother’s day.

Nearly every school celebrates International Women’s day, but I know of no school that celebrates International Men’s Day.

Male trainee teachers are now down to 22% of trainee teachers, and on a national basis boy’s marks, their retention rates and their levels of engagement in education are all declining.

Very little of this has anything to do with funding or school facilities, and much more to do with teachers attitudes.

The authors of this article are feminist but rarely mention fathers, because they have no interest in fathers.

I also know of many teachers who are feminist and have no interest in boy students, and it has been proven on countless occasions that the no1 factor in determining student outcomes is the teaching methods being used by the teachers and also the attitudes of the teacher.

So private schools may be the only hope for boy students in the future. The public has no say about what occurs inside a public school, but private schools are less likely to employ feminists than a public school.

So in the future, the boy students may have more of a chance in a private school than a public school.

I get annoyed when only 'mothers' are the ones mentioned in issued to do with education. It is always the pushy mother that is discussed when in fact many of the times the mother isn’t pushing the children but instead pushing the system to do the right thing by the children with full support and encouragement from the father.

It is true that if the Public System was run better and was stricter and less controlled by bullies then parents wouldn't have to move their children to the non-government school sector.

We have had to move 3 of ours out of the public system. They were motivated, ambitious, intellectually gifted, sporty, high acheiving, polite, respectful students who were good role models and leaders and who were big on justice and morals and instead of the public system supporting them, they targeted them, victmised them, bullied them and tampered with their test scores and school applications so that they would be unsuccessful for placement in the schools that they needed and wanted to attend and so as to publicly discredit their intelligence and destroy their reputation. They targeted the children because I made some public and formal complaints about the appropriateness of their education and the treatment served to them by some bully teachers. The 4th is still in the Public system due to lack of funding.

What did fellow public school parents do? They turned their back on my family and we were ostrasized by the community, critisized and ridiculed as they feared that if they were seen to be associated with us that their children would also be targeted.

There lies the difference between Public and Private. I really doubt that Private schools parents would have turned their back on one of thier own and allowed a fellow private school student/parent to be victimised, bullied, vilified and treated so obviously unfairly and unjustly without saying a word.

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

Once again Petal says you can save $2b by not subsidising private education.

What a pathetic argument. So what! This is not a case of either / or. The $2b that the gov spends on private education is less than the gov would spend if there were no private schools.

If the funding was removed, the extra money probably would not go to public schools, but something else on the gov hit list.

The majority of the opposition to this funding is based on envy, and not on concern for public schooling. The purpose is not to improve public schooling, but ruin private schooling for those who would dare to choose a different path.

God help us if proponents of mediocrity like this get to have any influence on gov policy.

As i see it the school system should be funded one way and that is dollar for dollar public or private school.When a child is passed through the system and can't read or write the whole country looses just look at our skills shortage now.Our public school system is in a mess because of in-equalities and lack of attention by successive government's.I see some of you complain about millitant teacher's but would you take on the responsabilities of educating our kids for the lousy wages and conditions that they work under [i think not].When our kids do wrong the teacher's are told you can't punish and when they hurt themselves they are told don't hug them because it's in-appropriate.So fix our public school system and let the wealthy of our country if they wish send their kids to a church funded private non tax paying school.

Leslie/Jane

I am convinced that your bigotry is too far gone ever to face facts, but let's try just once more.

You ask "First we need to be frank - with ourselves and with others - about why the subject of school funding gets us so hot under the collar."

WRONG! It is only YOU two who need to ask this of yourselves. The rest of us take our children out of public schools quite simply because we want to for many reasons. YOU have to accept that fact and direct your energies into fixing the diabolical public schools.

You also need to stop lying about the funding issue. Parents are nowhere near as stupid as the AEU, you and your ilk, presume.

The REAL injustice is that the highly class-based public system excludes thousands of families from being able to excercise choice and exit the public system. You would make yourselves useful and relevant if you directed your campaigning to the state education bureaucracies to loosen up funding to give these families real choice.

When I read some of the bizarre posts I wonder if I am living in the same country.

It is not only the authors who get 'hot under the collar' about private school funding. On the contrary, it is mainly private school parents and private schools who 'get hot under the collar'. Well I know this having had to read through endless letters from my children's private schools on this subject whenever it became news.

HRS, your obsession with 'feminists' is clouding your ability to make a coherent argument. Not all women with an opinion are to be feared as dreaded feminists. I know not of a single school that does not celebrate father's day, I know not of single school that celebrate womens day. Name the schools.

Jolanda has particular experiences and I do not know enough to make a comment, all I can say is that I have had wonderful and not so wonderful experiences in both the public and the private sector.

I have a very gifted daughter, and unlike Jolanda, I found the private schools unwilling to advance her, so she 'repeated' a year. Now she is in a special immersion programme in a PUBLIC school and going ahead in leaps and bounds, recently scoring 98% nationwide in her tests.

Private schools are generally well run because they have complete control over headmaster appointments and student admissions.

All three of my children have spend a great deal of their education in private schools. We pay taxes. It embarrasses me that these schools get the funding they do. Parents who want to send their children to private school can do so. Why should all other taxpayers pay for their choice?

Rather than private school funding my objection is the way private school parents, especially in the independent schools with their superior resources, are able to buy tax payer funded places in university for their children.

An example is a certain private institution in my area is able to get enter scores of 90 plus for 1/3 of their students while a state school in the same electorate does not have even one student making that grade.

Are the children that much smarter in the private school? The results showing greater attrition rates at university than public school students would indicate probably not. However greater resourses does skew the system.

I recognise there are disparities among state schools as well however there is an easy way to dole out tertiary places more fairly. If we assume the splits are 10% independent, 30% catholic, and 60% public why can't we ratio the university places in the same proportions?

Thus the private schools can do what they do best by competing with each other and the state system can do its job of providing the best universal education possible with the resourses it has available.

Under such a system I might even be persuaded to support even greater private school funding from the public purse.

Yvoon
The concept that extra funding leads to improved results of the students does not really work in reality. Once a school has a certain level of facilities, then it becomes teacher’s ability and teacher’s attitudes towards the students that is the main determinant of student outcomes.

This can be easily proven by having 2 teachers teach the same subject to 2 different classes. The better teacher will get the better results each time, even if the teachers are swapped between the classes.

If there is only a public school system, then the public school system becomes a monopoly, and if that system is closed to the public, then that system can become a brainwashing system for elements who move into that system.

In our society, the most likely element to try and use the public school system for propaganda or brainwashing purposes would be feminists, and I have yet to come across a feminist who has any great interest in males.

I have actually heard it directly said by a feminist high school principal, that they did not want too many boys going to university, as they believed that male graduates were getting more money than female graduates.

Not ironically, that principal was in a public school, and I doubt very much if they would last very long in a private school, where the parents were paying money to have their children enrolled in the school.

yvonne. The private schools did not advance my daughter. By the time I was able to return to work so as to be able to pay higher fees, as we have 4 children and I had little ones at home, my two girls had already been accelerated in the public school system although it was done against the grain, caused us so many problems and made us no friends. Of course one-year acceleration made absolutely no difference to their situation, as they were miles advanced.

I moved my children out of the public school for their physiological safety and for emotional healing and well-being. We do not send our children to school to get high marks. We send them to school to learn. If they are being taught so far below their ability that it is ridiculous and they are unhappy and asking for more and the teachers/system get upset when you bring it up and they victimise, bully and manipulate with your kids scores to discredit them and deny them opportunities and so as to avoid your complaints and punish you for you having dared spoken up then that shows at ATTITUDE in the public school system that is hostile and that is wrong.

We are not rich. My husband and I work our butts off to have our children in the Catholic system (we cannot afford private) and we are entitled to our share of taxes towards our children's education as the public system is unable and unwilling to cater for our children or even treat them like human beings.

The work wasn't that much different in the non-government system what has been different is the way my children are TREATED and that Yvonne influences everything.

The problem that I see in the public school system is the same attitude that resulted in my children being targeted and victimsed and it stems from the Tall Poppy Sydnrome. Some public school parents resent the fact that others have more than them.

I agree with HRS about the feminists that has been my experiences and that of my children.

It's evident from many of the comments that our education system is in great strife. As examples:

From HRS: "I have yet to come across a feminist who has any great interest in males."

The whole idea of feminism is to re-educate males as to the position of women in society and men's misguided views of them. If "feminists" were only to focus on women and ignore men, their goal would be completely lost! Perhaps the commenters who lament feminism's supposed "control" of the public school curriculum mean that their children are taught that calling women "chicks" is wrong, or that you shouldn't slap them around because your tea is cold - quelle horreur!

Democritus: "Once again Petal says you can save $2b by not subsidising private education. What a pathetic argument. So what! This is not a case of either / or. The $2b that the gov spends on private education is less than the gov would spend if there were no private schools."

Read the link, Democritus. In fact, READ full stop. I said that if the private school subsidies were redirected into public schools, we would have an outstanding public school system WHICH COULD ACCOMMODATE EVERYONE COMFORTABLY and it would be 2 BILLION DOLLARS CHEAPER than the current model. Private schools would still exist but they would have to do so without gov funding, which for the wealthy schools would be no problem - the outgoing Scotch principal claims that gov funding accounts for only 10% of the school's income.

The Government and people keep focusing on this stupid funding and as a result everything else is ignored. Given that the Governments control the funding it is a concern!

Nobody can turn back time, and beliefs and cultures cannot be changed overnight.

What the Government needs to do is to maintain their support of the Private system and at the same time increase support and funding for the Public system.

They need to lift the Public system without trying to bring the Private Schools down so as to make Public schools competitive at the Private school level so that the new kids on the block that start in the Public System will remain there. So many people that I know started their kids in the Public System. My third one is moving next year from the Public to the Catholic. We didn't want that, we wanted him to stay in the Public system but they wouldn't place him in the school he needed to meet his identified social and intellectual needs. It impacts our whole family as I have to find more work. Apparently he didnt' get enough test marks on a day so they couldn't take into consideration his request for special consideration. So we left.

The Government always wants to bring down the top and level the playing field - Labor way. Question I would ask is whether it is in our best interests to bring the standards down?

Petal,

By diverting the money from one area to another you save $2bn? I guess you were trained at the school of creative accounting. I guess your arts degree is sufficent armour to make an emotional attack. Your links and blogs do just that, are completely without economic substance, and are simply the politics of envy

My error was taking your assertions seriously, something I won't repeat.

Even the labor government has recognised the contribution that independent schools make and are not going to change the funding model even though private schooling is anathema to them.

Petal,
Ultimately, student outcomes have very little to do with funding, and much more to do with teachers attitudes and teaching methods being used

I have rarely found a feminist who places any value on the male gender, other than being a source of funding for women.

I understand girls will frequently refer to boys as being “hunks” and “spunks”, with no objection shown at all by feminists, and I have regularly seen girls slapping, hitting and kicking boys, but rarely have I heard any objection to this from feminists.

The greatest danger to the education system is that there will become large imbalances and quite severe discrimination and prejudice in future years, due to the shortage of male teachers.

I rather like the research by the Rand Corporation " the most critical factors [educational achievement] appears to be socioeconomic ones. These factors include parental education levels, neighbour hood poverty parental occupation and family income"

If any one really, and I believe nobody really does, want to what investigate what makes a difference in education read Hart, Betty and Riseley, Todd "Meaningfull diference in everyday experience of young american children. Or Google its citation references

A summary is in American Educator with the title of something like the '30 million word catastrophe" - available through google.

Yes it is the parents. And sorry, for good or evil, it is the mother because she has the child from 0 - 3. Effectively school outcomes are decided before the child enters the school. Research the concept of "school readiness". Not popular concept in Aust but research backs it and your local kinder teacher can confirm it.

School choice makes little difference, nor teachers (for the obvious reason that the average kid will have the average teacher over their school life). Single sex schools have a short term positive effect but (and any one can see why) long term is negative. Parents are fond of gifted programs but their effect is neutral in the long run. Selective schools, private schools do worse than public in such measures in the long run. If one wants a illustraion of the ineffectiveness of schools ask why Catholic schools are full but their churches are empty?

None of which even comes close to the efect of mothers behavior 0 - 3.

"By diverting the money from one area to another you save $2bn?"

It's also referred to as "economic management". Run a business well, and it costs you less money to do so! Sorry if that concept is unfamiliar to you. Who's the one without "economic substance" now? I'll say it one last time: Read. The. Link. Once again, it's obvious from responses like this that our education system is indeed sadly lacking.

"Ultimately, student outcomes have very little to do with funding, and much more to do with teachers attitudes and teaching methods being used"

Yes, I've heard the "funding" argument before - it is normally spouted by those who want to spend less money on public schools.

These posts seem to be dominated by HRS-a nazi feminist under every bed and Jolanda-seems to post forever about her kids not getting into NSW selective schools. I wrote to Leslie Cannold after her first article on not being able to afford to send her child to a private school. Result no answer-I obviously touched on some sensitive issues regarding her really meaning she wanted to choose an elite private $20 k school over say a modest $3k catholic school. The high school her son attends actually performs pretty well at VCE but obviously the charms of Wesley etc in her neighbourhood group are just too appealing. What is happening has much to do with what Yvvone is talking about. The stretched middle class-many publically educated in the 70's- with a deeply ingrained belief that they could have done better with a private education. This is the real driver for spending probably upto 50% of their household incomes on private school fees. The smart middle class identify high schools with a mainly middle class intake that perform well and position themselves to get their kids in-they move house, lie, whatever. How your kids perform in the long term has much to do with parents' intelligence , whether they have a degree,etc. Even if you spend $20k a year but model things at home like never reading a newspaper, watching crappy commercial TV, etc your kids are highly unlikely to be very positive about the value of education.

I object to my taxes being diverted to subsidise parents who have CHOSEN to educate their children outside the Public system.

I recognise their right to go to a private system but they should be prepared to pay the FULL difference in cost and not take away funds that have been intended for the public system.

I don't think that public school students should be subsidising private school students.

I may choose to buy a Rolls Royce but I don't think it's fair to have all the Toyota owners in the country pay extra for their cars to help me pay for mine.

Wobbles

I object to my taxes being diverted to subsidise parents who have CHOSEN to educate their children outside the Private system. I prefer my children's minds to be shaped by truth rather than secular dogma. Seems like politicians of all mixes agree. Many of them send their kids to private schools. Better still home school if you can.

Richard and pdev, I agree. Petal, HRS is not capable of being rational re feminists. I'll be 50 in a few months, have rarely come across his type of feminists, but plenty of sneering, rude downtalking men towards women. Privately and professionally. I wonder how HRS addresses women he comes across?

Outcomes of children are strongly determined by what happens up to age 8. Years ago when at uni I came across the Burdekin Report, which cost taxpayers lots of money with lots of recommendations not acted upon. Ask any teacher, it doesn't matter whether privately or publicly educated, but by age 8 all the signs of success or failure are there to see.

Whether your child goes to a public or private High school makes very little difference if early childhood and primary school years where of high quality. The single biggest factor is parental (note the 'Parental' HRS) input/encouragement and pride,not the school.

Unfortunately, there are many children who do not receive the parental support they should be entitled to. To ignore these children is to the detriment of our society. Through loss of potential untapped talent, loss of productive citizens and possible (likely?) cost to society in adult life.

This is why education, in particular public education, is of vital importance. Public education is not properly funded. Too much is made of 'choice' between private and public. And I'm sorry to have to say this again, but the 'mummy wars' have a lot to do with the 'choice'. A child in a private school is a status symbol for, by no means all, very many parents.

Jolanda, scholarships to private schools are one option to gain entrance to expensive private schools cheaply. Because overall student results are an important factor in 'selling' their product, all private schools offer scholarships to high scoring/gifted students to maintain high overall student ratings. It certainly was beneficial to us.

There is nothing wrong with a parent sacrificing personal luxuries to provide an education for their children. In some cases, a private education is the only suitable option when the local state schools fail in providing the right care or, when the family lives in an isolated part of Australia and private boarding schools become a necessary norm.

Having said this, it is necessary to raise the matter that the State Labor Governments continue to neglect what is their responsibility. Queensland is now seeing the Beattie/Bligh Government shirking their responsibility of funding the staffing of government schools as P&C's are being forced to pay for the wages of Teacher's Aids in the 'Prep' year.

I assume that this will be snuck in across the board so that governments of both persuasions can have more money to spend on fine wine and cavier as they fly first class around the world for first class study trips.

Politicians and the people need to see education as a long term investment of 20 years. It takes that long to see a return as children grow into adults. With the right support, they can enter the workplace, earn a wage, pay taxes, put money through the economy or, spend a life time on welfare or living on the streets.

Yvone
I have not said anything negative about women, but you have said quite a few negative things about men and also about boys.

These are the number of students who achieved high marks (A’s and B’s) in all their subjects from a public co-ed school this year.

Grade 8 - Girls 22, Boys 11
Grade 9 - Girls 18, Boys 5
Grade 10 - Girls 19, Boys 7
Grade 11 - Girls 21, Boys 5
Grade 12 - Girls 16, Boys 7

In this co-ed school the boys and girls come from the same socioeconomic backgrounds and from the same parents, so socioeconomic background and parents can be discounted as a reason for the major difference between the girl’s and boy’s marks.

I do know of a mother and father who have now taken their son out of a public school and now drive their son across a city each day to attend a specially selected private school, where the teachers actually take some interest in educating boy students.

Under the circumstances, the mother and father are totally entitled to do so.

Petal,

I have tried again and again to follow your link it just goes to a previous thread where you assert the same thing. Unless you can provide a link to something of substance, your assertion remains vague and nonsensical.

Your comments that money can be saved by running the department of education better are a given, like wise, that good education has more to do with attitude than funding.

Unfortunately both the above statements indicate that public education needs a massive shake up where pay and promotions are based on performance, and where kids' performance is closely tracked and feedback given. Most people move from public schooling precisely for these reasons.

I would suggest the first step would be to fix the public system before breaking down the alternatives.

Wobbles,

Many parents who chose the public system recognise its failings and chose to have their children tutored. The selective schools are full of these children who then get the places at university. Also, most additions to the musical or sport offered are often outside of school.

Your logic would then penalise them for their choices and charge them extra for their schooling.

The choice of independent schooling essentially combines the public curriculum with a different work ethic in the classroom, more focused teaching, and a broader range of sporting and cultural activities.

Funding independent schools at about 75% of the funding of public schools gives the government a higher return for its money.

In fact privatising all public schools and funding them based on student numbers and rewarding on results would probably save the taxpayer the $2bn and get a better education for all.

yvonne. You think that Scholarships are a cheap option? Scholarships are awarded on the basis of test marks! Do you think that a gifted/bright public school student who has never been taught above grade level and who comes from a non academic low socio-economic household and who is depressed can compete in academic competition against other smart kids from Private schools and/or who are extensively coached and tutored to sit the test?

To get a full scholarship you have to pretty much come first. Half scholarships are not good enough for many as they cannot afford even half the fees.

Why do our children have to win a competition in schools to get access to education at a level desirable and necessary for them? We pay our taxes; the same high level of education should be available to all. Not just those who are in advantaged environments and can get the highest test marks! All it does is allows those who are in the better learning environment to have an even greater advantage. How is that equitable and fair.

Children are not 'test marks'. They are people and it is their needs and personality that should be taken into consideration when determining school placement - not their marks as their marks are very influenced by their teachers, school and home environment.

Pdev. I am not posting about my children not getting into Selective Schools. I am posting about the Public School system totally neglecting my children’s identified and obvious educational needs and then manipulating and tampering with their test scores and school applications to purposely keep them out of Selective Schools and to ruin their reputation because I complained about their education. There is a difference?

Here is a quote from the link (http://www.adogs.info/pr219.htm):

In 2004 Mark Drummond (who at that time sent his own children to Catholic schools) in research for his PhD estimated that the average marginal cost for educating each individual child in the public system is approximately $4,500.00 per pupil. Assuming that one fifth of the pupils in the private religious sector would not shift across to the public sector, DOGS estimated that this would lead to an increase in costs of $3.96 billion. However, in 2004, the State and Federal Governments were providing Church schools with $5,800.00 per pupil in direct grants alone. This did not account for indirect grants enjoyed by church schools but not public schools. They possess this favoured treatment by virtue of the fact that under our tax system they are categorised as "charities". On the basis of the direct grants cost alone, the inclusion of four fifths of the private church school pupils in the public sector would yield a saving to taxpayers of $2. 4 billion, not an increased cost of $4.2 billion.

There you have it. Proof.

Shadow Minister, you seem to be caught up in this idea that money doesn't really matter. OK, let's run an experiment - Let's give 50% more money to ALL public schools, and 50% LESS government money to all private schools. If money doesn't really matter, then the status quo will no doubt stay the same, correct? Because people are all leaving public schools because of the "feministic" curriculum, and flocking to private schools because of their "values", right? So if our experiment shows that the same percentages of public to private enrolments exist, then you're right and I'm wrong, OK?

Willing to take it on?

Jolanda, the problem I see with selective schools is that you are again forming ghettos within the govt system. MacRob High in Melb has over 70% of its students from a Asian/Indian background-many tutored to pass the entrance exam in Yr8. It also produces the highest VCE results in the state. I do not see this as necessarily positive, would these obviously gifted students not get similar results in their original high schools? In the USA such a situation where kids of a similar ethnic background were so overrepresented would be grounds for positive discrimination. The selective system in NSW is worse in that it strips out a much higher proportion of higher performing kids therefore marginalising the performance of the non selective schools-this also occurs with scholarships which allow private schools to skim to increase their VCE results and underpin their marketing effort. In Vic both parties matched each other in their promise to build more selective govt high schools.Why??

Petal,

Having finally read your link, I see that your standards of proof are much lower than most.

Mark Drummonds calculation of marginal cost is exactly that, if you add a couple more pupils, the expected costs of additional teaching staff, stationary etc would be about $4500 (in 2004).

The polemic then goes on to apply the costing to 80% of the catholic schools coming over to the public schools. Any moron with economics 101 would see the error. It is similar to saying as your car gets 10km per litre that the cost of travel is 14c/km if you look at 100 000 kilometers the cost of the car and maintenance needs to be counted too.

The publisher of the article is at best a cretin or at worst a deliberate liar trying to deceive the naive to accept his agenda.

Petal you should be ashamed to associate with this worst type of propoganda. My children in primary school are taught not to take at face value articles on the internet when doing their projects. Maybe this was ommitted in your curriculum.

Where did I say money did not matter? I said that good governance is needed more for the public schools. As for the rest of the tripe, don't attack me for comments made by others.

HRS, don't be ridiculous. I have not said anything negative about men or boys. I happen to like men a lot. I have two wonderful young men as sons and a husband. I'm surrounded by many great people who happen to be male. Human beings are human beings who also happen to be either male or female. You will find it very helpful to your emotional well being if you stop being so obsessed with some people's female gender. That's why you perceive personal insult to your manliness where most likely none is intended.

Jolanda, you confuse me now. At some point you were lamenting labor's intent on bringing 'the top down' dumbing down the education system so to speak. Scholarships have always been and still are merit based. This means that those who are bright/gifted, but do not have parents with the financial means to have an opportunity to advance on their merit. That is a good thing. Intelligence wins over just having parents with money.

I know several kids on scholarships. Full and part. For academic ability, music or sport. Each and everyone of these kids was deserving. The competition is tough, but that shows the numbers of children with high ability. Maybe there should be more pressure on private schools to grant more full scholarships.

Children are not just 'test marks', but it certainly is a good way of determining levels of knowledge and/or creative thinking. Part of the anger with public education is precisely because whole lots of children come out the other end without being able to pass even a rudimentary test on reading, writing and arithmetic.

I haven’t said anything insulting or negative about you, but you now call me “ridiculous” and that’s added to the “but plenty of sneering, rude downtalking men towards women. Privately and professionally. I wonder how HRS addresses women he comes across?”

I wonder why I keep thinking of the word "feminist"

I do know of parents removing children from schools, where if the student does not do well, then the teachers automatically blame the parents, but if the student does well, then the teachers claim that this is because of the teachers (and never the parents).

More and more money can go to schools, and more and more money can be misspent as well, if it goes into someones pocket without student marks actually improving.

But it is rather sad that mothers and fathers have to pay tax, and then pay out extra money as well, to have teachers take an interest in their children, if those children are either boys or girls.

My son speaks loyally of his state high school in Brisbane. He is a high achiever academically, and although the school isn't perfect, they offer a more challenging classes in math, english and science for the students who consistently perform at a high standard. I've asked my son if he would like to try for a scholarship for senior at a private school, but he really is so happy at this state school, I am not inclined to rock the boat. It is a relatively small school, but they have become national champions at volleyball. The school looks a little bit daggy, but it's not bad. The uniform is not flash in my judgement, but it's perfectly adequate for sweaty teenagers. We are an academically inclined family, and I think because of this, we felt that we could trust our kids to do well in a state school. We put a lot of effort into encouraging reading, numeracy and creativity when they were very small, and I have to say, that really pays dividends. It's hard for any school to make up for a deficiency in early learning. I say, go wild on encouraging them and fostering creative learning when they are little, then unleash them into any reasonably good school. This is not to say some extra funding for state schools isn't needed. As for bullies, they are everywhere. The upper middle class ones in my opinion can be worse, as they have a cloak of respectablity. The one nasty bullying incident at my son's school? Prompt expulsion.

Nice timing: the 2006 PISA results released today once again show that any claims that private ownership of schooling produces better results don’t stack up.

As usual the RAW data shows a private school advantage, created by the advantages the kids bring to school each day. But when the socio-economic background of students and schools was taken into account, public schools then had an advantage over private schools, on average across OECD countries.

Not a bad effort for schools variously categorized by ranters in this blog as “run by teachers unions and feminists” or a “dismal failure” or “very politicized” or “diabolical

Bunyip,
The fact that you call other people “ranters” obviously means that you are very articulate and well educated.

The PISA results do not highlight that girls marks have only improved slightly in 30 years, while boys marks are gradually declining, according to benchmark tests.

The decline in boy’s marks appears to be mostly associated with a lack of interest by the teachers, with a considerable number of teachers now calling themselves feminist.

General observations have been that mothers and fathers sending their children to private schools know that private schools often have less facilities than public schools, but the mothers and fathers are not interested in having their children in a public school where the mothers and fathers have no say about what occurs in that school.

The mothers and fathers are not interested in turning their children over to a system that is basically closed to the mothers and fathers.

Bunyip,

The PISA results did not include results for Australia in the comparison.

However, the OECD results include many Asian countries where the schooling model is very different and in fact looking at the compensators indicate that many independent schools come from sub economic areas.

In comparitive countries such as the UK the USA and Canada, (and from Victoria) the results from independent schools are significantly better, and even the fudge factor to compensate for the socio economic location of the school and pupils does not completely negate this factor.

The end result is that if you send your child to a good school in a good area you can expect better results.

In my experience families send their children to fee paying schools to improve their chances of university entrance. In the last decade some friends have moved girls from one expensive private school that said they wouldn't finish year 12 to even more expensive private schools where the girls shone and gained HECS place university entrance to Melbourne University.

Just because the school gouges you for $20,000+ per year is no guarantee that they are providing the best education for your child. If you are paying school fees and hearing a constant whine then re evaluate the school.

You are not entitled to have your school fees subsidised by the grateful taxpayer who pays for government schools already.

You may be “Shadow Minister” but you are much like the student who doesn’t like the results of the test….. so they blame the test.

Give me the results of corroborated research which supports what you are saying.

You mentioned the USA, but the PISA conclusion is strongly supported by research using NAEP maths data in that country. Once again, when all factors (such as family background, the aggregating of advantaged students together etc) are considered there is no private advantage.
Even the LSAY studies (by ACER) in Australia couldn’t find any significant private advantage.

It isn’t good enough for you to dismiss properly grounded research as some kind of “fudge factor”. You have to do better than that.

If there is any “fudging” it is the engineering by schools (sometimes public as well) of their student enrolment to give themselves a higher ‘results’ profile.

Bunyip,

I was actually quoting from the PISA results that you provided. You should read further into the report than the simple bottom line. There are caveats that indicate that while the conclusion is true over the sum of all cultures there are conditions where the results differ.

Such as if you used similar education models to Aus such as Canada and the UK your results would be significantly different.

An example stated in the PISA report is that higher level private schools in having students from a higher socio economic background provides a better learning environment and the same pupil going to that school would get better results.

To quote The LSAY study by Acer:

"On average, students attending independent schools have higher ENTER scores than students attending Catholic schools, who in turn have higher mean ENTER scores than students attending government schools."

The relationship between students’ socioeconomic background and tertiary entrance performance does not differ "substantially" between government, independent and Catholic schools.

When taking into account the social and academic mix of students (i.e. their socioeconomic background and earlier literacy and numeracy levels), students from independent schools still show higher ENTER scores, although the gap is halved.

The gap in tertiary entrance performance between government and Catholic school students, was only marginally reduced when taking into account the social and academic mix of students.."

The devil is in the detail. The difference in scores is not substantial but it is there, and will often mean the difference between a university place or not.

Considering that independent schools offer significantly more than just the curriculum including public debating, arts, music, sports etc on a very professional level, the students come out with more life skills than just an enter score.

Another diamond in the PISA report was that independent schools provided a good benefit for cost for goverments.

I am sorry that I didn't accept your summation, but preferred to actually read the report.

Shadow – you need to separate statements of the obvious from what seem to be your claims about private education.

It is highly likely that “higher level private schools” can create an advantaged learning environment. If it wasn’t the case, those lining up for such schools would wonder about the wisdom of their investment.

But are you claiming that it is the PRIVATE, as distinct from the PUBLIC, ownership of the school that creates this advantage? Government selective schools achieve the same result. Would you attribute this to the fact that they are PUBLIC rather than private schools? I would be surprised if you did.

Your quote from LSAY doesn’t change my point: no significant private advantage. If it was significant it would be trumpeted across the country. As it is, resource differences between the schools were apparently not taken into account.

I agree that some schools, by a combination of means, are better able to maximize a student’s chance of getting to university. So what credence do you place on research that shows students from such schools dropping out of first year uni at a rate higher than those from public and comprehensive schools? While the margin is not huge it isn’t a great advertisement for schools which pride (and sell) themselves on “results”.

If their students are deriving a benefit from the wider experience you claim their schools provide, it doesn’t seem to give them an edge in that vital first year of uni. Maybe such experience is worth up to $20 000 – that is a lot of debating, arts, music and footy….all of which are found in larger schools of any type.

My point is that you cannot conclude that it is the private or public ownership of a school which creates significant differences in student achievement. The extent to which people (or even some researchers) conclude one way or the other seems to hinge on what factors, other than raw achievement scores, they take into account.

Bunyip,

The devil is in the detail, the LSAY report said the difference was not substantial. In my brief sojourn with statistics, a significant difference implies beyond statistical error margins (say >2 sigma or 95% certainty) and substantial implies a value greater than significant such that it can affect decisions or policy. When they talk about the gap narrowing the significance of the difference is implied.

Based on the LSAY report, a publicly run school in Australia changing to private management could expect a small improvement in results without changing anything else.

The other factor that the PSIA report made crystal clear is that the socio economic environment of the school is a stronger factor even than that of the socio economic back ground of the pupils. This means that a child from Macquarie fields in a Vaucluse public school can be expected to perform massively better. As the funding is the same per child, the difference can only be the other children and teachers.

As the child in Macquarie fields is not zoned for Vaucluse this option is not available, however, the option of independent schooling is, where the results will almost always exceed those of the local public school.

The choice is either to move to a better suburb or pay for an independent schooling. I live in a middle class suburb and send my kids to excellent schools in one of the best suburbs. The improvements in results I see are massive. The debating, music and breadth of curriculum is the icing on top. This is my choice, as I cannot afford to live in the “better” suburb.

Government selective schools take the top 5% of the students in the state, and while the best do extremely well some are still beaten by the top non selective private schools.

With regards the marginally higher number of independent school kids that drop out of Uni, this pales into insignificance when compared to the % of school leavers that complete Uni from independent schools vs. public schools.

Hello again Shadow.

You are placing a considerable store on research which is at odds with PISA and the NAEP research and which also didn’t include school resources as one of the variables to be taken into account. Claiming even a small a private ownership advantage on LSAY is more than a bit thin.

Yes, for quite some time PISA has been pointing to the stronger socio-economic influence of the school. It is hardly surprising that a (let’s assume motivated) child from Macquarie Fields might gain a benefit in Vaucluse. Our schooling framework over the last 30 years has trumpeted this benefit as the result of ‘choice’.

In the process we have allowed fee-charging schools to accumulate a middle class enrolment; the flip-side of “choice” in the world of schools. Inevitably this has exacerbated the existing socio-economic differences between schools and communities. Amongst other people the Catholic Bishops certainly know this.

But of course PISA also shows the negative impact on other Macquarie Fields kids when their schools are stripped of their achieving peers.
So should schooling create additional advantages for those already advantaged when there is a cost to others? Should any benefits to individuals be balanced against the needs of the greater number of those left behind? We have to ask why it is that so many countries, when funding ‘private’ schooling, insisted that the schools must not charge fees? They must have understood something that this great egalitarian country forgot!

I am surprised that you imply that the choice of “independent” schooling is widely available: the mechanism of ever-increasing fees ensures otherwise. Steps to make such schools ‘affordable’ seem to be regarded with contempt when the schools increase their fees at rates exceeding CPI.

Finally Shadow, don’t compare the number of kids from different types of schools who get to uni – having acknowledged the complexities of research you are just falling into comparisons which you must know don’t tell the whole story.

Now I’m in trouble: this is my second post today. You’ll reply….. and I’ll have to wait 24 hours!

I think people focus too much on marks and University. The trick is to ask the students whether they are happy or not. I can tell you that two of mine that are in the Catholic school have been much happier than the two that are not. Not because they get higher marks but because of the pastoral care and the concern the school has for their wellbeing. This is something that is missing in some public schools where their only focus is to show your child where they don't measure up and to deny them opportunities on the basis of their marks. Marks that are totally dependant on the quality of the teacher!

Bunyip,

I am really enjoying our banter as your arguments are cogent and informed. HOWEVER:

The two sets of data I was using was from PSIA (OECD)and LSAY (Australia) which you offered up.

The two issues I had with the PISA comparison were:
Australia was somehow ommitted and,
The results were averaged over many different cultures and schooling systems.

What I did was to strip out the results from similar schooling systems from PISA and then to use the LSAY results from Australia.

This information showed that in AUSTRALIA there is a small but measureable advantage in privately managed schools given the same area and student intake. The difference in resources is not measured, and may be a major factor in this.

Your comment that stripping out the high achievers might benefit the high achievers, but disadvantage the remainder is spot on. This borders on the philosophical, do the needs of the many out weight the rights of the few.

The answer is to look at the public selective schools and public extension classes. The country does not benefit by clipping the wings of the eagles. By extension independent schools are in the public interest (supported by the PSIA report).

I did not intend to imply that independent schools were widely available as I found in moving to Sydney, the waiting lists were prohibitive.

It would appear that many councils are actively blocking new independent schools and the extension of existing schools, so the lack of choice is more to do with the socialist leanings of the councils.

I would agree that if the independent schools were fully funded by the state the state could insist on free entrance, but as the state is not willing to do either, this is a moot point.

My point on uni was that if you could invest in your child with a good school the chances of completing uni are dramatically increased the marginal increase in drop outs included. This fact has been picked up by the immigrants who either send their kids to independent schools or move to areas with good schools.

Likewise Shadow, I’m enjoying this – it sharpens the mind. Someone else got in between our last two exchanges. Jolanda: go away – go back and annoy Maralyn instead!

I don’t think Australian private school data is separately identified in PISA, which seems a bit silly. The problem is creates it that we are left with the type of “similar schooling system” analysis which you have apparently done....and we are left hoping that it is valid.

I suspect the authors of PISA wouldn’t support your conclusion about an apparent small private school advantage in Australia – but they would also be speculating. They have a huge problem categorizing schools and our “private” schools don’t resemble anything I have seen overseas. The SES profile of our private school enrolment, compared with integrated (former private) schools in NZ, for example, is quite different.

It is this different SES profile, created by school fees (a wonderful discriminator) and public funding, which is creating a social class division between schools. A common solution is integration, something which probably won’t happen……. but for more complex reasons than you suggest.

I think the impact of stripping schools of their achievers is more than just philosophical. PISA points to inclusive systems as delivering better results overall and certainly better at reducing the equity gaps.

This is not some wooly-minded socialist concern – productive and successful economies are those which raise the bottom up, not those which increase the gaps. Even the former Oz govt was concerned about raising the bottom, but they weren’t prepared to take the more difficult decisions to achieve this….neither will Rudd.

The other thing that PISA (and other research) points to is that keeping achievers amongst their peers doesn’t amount to clipping the wings of eagles. It is middle class anxiety (the point of the Cannold/Caro article), not evidence about student achievement, which separates the eagles from the apparently ugly ducklings. Ugly ducklings grow can grow into beautiful swans, especially if they have role models. I know I have mixed the species……something the anxious middle class is keen to avoid

Bunyip,

As a libertarian, my preference will always be on the rights of the individual which is why I don't support compulsory voting, or the repressive new anti terrorism laws. Enforced integration goes against the grain in many more ways than just the test scores.

Independent schooling gives parents the choice to advance their children. Removing this choice fundementally damages our society and I would suspect any gov proposing this would be savaged at the polls by the 40% odd that take this route.

Raising the bottom up does not necessarily have to harm the high flyers. Tayloring education to needs of the child would equip the children for a successful career. Vocational separation early on could better use the last couple of years spent on preparation for university for those that will never consider it.

The concept of technical schools that can spit out tradesmen in year 12 is well worth following as there is a desperate shortage, and most of the tradesmen I know earn more than the professors I know.

It is also well known that keeping bright children to same pace as the average can well cause behavioral and other long term damage. The extension classes and selective schools are the gov solution to this. I think that they still have a long way to go. The one size fits all approach is obsolete.

The ugly ducklings can become swans but the eagle chicks never can.

I must sign off as I will be on leave for a week. I hope to resume our sparring on my return.

Shadowminister
I would agree that the PISA results are not indicative of much.

The country at the top of the list is Finland, and it has a 5% difference in marks between all schools, regardless of the socioeconomic backgrounds of the students.

With 15 year old students in Australia, boys marks are gradually declining, while girls marks have hardly improved in 30 years. But to “spit” boys out of the education system into trade work is not an answer.

I believe Australia does not have a shortage of tradesmen, but has a problem with so many men leaving their trade. Very often they leave their trade for good reasons, and spitting boys into trade work will not overcome the problems in trade work.

Competition between companies normally improves performance of all companies, and increased competition between schools and between teachers would most likely improve school results also. Teachers may even develop an interest in boy’s marks.