There are two issues here. One is about standards and one is about choice.
The issue in relation to standards is really about 'quality' of education but it is easier to talk about standards than quality. The trick being played on the community by our respective education departments is to setup a whole lot of virtually meaningless standards and then conform to those 'standards'. Thus they create the illusion that they are delivering high quality education.
The product of high quality education should be an effective working community in which individuals both contribute meaningfully to the community and draw satisfaction from full participation in the community. This is difficult to measure but there is certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence that our community is falling a long way short of this ideal.
We want a high quality education system which supports the reality of cultural and religious diversity that exists within Australia. Teaching of idiotic notions like 'intelligent design' should be eliminated from our education system by the application of a meaningful quality assurance program.
The argument about choice in education ultimately boils down to an ideological debate which can never be resolved as long as people continue to hold different political views. Lets hope no-one ever manages to impose political uniformity upon us.

Nice article, Irfan. I find it very interesting that so many kids are being sent to these obviously academically substandard fringe religious 'schools'. As I've alluded to elsewhere, I wonder how many of them constitute the so-called 'white flight' from public schools.

I think the solution's quite simple: reverse the divisive and obscene government financial support without which these second-rate schools would not be viable. If parents want to have their kids brainwashed in culturally homogeneous religious institutions, I suppose there's no way that the rest of us can stop them if they are prepared to pay for it, but at the very least we shouldn't be asked to fund them to the detriment of the public education system.

CJ,

I reckon you are throwing all independent schools together unfairly.

I know an Independent School that has out performed the state in all academic indicators and these are kids that the state did not want in their wonderful ‘multicultural’ (or so they say) school system.

Or do you think an independent Indigenous school might be a place where kids are "brainwashed" and are "culturally homogeneous".

However I agree, kids should not be sent to what are really ‘churches’, not schools.

But often these schools are much more accepting of difference than are state schools.

And there is big difference between independent and private school that does not get explained in the public rhetoric.

And what would Irfan know about schools anyway?

Rainier, I was talking specifically about religious schools. I can't see any good reason why independent community schools can't be funded directly like any other public school anyway - but I'm not a teacher :)

I'm just saying I think that the efflorescence of all these dodgy religious schools under the Howard regime has come at the expense of the public system. If people want to have their kids indoctrinated in religion, let them pay for it.

Congratulations on taking such a fine line in this article, Mr Yusuf.
I have always been fascinated by the lack of faith so many people of faith exhibit in their faith; not wanting their children to be 'contaminated' by other religions, or by those of no religion at all.
Surely people of genuine faith would have no problem with studies of comparitive religion, so children could also have some choice in their beliefs, rather than having to slavishly follow the beliefs of their parents?
In fact, I do believe there's something in the Bible about that...
Actually, I seem to recall the Amish (or perhaps a similar sect) have a custom of sending their teenagers out to experience the 'other' world, before making their commitment.
Now that's faith.

i agree, lets start with the Catholics and work our way down the list.

Take for instance the an elite Lutheran school in Brisbane that would not accomodate a Jewish student's religious practices.

My point is that those schools that are accomodating the specific religious or cultural needs of their community should not be demonised simply because they do

Drr Irfan

My children has had a mixture of home schooling, small independant schools and finally the State system. One is about to finish a double degree at reportedly one of our best universities, another is enrolled to do an economics degree and the third will no doubt go on to university being in the top two or three in the public school he is in. They have all been taught evolution as a theory and have come out unharmed. They can still clearly it is a theory although some has a basis for it as a religion. They found that out when insecure teachers hated being questioned about evolutions validity.

You would do well to pick up on the hopelessly flawed state system rather than pick on the one or two badly run independent schools or better still write an article on the Muslim school in Perth that has been found lying about its numbers in order to get more funding.

Teaching evolution as a theory is the only honest approach one can take. Creationism makes more sense and is a lot more easily observed even by the simplest of people. It is funny that you and others are so alarmed that Creationism is taught as if the world is going to fall in because of it. I have met science teachers in the State system who totally reject evolution even as a credible theory.

Church is the place to brainwash children about imaginary friends not the schools.

As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, the decision about which (if any) supernatural being runs the Universe is far too important to be left to young children. Talking about 'Catholic' or 'Muslim' children is as offensive and outrageous as talking about 'Liberal' or 'Communist' children. Religious choice should be freely made by well-informed adult minds, not indoctrinated during the child's most vulnerable period of growth.

As for secular private education, fine: as long as my taxes don't have to pay for it. Remove subsidies for private schools and let committed parents carry the full burden of the cost; then we'll see the real strength of their convictions.

CJ

The issue is quality, not religion. Quality varies among religous schools and also varies among government schools.
Some people send their children to religious schools specifically to immerse them in that religious culture but most, in fact, send them to private or religious schools because they believe that those schools offer high quality education. The single most common reason I hear for people sending their children to private schools is that they believe discipline in government schools is a problem. This view is supported by many teachers who have had bad experiences teaching in difficult schools within the government system. There is a perception that many government schools are 'out of control'.

As for the argument about religious indoctrination in schools... it is every bit as irrational as the opinion, held by many, that political indictrination is rife within government schools. Freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of Australian society. That means people are entitled to practice their religion and raise their children within the religion of their choice. To deny funding to schools on the grounds of religion would amount to a systematic discrimination against that particular religion. This would be a violation of the principle of freedom of religion. Sorry CJ but on this score you are the one in violation of core Australian values.

As a tax payer I don't want to see my taxes used to fund religious schools. I want to see government schools adequately funded. I don't like exclusive schools which exist to segregate a sects children from mainstream society. Sects like the Exclusive Brethren do not teach the state specified curriculum, deny their children the right to university education, marry off the girls at age 18, expecting them to have many children. Women from these sects can't participate in mainstream society.

Billie,

You clearly believe everything you read about Brethren schools in the likes of the Daily Telegraph. Could I suggest (a) that you don't; and (b) that you research the facts first. Some points of fact for your information:

- Brethren schools in NSW teach the full NSW curriculum (including the science curriculum)
- their students use computers every day and participate in online tests run through the NSW Board of Studies
- the students go on to further study if they wish
- the schools enrol non-Brethren students
- they employ fully qualified non-Brethren teachers.

The schools are also inspected by the Board of Studies regularly and have never been found to be in breach of their educational responsibilities. The tabloid media representation of Brethren schools in Australia is out of date and continues only because of the laziness of journalists who are seeking a headline. The schools are an easy target because of the church/community they belong to but any reasonable examination of the FACTS will show that they have come a long way in recent years in terms of their educational provision and they provide a high quality of education for the students who attend their schools.

Actually Malcs my information about Exclusive Brethren comes from its teachers, observation of the sects women, listening to Rosemary Staunton reading the Sydney Morning Herald, Crikey and watching the ABC.

But Billie, my point is that if you spent any time in those schools and saw first-hand what they actually do, then you would see what DOES happen as opposed to what you are TOLD happens by second and third-hand sources. Most of those sources you've identified make their comments based on what they THINK happens, often based on other people's untested beliefs, guesses and assumptions from reading other reports, often from years ago.

As I said, these schools have come a long way in recent years and the proof is there in their educational results. Critics continue to make assertions and claims about these schools based on what that community's church does, not on what happens in the schools themselves. The schools have moved on so in fairness it's time their critics did likewise. By all means criticise the faith/church if you wish but learn to separate that from how the schools are now run - there is a big difference if you care to actually take a close look. That's surely not asking too much of otherwise intelligent people...

Billie

If you go to this website http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Debates/factsheet2.pdf (2004 figures)
a fact sheet from the AEU no less,
you will see that total government funding per capita for children in government schools in 2004 was $8361 compared to $5857 per child for children in independent schools. Clearly people sending their children to independent schools are saving you tax dollars because they are paying on average $4417 directly towards their childrens education.

As Malcs says, you really should avail yourself of the FACTS before speaking out on these matters.

If you are paying enough tax to cover your own children's education AND extra to contribute to others then you are obviously in the category of people who can afford to pay for their own children's education and perhaps should be made to do so. The people really ripping off this system are those who can afford to pay for their children's education but send them to government schools and make no contribution whatsoever towards it. Everyone with children in school should pay an education levy based on ability to pay. The maximum levy paid by the highest income earners should be equal to the full cost of the education (ie cost to the government of the school attended). That would be a fair system. It would not, of course, stop people from spending far in excess of the average goverment cost to send their children to schools like Sydney Grammar School where annual fees for high school are now in excess of $22000 per year (more than twice the average spent in government schools).

Waterboy, table 2 of the aforementioned fact sheet says that in 2003 the government funded public schools at $8361 per student and $10275 per private school student.

Really I can't see any equity in Glamorgan campus of Geelong Grammar being able to rebuild every building when the local state school needs reroofing, repainting.

Teachers at Exclusive Brethren schools say they are not teaching the NSW curriculum and teachers at these types of fundamental religion schools admit the curriculum is designed to seperate the students out from the mainstream and limit their choices. Quite frankly I want my money spent on enabling children to reach their full potential not being stifled in the confines of a restrictive religion.

Despite the inordinate amount of money the government spends propping up the Catholic church $80 million St Mary's spire, and whatever for Word Youth Day and $50 million to Randwick Race Course for interrupted racing, Australia is a secular society.

Billie

Read the chart more carefully! It shows that of the $10275 spent per child in independent schools only $5857 (you have to do a little arithmentic its ($4373m + $1859m)/1063988) came from government while $4417 came from fees paid by parents (that is what 'private funding' means).

I agree with you that spending in government schools should increase and this can only come from those who can afford it, hence my suggestion of an education levy on everyone who can afford it.... no matter where they send their children to school.

As for your dislike of various religions... I can do nothing about your prejudices and frankly they dont interest me. You are free to express them in open debate but as I have said before freedom of religion is a founding principle of Australian Society. Whether YOU like them or not they are entitled to practice their religion as long as they dont break the law and as the numbers REALLY show you are doing practically nothing by way of the tax system to contribute to their schools. The cost of educating YOUR children is probably more than you are contributing in tax anyway.

Well Waterboy if you had had a reasonable education you would have understood that Table 2 describes what the funding per capita.

" What Does This Mean in Per Student Terms? Table 2 Divides the Totals by the Number of Students in each sector in 2003. It shows that expenditure per private school student is nearly $2000 more than that on public school students. "

How dare you presume to know where my family is educated! It is my belief that we only get a strong education system when we have strong government schools. Most families pay to send their child to a private school because they believe the education is better. If the state system is poor then the religious schools can be poor too!

The fundamentalist K-12 and catholic parochial school systems do a particularly poor job of educating our youth.

I resent subsidising other people's religious beliefs and I don't expect you to subsidise my beliefs. I am not stopping you from practicing your religion but I dol not want to pay for it either. That's what a secular society is all about.

My humble apologies Billie!

I assumed you would be able to interpret the information for yourself.But since you seem to be having trouble with the maths I’ll explain it for you in a little more detail.

Table 1 shows that total funding to government schools was $18850m and total funding to private schools was $10933m.The total funding to private schools,however,includes ‘private funding’ (which means school fees paid by parents directly to the school) of $4701m. In order to determine the total GOVERNMENT contribution to private schools you have to subtract the private funding component ($4701m) from the total funding ($10933m).Doing that substraction you get $6232m as the total government funding to private schools.

Table 2 shows total‘per student’funding which is $8361 for government schools and $10275 for private schools BUT the $10275 includes school fees paid by parents directly to the school.In order to ascertain the 'per student' contribution to private schools by government you need to take the $6232m which we calculated in the previous paragraph as the total GOVERNMENT funding to private schools and divide this by the total number of students in private schools(1063988).The result of this division is $5857.So the GOVERNMENT contribution to private schools is $5857 (per student).Reiterating, just to be perfectly clear,the GOVERNMENT paid $8361 for each student at a government school and $5857 for each student at a private school.That’s $2504 MORE for students at government schools.

The reason I make this point is that these numbers clearly illustrate that GOVERNMENT is NOT spending more money on private schools than government schools,either in total OR per student. Any suggestion that the government is spending more money on private schools than on state schools is simply untrue.

The government, whether it be state or federal simply shouldn't be spending ANY money on private schools.

Reason being: they are private.

Our taxes are for the public good, this means the benefit of public schools to advantage as many people as possible.

All this arguing about whether the government spend more on private or public is irrelevant. Private schools do very nicely thank you, why should our taxes be added to their coffers?

It is another example welfare for the wealthy.

Fractelle,

That really comes back to the argument about choice. If, as a matter of principle, we accept that choice is a good thing then it makes perfectly good sense for government to support a system which provides both government AND independent schools.
If, on the other hand, we believe that better education can be supplied through an education monopoly then your view is valid. Some people have an ideological commitment to state schooling.
Obviously some people share your view and others believe that choice in education is a good thing.
It actually is not true that all people who send their children to private schools are wealthy. Its really a matter of where they choose to spend the money they have. It is also true that many wealthy people send their children to government schools. By your argument shouldn't they too be made to pay the full cost of their children's education?

thanks billie waterboy and others for an interesting discussion thus far..

"All education practices are profoundly political in the sense that they are designed to produce one sort of human being rather than another” (Postman: 1973:86)

The broad assumption that education is simply a tool to produce people who contrubute 'economically' to society appears to be the most dominant.

I would like to think that there are other values that are just a valuable.

Consider this fact, for the truly wealthy, education via 'organised schooling' is fast becoming an "option".

For the poor State 'owned' education is the only option.

In Australia estimates of home schooling are hard to find since many choose not to register with the Board of Studies. So these statistics are based on curriculum provider mail outs and lists.

Below is a breakdown of each state. These would be the minimum



NSW - 10 000 students

(1400 registered. With Board of Studies)

QLD 12 000 to 20 000 students

(based on surveys and mail outs.)

VIC 10 000 students

(based on curriculum suppliers and newsletters)
http://www.downunderlit.com/index_files/HStat.htm

Waterboy

I have no issues with the children of wealthy people attending public schools - where did you get the idea I did? Also, I am not so ignorant that some people struggle to send their children to private schools - but that is their choice to make. Should we subsidise people who buy Bentleys while the rest of us drive Mazdas?

One of the benefits of public schools is the diversity of its students from all socio-economic levels, ethnic background, religious and non-religious alike.

Besides if more wealthy (and the wealthy do pay taxes like everyone else - mostly) sent their children to public schools, this would be of benefit to those schools, would it not?

Fractele,

Many middle income wage earners do send their children to PSchools in the hope of a better education but there is no real evidence that they deliver a better education other than those scores that suggest migration to university is greater in PS than Public.

I truly wish educational success was redefined to mean a broader set of attributes and attainments other than those that dictate who becomes doctors and lawyers.

Excellent article, Irfan, although think describing John Simpson Kirkpatrick as an "illegal immigrant" is a bit disingenuous given that he was British and Australia was a British nation in 1914. Immigration controls were hardly the same then as now. The same label could be applied to many diggers and servicemen of both world wars.

My experience of private or religious schools is slight, but I have had this experience of government schools- my child had to move from one where the pupil mix had a heavy preponderance of Muslims, followed by lesser numbers of Pacific Islanders, Asians and eastern Europeans. Few Anglos- and my child complained that discipline was lax and that the few pupils actively interested in getting an education were extremely disadvantaged. The result was enrolment in a distant, more selective school.

My child's comments at the time were that Muslim males' interest in schooling was slight, that they'd rather talk about fast cars and harass female teachers.

Personally, I dislike the idea of "religious" schools, and agree with comments that relgion should be kept completely out of schools except perhaps the teaching of "comparitive religions" as part of social science.

Hirsi Ali's comments quoted by Irfan are spot on. Creationism and its offshoots are religious dogma better discussed at Sunday School than in an academic scenario.

Evolution and its offshoots are religious dogma better discussed at earth worshippers school rather than in an academic scenario.

Fractelle

You said...
"I have no issues with the children of wealthy people attending public schools - where did you get the idea I did? Also, I am not so ignorant that some people struggle to send their children to private schools - but that is their choice to make. Should we subsidise people who buy Bentleys while the rest of us drive Mazdas?"

Where did I suggest that you HAD a problem? I merely pointed out that your argument ought to lead logically to such a problem.
The Bentley-Mazda analogy is hardly appropriate since motor vehicles are not subsidised or perhaps you are suggesting that Mazdas should be handed out to everyone for free.

You also said...
"One of the benefits of public schools is the diversity of its students from all socio-economic levels, ethnic background, religious and non-religious alike."

Public schools only reflect the socio-economic, ethnic, etc background of the population local to each school. Many are actually remarkable for their lack of diversity.

Then you said..
"Besides if more wealthy (and the wealthy do pay taxes like everyone else - mostly) sent their children to public schools, this would be of benefit to those schools, would it not?"

Perhaps it would if they were made to pay the full cost of attending that public school. Your comment regarding tax is interesting since parents who send their children to private schools also pay taxes (mostly) and if they are wealthy they pay quite a lot of taxes. The reality is that they are currently paying twice for education, once through taxes and again through school fees. Why should they pay for the education of children whose parents have CHOSEN to send them to public schools and who have CHOSEN to spend their money on other things than their children's education?

Rainier

I add economists to that list.

When I was at uni back in the 80's, students from the Architecture/Engineering school studied some humanities subjects as part of their compulsory curriculum. Humanities were subsequently dropped, I think around the time that HECS was introduced, so this was well before the Howard government. But we have certainly lost track of what is important, it is all about the dollar and so tertiary studies are designed around that. And where you find this type of conservatism you find a certain type of religiosity creeping in - (I had followed Howard's career path but I did not know he was a 'devout' christian until his close relationship with Bush). It was not long then till the far right shift occurred in primary and secondary schools as well, hence the money shifted toward private and/or religious schools. Public schools suffered, and the wheels were set in motion for people to aspire towards that offered by private schools, even if the parents weren't necessarily religious they still sent their children to religious schools.

waterboy

'Analogy' - look it up.

Don't try to divert the topic into absurd tangents. If you favour funding towards private schools at the expense of public schools, then just say so. But don't waste my time on irrelevancies.

Strange reasoning from waterboy here. Earlier in the thread he suggested that sending kids to private schools is somehow a "core Australian value". I would have thought our national commitment to universal free public education is far closer to the Australian egalitarian ethos than his apparent resentment that such education is funded by all taxpayers, including those who choose to send their kids to private schools that function to create a stratified education system that benefits the relatively wealthy.

How's this for a better analogy, waterboy? Some people prefer to use private hospitals and health services, although their taxes contribute to the public health system. According to your logic, they shouldn't have to "pay twice" for health services. Is that what you really mean?

Fractelle

Analogue - process of reasoning from parallel cases (Oxford Dictionary).
Neither Bentleys nor Mazdas are subsidised. The case of the cars is therefore NOT a parallel case and is therefore inappropriate.

I notice you are retreating from rational argument into condescension and abuse. I am much encouraged!

CJ
The core australian value I refer to is 'FREEDOM of religion' ie the right to CHOOSE! Did you miss that or are you being deliberately obtuse

waterboy: "The core australian value I refer to is 'FREEDOM of religion' ie the right to CHOOSE! Did you miss that or are you being deliberately obtuse"

If anyone's being "deliberately obtuse" in this thread, I'd suggest it's those who conflate freedom of religion with government funding of religious schools. Of course I agree with people's rights to believe in whatever myths and deities they like, but I disagree strongly with any suggestion that religious organisations should be subsidised by the State - whether this is via funding of religious schools or via the numerous tax breaks that they receive.

Like I said, if you want your kids indoctrinated in some religion or another, then go for it. Just don't expect those of us who don't share those beliefs to subsidise that indoctrination.

Moreover, if all the money that's wasted on funding religious schools and giving tax breaks to churches was redirected to the public system, then public schools would be more adequately resourced to overcome the problems that apparently cause wealthier parents to seek alternatives to public education.

Probably not the best analogy I could’ve used but it still stands up.

We all pay taxes for public services and we pay money for cars, what we choose is up to us. That you chose to wilfully misinterpret my intent simply weakens your overall argument. I concur that CJ ‘s analogy is more succinct by far – wish I’d thought of it first :0)

So ‘fess up waterboy, do you want religious schools to be subsidised by all Australians irrespective of their religious affiliations to the detriment of public (open to all Australians) schools? Simple question.

Tax-payer funded religious schools. Like religion doesn’t get enough tax breaks already. You want more. Couple of words spring to mind: greedy, divisive. Not really a part of the egalitarian Australian ethos now is it?

“….... John Howard is our Great Education Prime Minister.

That's funny because, until he set us straight, I'd have said the one thing Howard wasn't on about was education. Not at any level - school, vocational education and training, or university.
In fairness, the state governments haven't been much better. But I certainly hadn't noticed the feds setting them a good example. Education is one area where Australia's spent the past decade resting on its laurels.
In the case of schools, Howard's greatest achievement has been to bias federal grants heavily in favour of private schools - particularly the least needy..."

Find the full article at: http://littlurl.com/ed0fa

From the Sydney Morning Herald dated 23 May 2007, when after 11 years, Howard suddenly clambered onto the ‘education bandwagon’.

Now we have Rudd, self professed christian, the only thing I can predict about him is that we are in for interesting times...

All this talk about "religious schools" as if they teach only the Bible and nothing more... These so-called "religious" schools are more correctly called faith-based schools where the primary purpose is to deliver the curriculum as determined by the relevant authority (i.e. the Board of Studies in NSW).

Faith-based schools (including Catholic schools) do not spend their days teaching religion. They teach the curriculum of the state in which they are registered and must deliver a minimum number of hours across Key Learning Areas. This means that 80% or more of a school's programmed time must be spent on English, maths, science, PDHPE, HSIE etc. Of the 'flexible' 20% the vast majority provide additional instruction for students in advanced or remedial classes, free lesson time for seniors, physical activity, or simply by programming additional lessons in key subjects. Some of this time (at most 20% but more realistically is around 10%) is used for studies of religion and that is precisely why parents choose these schools.

And before we get hysterical about that point, let's acknowledge that the vast majority of students in Australian faith-based schools attend Anglican, Catholic and other 'mainstream' church-backed schools, not the few far-right fundamentalist schools that promote creationism as science or other such ideology.

Also, most faith-based schools (again, Catholic schools included) enrol students from all walks of life, members of the 'public'. One of the problems in this so-called debate is that schools are named by who owns them, not who attends them. For example, 'public' schools are owned by the state governments, so why not call them government schools? 'Private' schools are owned by a variety of organisations including churches so we appropriately call them Catholic schools or Anglican schools and so on. Yet they are all attended by members of the Australian public. We get hung up on the labels 'public' and 'private' when we are really talking about who 'owns' the school which, frankly, should be irrelevant. They all provide a public service through the provision of education the vast majority enrol all-comers.

For what it is worth NBER research on the randomised lottery system in Chigago suggests choosing a "good school" or not makes no difference. OECD PISA demonstrates ublic school weight for weight actually outperform private.

Public school student out perform Catholic Independent and selective schools at uni.

Finland has the highest literacy and numeracy and next to no private schools.Has also the shortest school hours in the OECD.

School outcomes are consistantly related to extra curicular factors.

Philosophically I am against funding private schools but I am bouyed by the fact that (for an example) Catholic schools are full but their churches are empty - and produce no priests. Most private schools provide not a better education or even religeon but the old school tie. Truly religeous schols provide neither.

I can recommend anyone truly interested in education to trac down an read the works by Betty Hart and Todd Risely, some is in books but they are well cited in journals and Googling particularly the "30 million word disaster" article. May change your life

CJ

Here is what our consitution says..

“116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

From this it is reasonably obvious that “freedom of religion” is a core australian value. It is also fairly obvious that the intention was to proscribe all forms of religious discrimination from Commonwealth legislation and administration.
By advocating a form of discrimination against schools on the grounds of religion you set yourself in opposition to this “CORE AUSTRALIAN VALUE”. You HAVE made it abundantly clear that you advocate elimination of ALL GOVERNMENT FUNDING to certain schools SOLELY on the basis of religion.

You also might do well to apply a more critical approach to reading. My question “Why should they pay for the education of children whose parents have CHOSEN to send them to public schools and who have CHOSEN to spend their money on other things than their children's education?” is quite obviously a rhetorical question similar in structure to your “I don’t want to pay for THEM.” attitude. If it seems absurd to you then congratulations! It was intended to illustrate the narcissistic nature of your attitude. Nowhere have I seriously suggested that wealthy people should not contribute to public education through paying taxes.

If private schools were denied public funding and forced to close then what would happen?

Lets take the 2003 figures from the AEU fact sheet again to illustrate.
The total number of students in the public system would rise to 3318620. Total government spending on education in that year was $25082m (made up of $18850m to public schools and $6232m to private schools). Government school funding, in the absence of private schools, would then have been reduced from $8361 to $7558 per student. WOULD THIS BE A GOOD IDEA? It might be consistent with your ideological position but it would NOT deliver better education to a single Australian child

waterboy I thought the constitution guaranteed us freedom from having a state religion foisted upon us.

I agree with Irfan that religious groups use seperate schools to segregate their children from the rest of society making it easier to instil their values on a compliant base often totally unaware of the mores of the rest of their age cohort. The danger in this approach is that government or protestant school educated children don't know any catholics or muslims thus are unlikely to care or standup for them if an injustice is perpetrated against them.

The current funding of the system is inequitable and unfair. Government schools have inadequate funding and some private schools receive such massive funding that they are rebuilding all their classrooms and facilities. It would be discrimination to only fund catholic and small K12 schools without funding Geelong Grammar and Scotch College.

Billie,

Thank you for reiterating your solipsistic ideology and educational misconceptions. We will all soon have them memorised!

Billie, non-government schools at the high end (wealthy/elite/high fee - whatever term works for you) of the spectrum don't actually receive funding from state or federal governments for buildings and facilities, these things are paid for through school fees, donations, fundraising etc, i.e. by the parents, friends, school community with their own (after tax) dollars. Would you prefer to see them spend this money on new cars, holidays, mega-size TVs, booze etc, or put it towards the education of their children?

The federal government's guidelines for capital grant funding ensure that only schools in the lower half of the SES scale receive capital grant funding. In NSW, the high fee schools also don't receive any funding from the state government either - a similar situation in other states. The funds these schools have available for new buildings etc are the result of many generations of students, families, etc who then put money back into their old school for the benefit of future students. In theory, any public school community can also do this - although chances are they're prevented from doing so by their state government owners.

Your arguments are sometimes well reasoned but unfortunately too often you fall into the easy trap of emotive, unresearched hearsay. I much prefer your less emotive postings. :-)

Malcs

The emotional response to religions and to religion in general is precisely the point of this thread. Billie, CJ, Fractelle et al are expressing powerful (negative) feelings about religion. (Education just happens to be the immediate occasion for the expression of these emotions.)

For all the good things that the Churches do in our society, yet they have also done a great deal of harm and hurt many people individually.

The depth of negative feeling that exists towards today's churches needs to be heard, felt and dealt with. Government really has no role to play in this situation other than to maintain its "freedom of religion" and "anti-discrimination" stance in accordance with our constitution.

There are obviously many "faith-based" schools making wonderful contributions to education in this country and although they do not deserve to be the object of anti-religious feelings it is inevitable that they will be, given that they do represent their various churches in the community and do, within the constraints of BOS etc requirements, participate in the cultures of their respective churches.

Billie's "emotional" point is valid and needs to be heard. He is obviously angry with the Church and perhaps with religion in general. In the safe anonymity of this forum (s)he, with perhaps a little 'encouragement', might feel free to give full vent to these feelings and this is certainly not to be discouraged. When (s)he does I just hope the Church is listening.

Malcs, Geelong Grammar gets the highest SES funding because its calculated on students residential address. From what I have heard most parents feel that Geelong Grammar tries very hard to engage students, develop them as individuals and set them on a fulfilling professional or vocational career path.

The principle remains "no state aid for non-state schools".

I see that Irfan has written an entire piece about private (and faith-based) education whilst hardly mentioning Islam-based teaching, except to speak positively. No mention of the shortcomings of Islamic schools which have been exposed elsewhere, both institutional and educational. Quite a performance, really.

Billie, Geelong Grammar School has an SES ranking of 114. The lowest possible ranking (highest funded) is 85 and the highest ranking (lowest funded) is 130. This means GG receives $2,566 for every primary student and $3,277 for each secondary student, compared to the highest funding levels of $5,330 and $6,807 for the lowest SES ranked schools (2007 figures according to the DEST website). Geelong Grammar, therefore, is far from being 'highest funded' as you claim. If you're going to make such a claim please take the time to research the facts first.

BTW, that's YOUR principle of no government funding for non-government schools. It's not shared by governments and a large proportion of the population who clearly see the need for non-government schools to provide education services, just as they see the need for private hospitals to provide health services, and other private enterprises to provide a range of other 'public' services.

Waterboy, of course anyone can make any claim, emotional or not, that they wish. But if they make blatantly incorrect statements about things like funding that are a matter of fact, not of 'opinion', then this should be pointed out.

Malcs,

By all means lets get our facts right. I have no argument with that but Billie is not really all that interested in facts.
Billie's issue IS EMOTIONAL. Billie is very angry at the Church but in this thread is focusing that anger on the government and faith-based schools.

Remember these lines from Billie’s posts to date:
“.. I don't want to see my taxes used to fund religious schools.”
“I don't like exclusive schools which exist to segregate a sects children from mainstream society.”
“..I want ... not being stifled in the confines of a restrictive religion.”
“..the inordinate amount of money the government spends propping up the Catholic church..”
“If the state system is poor then the religious schools can be poor too!” (This one is particularly telling)
“I resent subsidising other people's religious beliefs..”
“ ..constitution guaranteed us freedom from having a state religion foisted upon us.”

Not much doubt here that Billie is seriously p.. off with the Church. The irony is that Billie recognises, at least to some extent, the good that at least one faith-based school is doing and yet stands on his/her ‘principle’ that this school should be punished.

So, while it is important to get the facts straight, and that seems to be very important to you, Billie and others like him/her are unlikely to be convinced by facts. It is anger and not reason or even ‘principle’ that drives Billie's attitude here. It is this anger that needs to be heard and felt.

You sought to deflect Billie's emotions. That seemed inappropriate since the emotional content of this thread is what makes it interesting and potentially either constructive or destructive.