Julia Gillard may well believe the public/private debate is over but that’s not the case for many of those I come in contact with. The dramatic inequities that skew students chances at publicly funded university places are a source of growing frustration and anger within the public school community who see the whole situation as a massive rort.

These inequities were boosted through funding arrangements of the Howard government which saw top end private schools receive millions of dollars extra per year. One of the most expensive private schools in my area that benefited from this largesse boasted an ENTER score of 90 plus for almost one third of its students. A school of comparable size in a rural township had not a single student achieve a 90 plus result thus precluding them from high-end university places.

There is no doubt that there are many other ways of addressing the imbalance. Some of those suggested have included; broadening the selection critera past the basic score, differential funding for universities that accept students from lower SES and ability bands and fixing Commonwealth funding imbalances that allow private schools to have a monopoly over high-end places.

However the attitude taken by the Rudd government has given little hope for any substantial changes. It locked in the Howard government funding arrangements and has taken a head in the sand approach to the issue.

It would now appear that the only timely and equitable solution is to proportionally allocate university places by sector; public, catholic, and independent. Let the public school students who make up approximately 65% of the total have access to the same proportion of publicly funded university places in each course.

Naturally I will be accused of ‘dumbing down’ universities by giving places to those without what is deemed the appropriate merit, but in many cases those students haven’t had assess to the resources available to students in wealthier schools.

Let the ‘spendocracy’ compete in its own sector and let all of us strive for fairer access for all Australian students to our universities.

Dear csteele,

Proportional allocation of higher education places
is sensible and logical and doesn't cost the Government
anything. All it would take is to enact a law in Federal
Parliament to that effect. There would of course be great
resistance from a certain sector against this happening,
but for the sake of equity - it should go through.
I would suggest that this proposal be put through to the
PM's email for consideration. Many on OLO could help
in this area. This ties in with the PM's push for
and equity for all schools.

From my own experience and that of my friends and relatives,
students from private schools did not necessarily do well
at university. They had been spoon-fed at their schools -to
get the high scores, however once left to their own devices
at university many of them floundered. It was the students
from the public sector who were forced to fend for themselves
at school that excelled at university.

My husband who studied architecture at university had students
in his class from the toe-end private schools, who were thrown
out of the faculties of medicine, dentistry, and law, and were
finally accepted into architecture because there was a surplus
at that time of vacancies. Today, those students would probably
live of their family wealth.

Better idea lets get rid of the parasitic private schools and their poisoning of childrens minds with eltism. Same for the brainwashing cult religious schools. At the very least stop giving them taxpayer subsidies. If you want your child to go to a poncy school then pay for it. Funny how its always user pays unless it involves the rich and their spawn.

I can not understand why government gives taxpayer's money to private schools. My children finished public schools, two of them universities too, WHY MONEY FROM MY TAXES GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS?
IS NOT PRIVATE SCHOOLS, PRIVATE BUSINESS?
If any one wants special schools for his/her children then he/she must pay for them, NOT ME!
I have no reason to pay (from my taxes)for the private schools.
Instead the government to spent more money for the public schools,instead to improve their level, they spent our money for the private schools?
They take money from the poors and give them to the rich, they ignore basic needs from the public schools and support the private schools which already have higher standards.
Unforunatly, ALP's government is not different from Liberal's government about the private schools.
ARE MANY LIBERAL OD ALP OFFICERS, SHAREHOLDERS IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS?
I can not find any other explanetion!
Proportional allocation of universities is better than the current system but it is not enouph if we want equities then WE MUST GIVE SOME POINTS to students from very low income families or from families with extra problems, as language etc.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

im against allocations[they will only be exploited,by those knowing how to play the system[just like the private schools play the system]..3/4 's of the latest round of krudd school fundiung went to private schools[as usual]because they have paid experts who find their way through the govt maize

i would rather the university had special tests[or set performance levels]..where all are accepted into an under[or prep]course for evaluation

howhard really stuffed up the education system[bringing in the american privatised pay as yopu go..dumbing down system..uni isnt about training specialists but making conformists[who are only taught selective areas of learning aimed at keeping an egsistant status quo

too many specialists trained in the same same..[no inovation allowed]uni should be where new things are tried[not the same ground is replicated]trans-generationally, the best..[inovative/inventave should be given the best kids and funding that gets franchised out as the idea unfolds, the kids repay back to the uni not bankers who got govt subdsidy to create debt

I think the time is way past due for a complete overhaul of the whole education system.
Why do we need such classist, elitist boundaries between school, TAFE and universities? With a modular education system, the progression could be seamless.
Study is Work. Why don't we pay students for the work they do?
http://thecomensality.com/avasay/?p=100

Envy is the reason for the bad-mouthing of private schools and government supportof . Understandable but pointless.

Understand this: if it weren't for private schools, governments could not cope with the need for state schools. Also,in South Australia, while the federal government gives money to privates schools and state schools, the state governments give money only to state schools. I assume this is the same in all states.

State schools are useless to all but the few kids who really want to learn and are capable of doing it on their own. Private schools try harder because parents have to put up large sums of money too. They are customers needing satisfaction. State school parents are treated like crap, as are the students, by public servants.

Afraid of being accused of dumbing down universities? Don't worry, they were dumbed down years ago because the products of state schools couldn't cope, couldn't even read and write properly and needed remedial English before they could start work on a mickey mouse BA or the like just to say they, "When I went to uni.."

My wife has worked in both systems, and she wouldn't send a dog to a state school to clean up the scraps in the filthy yards.

if state schools are so bad, then clearly they need more money spent on them, to bring them up to scratch.
State funded schools should be just as answerable to parents as private schools.
Isn't is marvellous how so many laissez faire free marketeers hate gov. intervention, except when it involves handouts to business and private institutions like schools, that only the rich can enjoy.

Dear Leigh,

I guess you can only speak from your own experiences.
However ours differ greatly to what you or your wife
describe. You have to be selective - of the quality
and reputation of the school you choose - no matter
whether its private or public. In our area we had a
choice of three excellent schools - and we chose the
best.

My children began with private preparatory schools
and went on to private high schools. However
we found the bullying, the strong emphasis on sport
and religion,
rather than academic subjects, and the
wrong attitudes that they were learning, as well as
preferential treatment of the wealthier families -
disturbing.

As a result, in the second half of their high school
years, we transferred them to a public secondary college
in the suburbs, with a resultant recognition by the school
of their individual potential and a broader circle of
friends. The end result was a balanced preparation for
adulthood and success in their chosen careers.

Of course, it has a lot to do with the example and the
upbringing that the parents and family give no matter
what education the schools provide.

My husband went to a private religious school who had the
largest percentage of inmates at Pentridge jail. But also,
the highest achievers in research, medicine, law, and
business.

While I do have issues with private school funding that is sidetracking the debate. My issue is not with full fee paying places, which the wealthy can access regardless, but I just want our sector to receive an allocation, based on our numbers, of publicly funded university places that cost the government about $10,000 per year per place from our taxes.

If a public school student, through their efforts and with the resources available to them, manages to be in the top 5% out of 200 students of their year then I’m not sure how fair it is that they would have to compete with 30% of a private school year who have enjoyed vastly superior resources for a publicly funded top-end university place. That sort of an imbalance has nothing to do with IQ or effort.

I recall a Fin Review article discussing the financial implications of parents either paying for an expensive secondary education (to raise ENTER scores) or a full fee based university place for their children (needing a smaller point requirement). My issue is more with the first rather than the second. This a clear example of using wealth to gain greater access to public funds.

If my calling for a fair share of the pie is seen an envy thing then so be it, but that’s like saying Medicare is an attempt at envy mitigation.

The current system is entrenching inequality, something Australians should be constantly striving to combat.

Dear foxy,

Thank you for the support. I’m getting a disappointing sense that Rudd is going to fall well short on this issue. It took me quite a few days to ensure my kids school was going to receive the $200,000 Federal_Schools_Pride money and not the $50,000 that seemed to be in the offing. This was weeks after the local member had proudly announced three of the top private secondary schools in the area were getting the full $200,000. I would love to see stronger parental lobbying power returning to the public system and this initiative might help.

It would of course be best if the government were able to build an education system that met the requirements of all Australians.

Rich or poor. Aspirational or laissez-faire. Intelligent or slow. Willing to learn or simply marking time. Cooperative or disruptive. Placid or aggressive. Pliant or stubborn.

And that's just the parents...

It would of course be best if the government were also able to build health system that met the requirements of all Australians.

Rich or poor. Genetically blessed or genetically vulnerable. Smokers and drinkers or total abstainers. Extreme sports fanatics or couch potatoes. Young or old.

The reality is that each task is beyond the wit of man to design, without allowing an element of personal choice to intervene. A universal system is inevitably open to abuse, unless it is so primitive as to be unusable

The main reason, I would suggest, that people are motivated to work hard and "get on", is to earn money to increase their ability to choose. Whether that choice involves holidays, hummers or hospitals is irrelevant. The motivation is not bragging rights, but choice.

And... guess what?

Once you introduce choice, you let in the forces of envy and destruction.

If I can't have it (choice of school, hospital, teacher, doctor) then no-one else can. So there.

I would personally be very upset to invest heavily in the education of my child, only to find that the standards at university level had to be reduced, in order to cater for a proportion of the less clever.

The question comes down to a simple one. Are we prepared to reward individuals on merit, and allow choice, or must everybody be reduced to a single level, and have no choice at all?

Dear csteele.

Did your public school originally apply
for the full amount - listing how they
were going to use the money?

Our school was told that they had to list
the projects on which the money was
going to be used and it was on that basis
that the amounts given were based.

They ended up getting the full amount.

Pericles has made an interesting and intelligent post.
But...

"I would personally be very upset to invest heavily in the education of my child, only to find that the standards at university level had to be reduced, in order to cater for a proportion of the less clever."

What exactly does that mean?
Is the standard of education itself being jeopardised here, or a piece of paper?
Will the amount of data your child might ingest be reduced, because of lowered entrance levels?
Will your child learn less?
Is it the value of the education which concerns you, or the value of the piece of paper issued at the end of that education?
I would suggest this argument is about a level playing field. As an egalitarian, I agree university places should be awarded on ability, but what if financially poor -but good- students are disadvantaged by simple circumstance?
It seems to me a lower entrance level may increase the failure rate, but so what?
At least, they were given a chance.

I reject the notion that proportional allocation would dumb down the universities. There is ample evidence (from memory see Bob Birrel’s report ‘Unequal Access to Tertiary Education in Victoria’) showing that, with everything else being equal, public school students tend to fare better at university than those from private schools. One could hazard a guess and say it is because they have had to work harder to excel.

Melbourne University has gone some way toward redressing some of the recognised inequity with its Access Melbourne initiative. It aims to have 20% of the intake come through this program in which “Students will be selected on a combination of their ENTER score or equivalent, and a consideration of the information they provide in relation to established criteria of disadvantage.”. I’m not sure in doing so the University feels they are dumbing down the institution.

While the initiative seems welcome I rail against the ‘cap-in-hand’ notion it propagates.

If some parents want to try and outspend others for the best chance at a top end place then let them, that is their choice, let the market forces rule so to speak, but let them do it within their own sector. The majority of us either can’t afford or don’t want to play that game and as a society we have worked to keep the market at bay from some of our institutions, often with noble intentions, so just allow us our due and a fair proportion of tertiary places for our children without the labels of envy or greed or accusations of wanting to reduce everything to the one level.

Hi Foxy,

I am still getting to the bottom of what happened but from my limited grasp I would say the problem lay at the state level as they were coordinating the distribution of the funds. There were other things at play but I won't go into them here.

I spoke to everyone from the principal, to state and federal bureaucrats, state and federal politicians or their officers, right through to Julia Gillard's office. Although smaller amounts were bandied about I just kept repeating that anything less than the full $200,000 was unacceptable. In the end the result was what was due but it took quite a deal of time on the phone. I didn't get the sense that the pollies were the problem but I called on them to fix it and in the end it happened.

Dear csteele,

Well done!

That just proves that parent involvement
in their children's schools does pay off.

Your family must be very proud of you.

Fair question, Grim.

>>"I would personally be very upset to invest heavily in the education of my child, only to find that the standards at university level had to be reduced, in order to cater for a proportion of the less clever." What exactly does that mean?<<

The way I see it is this.

If you assume that the current measurement of "smarts" is an accurate measurement of a person's ability to meet the challenges of a university education, then it follows that a lower score indicates a lower capability.

If you then proceed to allow lower scores to reach university, there would be two possible outcomes: the lower scorers don't get the full benefit of a university education, or the university spends increased resources on bringing these folk up to speed.

In our culture, the latter is far more likely a "solution" than the former. Hence my suggestion that the "smart" might stand to lose on the deal.

There is of course an alternative approach.

If the current selection method is not providing the desired social outcome, change it.

csteele puts this position quite firmly.

>>The majority of us either can’t afford or don’t want to play that game and as a society we have worked to keep the market at bay from some of our institutions, often with noble intentions, so just allow us our due and a fair proportion of tertiary places for our children without the labels of envy or greed or accusations of wanting to reduce everything to the one level.<<

If the objective of universities is simply to "provide tertiary places", then I agree completely. Do not let a lack of money come between a child and a "tertiary place".

But if the objective is a little more, shall we say, educationally challenging, then surely there should be a modicum of measurement along the way?

And while that remains the case, people with the means to advantage their children through paid tuition will continue to do so.