Both major parties promise a level of public services – Labor more than the Libs. However, neither is willing to put taxes at a level commensurate with those services. In general they won’t even talk about raising taxes.

The government subsidises private schools. The cost is less than an adequate public educational system, but the result is social segregation. Children in private schools are more likely to get a better education and with that start in life are more likely to go on to university. We are short changing some of our children, but it is cheaper. We are creating two classes of Australians. Let Australian children of different backgrounds grow up together, learn together and work together.

The government subsidises private health insurance. The cost is less than an adequate public health system, but the result is those with less money have a shorter life expectancy.

One way to deal with the gap between revenue and services is by borrowing. That means that part of tax revenue goes for interest payments. Another way is to sell off assets. The consumer will pay more for those services, government will be deprived of the income and the gap will still be there when the temporary infusion of cash is used up.

The following is a solution:

1. Have those who wish to segregate and indoctrinate their children in private schools pay the full cost. Have education free, compulsory and secular as stated in the Queensland Education act of 1875. Provide such education at all levels so students can reach their full potential.

2. Have those who want private rooms and other extras not necessary for health care pay the full cost of the insurance. Make adequate health services including preventive medicine available to all Australians.

3. Sporting clubs, olympic venues and most other facilities not necessary for health, education, infrastructure, the environment or public security should be financed by those who use them.

4. Eliminate the GST which is a greater burden on the poor.

5. Have a graduated income tax sufficient to pay for public needs.

You are obviously a teacher david f, but what do you teach. It sure can't be math. With your scheme no one would have anything left after taxes.

I agree.
It is funny how it is all "user pays" with the rightards until it comes to private schooling or private health then its gimme gimme gimme.
A bit like how it is all "nanny state this and nanny state that" until they want to license cyclists or income manage the poor. Then its all "we know best" and "its for their own good".

The rich have had their taxes massively reduced in recent decades, not to mention their ongoing fraud and evasion of taxes, and to blame the resulting taxation shortfall on the poor and unwell and seek to wind back their meagre benefits just shows the evil, greed driven, spitefulness of the right and their followers.

Dear Hasbeen,

I taught mathematics, and my sense of number is quite good. Apparently an income tax adequate to pay for what we get is reasonable to me and too high for you. Like many others you want something for nothing.

Taxes would still be much lower than there are in Scandinavia because those governments provide more than the governments in most developed countries.

What I want david, is a whole lot less given to everyone, me included, so those who put in the effort prosper, rather than be ripped off to keep the idle in comfort.

As we now have governments being elected on their appeal to the bludgers, it is going to be grab what you can, before the self induced crash of bankruptcy.

Maggie Thatcher said it, & we are about to do it, run out of other peoples money that is.

Hasbeen, your argument is based upon the false premise that those who aren't rich are bludgers!

It is based on the understanding that those who don't do everything possible to pull their own weight are bludgers, rich or poor.

Richo started buying bludgers, & boy didn't he & labor find heaps who just love doing nothing but vote for a living.

yes its obvious David f is a teacher. He wants more money for a failed school system and make those already subsidising the public system to pay more.

Here's one for you David. It shows how a 6 year old has far more sense than the pushers of your secular dogmas

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153155552872334&fref=nf

Dear runner,

I had an excellent education in the public schools of the United States. One reason it was so good was that it was in the thirties when the United States was in depression. My teachers were highly educated, well-qualified and went into teaching because it was hard for them to get other jobs. One reason the education system is not as good now as it was when I went to school is that teaching does not pay enough to compete with other ways of making a living. There are still good teachers, but many of them are there because they could not qualify for the training to get other jobs. Making teaching more attractive by raising teacher’s pay will bring better teachers into the system. It’s remarkable that the system is as good as it is.

My teaching was all on the university level. I taught physics, mathematics and computer science. As a teacher I encouraged my students to question dogma of any kind. Questions one can ask about any dogma are: What is the evidence for it? How reliable is the evidence? How rigourous is the reasoning from the evidence. Any scientific theory is no longer valid if one can find an exception where it doesn’t apply.

One example of a scientific theory that has been superseded is Newton’s laws of motion. They were a tremendous advance forward in that they put forth a way of mathematically describing motion. They were published in 1687. Leonhard Euler in 1750 introduced a generalisation of Newton's laws of motion for rigid bodies called the Euler's laws of motion, later applied as well for deformable bodies assumed as a continuum. In 1905 Newtonian mechanics were superseded by special relativity, but it is still useful as an approximation when the speeds involved are much slower than the speed of light.

One example of a scientific theory that has not been superseded is evolution. The theory has never been superseded as no exceptions to it have been found. Religious mumbojumbo by a six year old is not evidence for anything.

david f, that really depends on what you mean by "theory". Darwinian evolution superseded Lamarckian evolution, but we now know that some aspects of evolution differ significantly from how Darwin understood them to be.

Aidan wrote:

"david f, that really depends on what you mean by "theory". Darwinian evolution superseded Lamarckian evolution, but we now know that some aspects of evolution differ significantly from how Darwin understood them to be."

Dear Aidan,

What particular aspects do you refer to?

david f, one particularly significant aspect is the transfer of genes between different species by viruses.

But there are many others. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen, as david f wants User Pays for everything except health, education, infrastructure, the environment or public security, I'm a bit puzzled why you think that specifically benefits those who don't do enough to pull their own weight?

Dear Aidan,

Darwin wrote nothing about genes or viruses as he didn't know of their existence. The transfer of genes by viruses negates nothing that he postulated nor his theory. He knew characteristics were inherited, but he did not know the physical basis of heredity.

There has been much discovered since Darwin about mechanisms of heredity, but, to the best of my knowledge, none of the new discoveries have negated anything he wrote.

The new discoveries have added to but not superseded Darwinian theory.

Dear David F.,

I think that most people would willingly pay higher
taxes if it meant that our society would reap the
benefits in services such as education, health,
infrastructure, and so on. But the taxes have to be
fair. By that I mean that they should not be targeted
at the poor and low-income families while the rich
are privy to all sorts of tax exemptions.

Foxy wrote: "I think that most people would willingly pay higher
taxes if it meant that our society would reap the
benefits in services such as education, health,
infrastructure, and so on. But the taxes have to be
fair. By that I mean that they should not be targeted
at the poor and low-income families while the rich
are privy to all sorts of tax exemptions."

Dear Foxy,

I favour using taxes to redistribute wealth and provide social benefits for all. However, I don't think most people agree with that. If they did, we would not have a GST. Our political parties to some extent reflect the opinions of the people who vote for them. I think people prefer bribes like support for sporting clubs and spectacles to a fair taxation system. If they did they would support the public schools to provide a good education for all Australian children. I don't think most Australians give a fig for fairness.

Australia has the myths of a fairgo and the larrikin. In reality I think most want what they can get and conform to the mob.

I don't think most people in Australia would willingly pay higher taxes for a fairer society. Can you imagine any Australian political party with a campaign slogan: Higher taxes for a fair society?

The single flaw in this argument is that most independent schools, whilst being owned by churches limit their "indoctrination" to a single 40 min religion and ethics class once a fortnight, probably less than public schools.

If this is being used as a vehicle to justify reducing funding, it is spectacularly weak.

Sheesh, things have really changed since I went to a religious school then!

We had two 40 minute classes per week and they didn’t contain anything to do with ethics. In fact, you probably would have lost marks if, at any point, you suggested that ethics could replace religious morality.

We also had what was referred to as “devotions” every morning for the first half hour of the school day, which was effectively a church service - hymns, a sermon, the lot.

Dear Shadow Minister,

My husband attended Christian Brothers from
Grade 4 up to Matriculation (admittedly it
was a while ago) and they had religious classes every
day, and church services every week and religious exams
at the end of every term.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The funding of private schools should be eliminated – not merely reduced.

Public schools educate. There is no need for governments to provide precious public resources to those who opt out. Those parents who want their children indoctrinated with some belief system should pay for it - not other tax payers.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/28/private-schools-do-not-deserve-a-cent-from-our-public-funds?CMP=share_btn_fb is the source of the following:

The Productivity Commission released a new report showing that over the past five years, independent and Catholic schools have been receiving greater increases in government funding per student than public schools. Private schools received real increases of 3.4% per year between 2007 and 2012, while government schools received increases of just 2.4% per year.

Public schools can give a good education even though some anti-public school propaganda denies it. A University of Queensland study of NAPLAN results recently debunked conventional wisdom that having a child in a private school leads to better academic results. Furthermore, there is a disadvantage in sending a child to a private school if they go on to university, as more drop out in their first year. The pattern is repeated overseas – students in Britain who get BBB grades and attend government comprehensive schools outperform students from private schools with A level grades on all measures.

In spite of this, governments continue to shove money into the private education sector, presumably to keep the well-to-do-swing-voter happy. It is time for governments to put the people’s money in the people’s schools, not in hungry elite private school systems using public funds to build a tennis court or state of the art facilities.

Australia has a problem in education funding, something which was made abundantly clear for some time – something which Gonski attempted to ameliorate. Government schools are ripped off. This needs to be corrected, and no cent of public money should end up in the private school system – especially when it can do so much more good for both pupils and society in a government school.

cont'd ...

And to top it all - wrong answers from the
"Catechism" solicited a beating with a lead-re-inforced
leather strap on the hands. A few times my husband's
hands were so badly swollen that his father immediately
went and confronted the school principal.

As a result my husband today avoids religion.

'Higher taxes for a fair society?'

Sounds good in Theory. Unfortunately tax isn't the real issue when it comes to creating a fair society. Just look at the sentencing of a banker w@nker caught with a bit of coke as opposed to a young unemployed guy.

What school you went to, who you know, what postcode you live in, how you dress, being brought up in an environment that teaches you how to behave in certain circles to get along, there are so many reasons society will never be fair. People generally stay in the class they were born into. Caged birds don't readily learn to fly.

With regards to tax though, I have come to the conclusion that even though it's regressive, flat based unavoidable taxes are the only way to get money from the rich. Even though this means they get taxed at a much lower percent of their income, you get more revenue.

Even the middle class business owners have many more vehicles for avoiding taxes, in fact it is the main reason people want to run a business, as a tax avoidance scheme. Then you can buy all sorts of things as part of the business and pay much lower than the highest tax rate.

3. Sporting clubs... should be financed by those who use them.

I agree, but does that go for the arts as well?

5. Have a graduated income tax sufficient to pay for public needs.

As I said the rich can so easily hide income so that is pointless. It would only nit middle and upper middle classes more. Maybe that would work but really all you do then is reduce the middle class and have only rich and poor.

There is no reason for any of the Family Tax and Childcare benefits, private health etc for anyone earning over $60k, they just produce churn. The reason for the very high cutoff for a lot of benefits to the middle classes is as a measure for Sydney people to be able to afford real estate and private schooling.

Dear David F.,

I would certainly welcome political party campaigns
that told the truth to people, and "Higher Taxes for
a Fairer Society!" would at least be honest. Much better
than "Tax Cuts For the Rich!" or "The Poor Don't Drive
Cars!"

I have always believed that unprofitable but socially
useful tasks is the responsibility of govrnment.
That governments should not be run for profit - like a
business. Many services have to be provided, even if they
profit nobody. Services like - public schools, sewers, police
forces, army, navy, air force, fire departments, libraries,
parks, to name just a few. These services should be provided.
And fairer equitable taxes would be a way of doing that.
I would be very disappointed if most thinking
Australians would not agree.

I get the impression that this is part of the current
political problem that the Abbott led government is currently
facing. It appears to be either deaf or indifferent to
voter's concerns. The savings measures in the May budget
were unfair and hurt the most disadvantaged - including the
unemployed and low-income families.

Decisions made in the kind of authoritarian and arrogant
manner demonstrated by both Mr Abbott recently and Mr Campbell
Newman over the past 3 years serve to erode the fragile trust
between government and the people. Hence public opinion
now dictates the removal of Mr Abbott as it did with
Mr Newman in the Queensland election.

When it comes to higher taxes and wealth re-distribution, I wouldn’t be talking about fairness so much as the sheer volume of benefits that better economic equality provides societies. Benefits that would somewhat address the inequality that Houellebecq mentioned as well. Talk of fairness can sound like a bit of a whinge that leaves the well-to-do wondering what would be in it for them, whereas the benefits of economic equality, in reality, benefit everyone immensely.

Richard Wilkinson gives a brilliant talk in the TED talk video at http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson#t-17210 with a ton of stats that demonstrate the consistent correlation between economic equality and societal health. The benefits of economic equality are things like improved life expectancy, literacy and numeracy, infant mortality rates, rates of homicide, rates of imprisonment, rates of teenage pregnancy, trust, obesity, mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, etc.

Not to mention social mobility. As Wilkinson says in his TED talk, if you want to live the American dream, move to Denmark.

Houellebecq wrote:

Me - 3. Sporting clubs... should be financed by those who use them.

Houellebecq - I agree, but does that go for the arts as well?

I wrote a story published by Pascoe Press, and I was paid for it. When I got a copy from the publisher it contained: “Assisted by grants from the Victorian Ministry for the Arts and the Literature Board of the Australia Council, the Federal Government arts funding and advisory body”. I deposited the cheque but never knowingly submitted any other writing to an entity supported by a government subsidy. Dickens, Herman Melville, Dostoevsky and a lot of other great writers did without government subsidies so it didn’t seem reasonable that I or any other writer should benefit from one.

However, arts in the context of an educational institution should be subsidised as it is part of learning. Symphonies, ballets and the theatre should not be subsidised unless they give performances available to everybody. Otherwise they are a subsidy to the affluent who can afford tickets.

I have mixed feelings about support for the arts. It would take a long article to put forth all my feelings on the matter.

It is extremely hard to create a fair society. The attempt to do so can result in more unfairness that going along with what we have now.

Dear Foxy,

Parties in Australia are generally electoral machines. They say what it takes to get elected. If they are elected They will try to say or do things to win the next election. We cannot get them to put the well-being of their constituents, Australia and the world first. In the most recent commonwealth election both parties competed in scare tactics which painted the boat people as a looming menace and themselves as preventing the death of civilisation as we know it.

My view to what government should do is the same as yours, but I don’t see how one can get them to do it.

Dear AJ Phillips,

You’ve got it, but your facts and reason are no match for the Murdoch media

Dear David F.,

I agree with you - political parties will say
whatever it takes to get themselves elected.
However, sooner or later governments are held
to account by the voters for doing precisely that.
Which is what we are currently
seeing with the government at the moment.

David f,

As I said, the issue about church influence was only a feeble pretext for an attack on independent schools. Both my kids went to independent "church" schools and neither spent more than an hour a fortnight on any religious studies.

The reason that even Labor does not touch independent school funding is that the cost to the government per child is still only a fraction of the cost for public schooling. Cutting funding for independent schools will cost the government more and deliver a lower standard of education to many.

Shadow Minister wrote:

"The reason that even Labor does not touch independent school funding is that the cost to the government per child is still only a fraction of the cost for public schooling. Cutting funding for independent schools will cost the government more and deliver a lower standard of education to many."

You are right. It will cost the government more. However, it will ensure that every Australian child has access to an adequate education through the public schools if the public schools have the resources.

The additional cost will be a boon to Australia since an educated public can produce more and lift the economy. It will be a boon to Australia since eliminating some of the segregation will promote cohesiveness.

My wife went to St. Peters. At a meeting of former students a few years ago the headmaster asked that all attending would vote for John Howard because St. Peter's "desperately needed a new performance centre."

That is crap. Let's pay the money and not shortchange any Australian children.

Dear David f

I went to two private schools and received a very mixed education for every good teacher I had 3 very poor ones. The problem I had was that I am dyslexic, and no teacher was able to teach me to read, or to understand what my problem was. In the end I decided to teach myself to read simply by learning what each word as a whole looked liked. This was successful but left me totally unable to spell it also meant that I was 12 years old by the time I learnt to read. Personally I would ban private schools as an expensive waste of time.

Continued

I have a particular interest in the the question of taxation and the rich. My grandfather made a fortune insuring people against bomb damage in England during the first world war. Unfortunately he also insured people in Spain against bomb damage during the Spanish civil war of the 1930's, these claims were substantial and were not finally settled until the 1960's. My Grandfather died (of natural causes) during the 2nd world war, he left a complex will which basically gave all the property that he owned to my father's brothers and sisters and my father would get any cash that what was left over after any outstanding claims had been paid. My father was presented with an enormous probate bill, which he had no way of paying and was threatened with Jail if he refused to pay up. My father decided that the only course open to him was to leave the country. My grandfather had bought a lake in the west of Ireland (note paying for his own recreation) so he could go salmon fishing. My father went to Ireland to escape the the treat of jail and took on the running of the lake as a commercial operation. He never made much money at it, but he did develop the lake and the salmon fishery to the point where it employed a number of locals in an area where there was virtually no employment.

The lesson of my family's history is that the taxation system needs to be fair and to take into account peoples ability to pay. I also agree with the premise that the solution to Australia's present problems is to increase the level of taxation. It is important to realise that an individual does not get very wealthy by hard work alone, it also requires a good deal of luck, foresight and a suitable business environment. The government contributes substantially to providing the right conditions for this to happen and as such has every right to tax the very wealthy at much higher rates than the ordinary person.

DF,

I am glad that we agree that independent schools cost the government less per student than public schools, and that good education is crucial for long term economic growth. However, the statistics show that the results from independent schools outstrip public schools by a large margin even accounting for SES back grounds.

The conclusion can only be that de funding independent schools would cost the state more for a lower quality education.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I am not attacking the ‘independent’ schools. I do not question their right to exist. I do not question the right of parents to segregate their children from other Australian children and to provide indoctrination in whatever mumbojumbo the parents favour as long as the children also are taught about science. In fact I want the so-called independent schools to be truly independent and not receive government subsidies.

I don’t think they had any right to government subsidies in the first place, and it seems fair to me to eliminate what they were not entitled to. Joe Hockey said this is the end of the age of entitlement. The public schools are entitled to government support since they are public. The private schools are not entitled to government support since they are private

Dear Shadow Minister,

Please stop calling schools subsidised by the government independent as they are not independent. Sure, they cost the government less per student. In fact they should cost the government nothing. They should get no taxpayer money.

Providing adequate support to the public schools would not result in a lower quality of education. That is absolute rubbish. All Australian children are entitled to an adequate education, and good public schools can provide that education.

I repeat what I wrote before: Public schools can give a good education even though some anti-public school propaganda denies it. A University of Queensland study of NAPLAN results recently debunked conventional wisdom that having a child in a private school leads to better academic results. Furthermore, there is a disadvantage in sending a child to a private school if they go on to university, as more drop out in their first year. The pattern is repeated overseas – students in Britain who get BBB grades and attend government comprehensive schools outperform students from private schools with A level grades on all measures.

Facts really don’t seem to matter to you. For some reason you want private schools to be supported by taxpayers when there is no good reason for it.

Dear warmair,

You go farther than I would go. I do not favour banning private schools. Your unfortunate circumstances in a private school could have been duplicated in a public school as schools in general resist providing for students with special needs.

I went to a public school in the US. I got an IQ test which showed I had a very high IQ. My mother took me and the IQ test to the principal’s office and asked that I be put in a special class. The principal looked at snot-nosed, skinny, tow headed me and said, “They must have made a mistake.” There probably was no special class for bright children, and the principal wasn’t going to start one.

I agree that we should have a fair taxation system as opposed to what we have now.

David,

I am well aware of your opinion that independent schools should not be federally funded. I am also aware that this is entirely ideologically driven, that you are unable to provide a rational for your beliefs, and that your latest reason that independent schools indoctrinate pupils with mumbo jumbo has no foundation in reality.

I believe that public schools largely give a very good education, however statistics taken over decades show that results at independent schools exceed those at public schools even allowing for factors of background by a small but significant factor.

That 80% of university places are filled by pupils from selective or independent schools says it all.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Students who go to private schools in general have parents who are more affluent and better educated than students who go to public schools. Students with parents who are more affluent and better educated are more likely to go on to further education than students with parents who are less affluent and less well-educated. It's that simple. The elephant in the room is class.

Our present system perpetuates a class system. You wrote: "That 80% of university places are filled by pupils from selective or independent schools says it all."

It only says it all if you ignore why it is so. You choose to ignore why it is so. Another reason it is so is that bright graduates of public schools may have to go to work to help support a family.

As I said before you really aren't interested in facts.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote: "That 80% of university places are filled by pupils from selective or independent schools says it all."

That is a common error of people who know little of statistics. They confuse correlation with causation. There is a correlation of students who go to private schools (which are not independent.) with those who go to university. That does not mean one is the cause of the other.

The explanation of the correlation seems most likely to be that the same factor is responsible for both phenomena.

To repeat my last post: "Students who go to private schools in general have parents who are more affluent and better educated than students who go to public schools. Students with parents who are more affluent and better educated are more likely to go on to further education than students with parents who are less affluent and less well-educated."

One must be wary of the use of statistics to prove a point.

David,

I threw in the FACT that 80% of university places are filled by selective or independent schools to flush out your real motive.

To summarize, you have conceded that,
1 independent schools cost the government less than public schools
2 That pupils from independent schools are better educated, and
3 That well educated school leavers are vital for the country's growth.

Ipso facto removing independent school subsidies will
1 cost the state more either reducing funding per student or other services,
2 Reduce the education of a significant portion of pupils, and
3 Harm the long term growth and economic well being of the entire country.

Finally to put the cherry on the top, you then declare it a matter of class, which is obviously the entire ideological motivation driving the thread and in your mind trumps economic rationalism.

What utter garbage David f.

My wife I spent 15 years establishing & then running a school textbook hire scheme for the P&C at one of our nearby country town high school, a 1600/1700 kid school. This scheme put $170,000 into the school coffers on average each year, so we had pretty good access to the school management.

In the 5 years we had a headmaster worth employing, it was only OK, the rest of the time the place needed a bomb on it.

Most of the teachers were incompetent lazy dropkicks, & those who weren't usually got out & did something else pretty damn quick. In that time there was only one teacher capable of handling senior Math C, & as a union delegate, he was missing almost as often as he was there.

There was never a Physics teacher who knew the subject, & only one chemistry teacher. At 27 she was posted to a major city school as head of department.

The only kids getting a decent education there were the totally brilliant, & I was surprised at the number of these, who came individually wanting books, who did not need the school, or the kids with parents who knew enough, & cared enough to get the necessary outside help for their kids.

We needed 5 months lead time to get new textbooks supplied, covered & cataloged for issue to kids. Do you think we could get those lazy sons of bitches heads of department to actually sit down & figure out what they wanted far enough in advance? The literary ones were the worst, too busy being "literary" to have any time for being the teachers they were paid to be.

Thank god we have some private schools, without them the whole country would be illiterate, & innumerate in 20 years.

There is a very simple reason why private schools get better results, they typically demand a higher standard, before they accept a student. The public system has to accept all comers. It is also reasonable to assume that the more affluent you are, the more likely you are going to be somewhat smarter than the average person which if Darwin is right means your children should be too. Statistically half the population is below average intelligence :)
http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/naplan-results-used-as-entry-criteria-for-private-schools-20130511-2jemo.html

The private schools I went too had totally incompetent English, French, maths, chemistry and geography teachers at one time or another. As George Bernard Shaw's  said “ Those who can do, those who can't teach”.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Of course I’m ideologically motivated. I want every Australian to get all the education that he or she is able to absorb. That’s my ideology. I would like to see students educated in mathematics and statistics so, unlike you, they can tell the difference between correlation and causation.

Certainly removing subsidies and putting the money into the public schools will cost more. One gets what one pays for. To see that all Australian children are educated to the extent they are capable will cost more but will benefit them and Australia. It will be worth the cost.

The economic conditions of the country will only benefit when all students get an adequate education. Your statement that eliminating subsidies to private schools will “Harm the long term growth and economic well being of the entire country” is absolute nonsense. You are not concerned with facts. Giving all students an adequate education will, in your words, “Harm the long term growth and economic well being of the entire country.”

What rubbish! You make nonsense statements and expect me to take you seriously.

I recognise class because class is a fact. I hope that you will learn more so you will learn the difference between correlation and causation. Maybe you didn’t get a very good education, but it’s never too late to learn.

Dear Hasbeen,

I’m sure your experience is as you described, and many teachers were lazy dropkicks. You get what you pay for. It’s that simple. Make it competitive to get into studies in education in university and pay teachers salaries competitive with industry, and the situation will change. I had an excellent education because in public school because it was depression time, and my teachers could not get other jobs.

What you did sounds very good.

My son, William, went to a private school in first grade. He wound up reading at a fifth grade level. I thought, “Boy o boy, what a school.” Then I found that of the nine others in his class one was reading at first grade level, and the other eight were doing remedial reading. Boy o boy, what a kid!

Both public and private school can contain incompetent teachers and administrators. You get what you pay for, and private schools are better funded. As warmair pointed out private schools have the freedom to select their students while public schools have to take all.

I would like to continue this discussion, but I think I will knock off for the day. I am tired.

Warmair,

What twaddle. Most independent schools have waiting lists for children, most of which are booked in far before their learning potential is known, and the kids are accepted on a first come basis. This clearly is not selective, though a few are.

For example, my son was accepted for Several GPS schools based on early application. After his acceptance, all applicants were required to submit academic records and sit tests to stream them according to ability to enable children of similar ability to be taught according to their needs. This practice is frowned on in public schools disadvantaging both bright and challenged children.

The single biggest difference I noticed between public and independent schools is the attitude of the parents and children to study. Any child that does not do assigned work is regarded with scorn.

David,

"I want every Australian to get all the education that he or she is able to absorb. That’s my ideology."

As the subsidies of independent schools frees funds for public schools and improves education all round. this is a solid endorsement of the status quo.

Don't misquote me. I said reducing the quality of education of about 30% of the children will harm the economy which is exactly what you are proposing to do.

Dear Shadow Minister.

If funds provided for private schools are devoted to public schools it will improve the public schools.

Parents who want to send their children to private schools can still do it and pay what it costs. Taxpayers should not have to support it.

Some children will leave the private school system and go into the public schools. The public schools will be improved and better able to care for them.

The economy will be improved by that.

I am glad I am 89 years old and have no children of school age. I would not want to send them to a private religious school nor to a public school with fundamentalist chaplains. All my grandchildren are not living in Australia. Although I miss them and do not see them often I am happy that they do not go to Australian schools.

However, the rotten system that you support will probably continue in the foreseeable future. It is cheaper to continue it than to provide quality education for all. The less well off will continue to subsidise the schools of the better off. Unfairness triumphs if it’s cheaper, and those who have the money make the rules.

The corrupt and unfair system will probably continue for a while.

David nothing will improve public schools while they are run by the unions. They are on a very steep descent to the lowest level possible.

Until the dropkicks are weeded out & sacked there will be only further decay.

On pay, we should reduce the pay to what the job is worth. Things like Media Studies, Dance, & Music appreciation teachers should have to pay to be allowed to indulge in their hobby. Most of the rest should be paid at child care rates. That is about all most are doing.

Yes, pay senior Math, Physics, Chemistry & English teachers, but only those who get results, should be paid double the going rate. We waste far too much money on gobbledygook time filling rubbish, & not enough on the 3 Rs.

David,

if you take the funding from independent schools, you will most probably create a disaster in the public schooling system. For example in NSW about 40% of high school pupils go to independent schools. Of these schools, only about 15% are elite schools which anyway get funding of about 25% of public schools per student.

The vast majority of schools charge far less and get up to 80% of the funding that public school students do, which makes up more than 50% of their entire budget. If the funding were removed, these schools would close increasing public school attendance by 50% overnight. While the funds confiscated from the independent schools would not even cover the additional teachers etc for the new pupils, the real disaster would be in the $100 bn or so required to build new teaching facilities.

So in order to meet your socialist ideal of bringing everyone down to the same level, you would completely stuff up not only the independent schools but the public ones too.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It is not socialist to fund only public schools. The US is more of a capitalist country than Australia. The US funds only pubic schools. When you run out of arguments then you start calling names. That is what you are doing when you call not funding private schools socialist. In a capitalist country private businesses start up with private investors. Either they provide goods and services to the extent that they make a profit or not. If they don't make a profit they go under. A private school is a private business. They have no more call to be funded by the government than any other private business. Funding private business of any kind erases the distinction between public and private and is a step toward socialism. Capitalist states should not fund private businesses of any kind including schools. Apparently you not only are ignorant of the difference between correlation and causation you are also ignorant of the difference between capitalism and socialism.

Dear Hasbeen,

My mother was a teacher during the 1920s. There were many restrictions on teachers' lives. A female teacher had to quit if she got married. That is why my mother quit teaching. The unions have made it possible for teachers to live normal lives and get decent pay.

We differ. I think schools should not only prepare students to make a living. They should also educate children in activities that make life worthwhile. An appreciation of and an ability to perform in either arts or sports is something that makes life worthwhile. I think media Studies, dance, & music appreciation belong in the school curriculum.

David,

Who are you kidding, the very definition of socialism is the push towards state ownership of production and service supply. The Government's duty is to provide services, especially those known as public goods such as health and education. That the government co opts the private sector to deliver these goods is common practise and the list of services provided using private companies would be too long for this blog.

The move away from state centralised ownership and control of schools is happening in many countries incl the UK and Finland, where local control of the running of the schools and the hiring and firing of teachers has led to improved results with identical funding. Notably, the USA is pushing towards fully funding Charter schools which are independently run but government funded and similar to our lower cost independent schools.

As for the funding of schools generally, the government should have the following objectives:
1 Ensure that every child has access to a decent education,
2 That the country achieves the best overall academic results from its schools,
3 That 1&2 above are achieved with the minimum cost to the taxpayer.

All three objectives are enhanced by subsidizing independent schools.

Dear Shadow Minister,

S. 116 of the Australian Constitution states: 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.

Non-government schools are primarily religious, and, in my opinion, the government is violating S. 116 in supporting those schools. The US has almost the same wording in its Constitution as S. 116, and the interpretation of its court is that religious schools should not be funded by tax money. Charter schools in the United States are indeed similar to private subsidised schools in Australia, and I see the funding of those schools as an attempt to get around the ban on funding religious schools. The US Supreme Court has judged that in the case of Brown vs. Kansas of education that schools which segregate students by race are illegal. I hope that it will also judge that segregating students by religion which both the charter schools and the so-called independent schools of Australia do is equally illegal.

Let us take the example of Finland which you cited. Finland has an excellent record in student achievement. Parents may either opt for a secular public school or a religious school. Both are funded by the government. Both cost the same thing to the parents which is nothing directly since both are funded by taxes. The facilities of both are equal, and the pay of the teachers in both are the same. The record in both of students going on to higher education is also the same. That is most unlike the situation in Australia where in general the students in the so-called independent schools go to schools that are better funded and better equipped. In Finland the religious schools are funded to the same amount as the non-religious schools.

continued

continued

If the so-called independent schools of Australia were like the religious schools in Finland with equal facilities to the non-religious schools part of my objection would disappear. If the religious schools in Australia were funded to the same extent and no more than the non-religious schools we could expect the gap in you cited in graduates going on to university to disappear. As it is in Australia every child does not have equal access to a decent education because the taxes of the poor subsidise the schools of the rich.

The UK is a mess. Eg. State examinations are given to test students’ knowledge. Students in orthodox Jewish schools are told they do not have to answer questions in science which are contrary to what they are taught in Scripture. This means those students do not get an adequate education in science.

I do not agree that the Australian system is working well. If the so-called independent schools of Australia had to accept all applicants and had equal facilities with the public schools then I think the gap you cited would disappear. Public schools in Australia remain underfunded compared to the so-called independent schools.

The commonwealth terminated the subsidies to car manufacturers – a measure of which I approved. This was done even though these facilities provided jobs for Australians. Independent facilities can compete with government services if they pay their way. Parcel deliveries successfully compete with Australia Post without government subsidies. If so-called independent schools could compete with public schools under those conditions they might continue. Taxes should not be funneled from the poor to the rich, and students in both the private and public sectors should have equal educational opportunities.

'You get what you pay for, and private schools are better funded.' straight out lie by David f. Parents fund private schools with fees while Government funding per student is far less for prvate students than public schools. Just better results from private schools on less funding ( a very inconvenient truth).

Dear runner,

Please supply the statistics to back up your statement along with the source for those statistics.

Dear runner,

Shadow Minister and I have been having a vigourous discussion. However, neither of us has exceeded the bonds of courtesy. I have indicated that I thought he was wrong, but I have never accused him of being a liar or a fraud. He has been courteous to me and has not impugned my motives or my character. When either of us gets weary of our discussion that person will stop.

However, apparently you are not bound by such conventions. You call names, accuse others of lying and show no generosity of spirit.

We are all on a discussion list. We have different opinions and express them. It would be good if we could disagree without rancour. It doesn't make our case to abuse a person with whom we have a disagreement. I will not call you names, insult you or impugn your motives as you simply are someone who disagrees with me. I hope you will act in the same manner.

Dear runner.

You wrote, 'You get what you pay for, and private schools are better funded.' straight out lie by David f. Parents fund private schools with fees while Government funding per student is far less for prvate students than public schools. Just better results from private schools on less funding ( a very inconvenient truth).
Posted by runner, Monday, 9 February 2015 1:20:45 PM

Dear runner,

Private schools are better funded. I never contended they get more from the government than public schools. They get tuition fees, endowments and other income in addition to their funding from the government. My contention is that they should get nothing from the government.

'Private schools are better funded. I never contended they get more from the government than public schools'

Oh so its envy David f. Next you will want to ban parents from hiring private tutors. Anything else that you would dictate that parents do with their money?

David,

Firstly Sect 116 of the Aus constitution does not apply to school funding.

Secondly, the vast majority of independent schools offer only a token of religious education and in many cases far less than public schools. So the pretext of removing funding because of the religious nature of the schools collapses entirely.

As you continually ignore the consequences of removing subsidies, I would like you to seriously consider the dire state of public education if these subsidies were removed.

runner wrote: "'Private schools are better funded. I never contended they get more from the government than public schools'

Oh so its envy David f. Next you will want to ban parents from hiring private tutors. Anything else that you would dictate that parents do with their money?"

Dear runner,

I don't understand. I have not told parents how they should spend their money. Where do you get that? I just object to taxpayer funds going to private schools. How parents choose to spend their money is their own business. Calling my opinion envy is just more name calling.

Our opinions are very different. However, we can be polite to each other even though it may be difficult.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I appreciate your politeness and the courtesy which you have shown me in this discussion.

If the subsidies were removed I anticipate there would be some flow of children from the private to the public sector. The parents of those children would demand adequate funding for the public schools, and I expect their demands would be met by whatever government was in power at the time. The private schools would be truly independent, and most would continue.

As I see it S. 116 does apply directly to private school funding. The Defense of Government Schools (D.O.G.S) case which made that case lost. However, I believe it will come up again, and the result may be different.

My objection is not primarily that they are religious schools. It is that they are private schools, and I don't think private schools should be funded by government regardless of their nature.

I think we both have stated and restated our position, and neither of us will come forth with anything much different from what we have said before.

Again, I appreciate the courteous way in which you have contributed to our discussion, but I am weary of it.

It is always a pleasure to debate the issues not the man.

PS. while I respect your opinion I am still waiting for a rational argument for removing the subsidy to independent schools.

I think there are two independent aspects to the discussion.

1. Should private schools be subsidized by the government? If so how can this be justified, excluding the status quo environment discussed in 2 below.

2. Is it, in the current environment, economically (let alone politically) viable for the government to stop funding private schools? If not, how could it be.

Answers.
1. No.
2. No. The government would have to start buying back schools. I don't believe there would be a flood of kids back into private schools, as most parents wouldn't want to disrupt their kids, and they are buying status and wouldn't want to lose that intangible (illusory) achievement. But there would be some increase if private schools increased their fees to a level that parents could just simply not afford, and it is likely the schools would do just that to win the ideological battle, and raise their school to a more prestigious brand.

I am not convinced the extra cost to the government would be covered by eliminating the grants to private schools. Then there is the issue of controlling the curriculum with totally independent schools.

withdrawing funding from private schools is just a diversion from facing a hopelessly flawed public system who continue to turn out brainwashed individuals whose economics appear similar to that of Greens/Labour let alone numerous moral deficiencies.

From SM:

As for the funding of schools generally, the government should have the following objectives:
1 Ensure that every child has access to a decent education,

2 That the country achieves the best overall academic results from its schools,

3 That 1&2 above are achieved with the minimum cost to the taxpayer.

All three objectives are enhanced by subsidizing independent schools.

I say

1. What is 'decent'. The issue is more 'equitable', as far as possible children should have equality of opportunity, not be victims of their parents lack of education or social standing.

2. The best overall result would be achieved by having more resources toward the most struggling in the public system. The students in the private system don't have the obstacles that the bottom 10% in the public system do, and their parents have the resources and perspective/dedication to ensure their child's education even with less funding.

3. This is the crux of the issue. I am sure SM's opinion is that parents are being encouraged in the current system to devote more resources to education than they would otherwise. I agree, but I don't think they would be discouraged without the government funding as they are actually buying something altogether different to education.

They are buying status and they are buying contacts for their children, all the while isolating them from the bottom 10% of children that have emotional issues, mental health issues, and cause the most classroom disruption. They will continue to desire private schools for these reasons with or without government donations.

But as I said above, withdrawing money from the private schools would be a free for all for private schools to become more elitist, competing for their exclusive brand, and eventually parents barely able to make payments as it is would drop out of the race and go back to public, necessitating a raise in taxes.

These dedicated parents would help create a better critical mass of connected and articulate parents to keep the public school system honest though, creating a better outcome on the whole.

What the government CAN do is regulate private schools based on the financial support they receive from government. If the schools don't agree to take on more of the disruptive students and discount fees to disadvantaged students, then they would receive far less funding, perhaps down to zero, if they so wish.

This would probably result in two tiers of private schools, the elite vs inclusive. Not sure on the mix and how that would work economically. Ideologically of course the government and enough parents are happy with what we have (ie excluding the problem children form their school). I think there is a market for the middle tier and it would alleviate a lot of financial burden for those parents struggling to pay the fees, and allow a lot more choice for kids in the public system.

Whether in the long term the inclusive private schools would emulate private or public school environments is hard to predict.

Needless to say, at the very least I don't think there is too much risk in parents who can afford to send tier kids to $10k, 20k+ private school leaving the system if the government means-tested their school's funding.

H,

The single biggest contribution to a child's success at school is the intelligence and work ethic of his peers. Mosman public, while not performing as well as the Shore school vastly outperforms the majority of public schools in the country, while the parents being bankers and businessmen don't pay a cent towards the school.

On top of this these pupils from both schools mingle on a day to day basis, play at the same sports clubs and go to the same parties, and have the same ethnic mix, and will form far better contacts than any independent school in Blacktown whose working class parents struggle to meet the far more meagre fees.

The schools that would be harmed by removing subsidies would be the majority of low fee independent schools in less salubrious areas that would close.

SM,

'The single biggest contribution to a child's success at school is the intelligence and work ethic of his peers. '

Peers as in other students? That is my point about the private schools being able to exclude students, where the public schools cannot. How would you eradicate this inequality, or do you not care to?

I would say the biggest factor, as has been proven is the IQ and education of his parents. But this doesn't mean you could not get a lot more bang for your buck by removing the other factors, the negative factors such as parental ambivalence and classroom disruption from students stuck in the public system.

'The schools that would be harmed by removing subsidies would be the majority of low fee independent schools in less salubrious areas that would close.'

I agree. Well, the government would be forced to take them over, at cost to the taxpayer. Or take the students, and those students with their like-minded parents could put pressure on the public school they subsequently attend, and on the public system politically, improving the lot of students at that school and all public schools.

What is your position on increasing funds to those very schools at the expense of the very rich private schools with 20mil in the bank charging 20k per year.

Is there any way you can justify funding to a school with such ample resources?

Even without extreme examples, do you support means-testing funding to private schools?

A recipe for increasing failure Houellebecq. Why on earth would you want to interfere with the lower cost private schools, that are at least educating a higher percentage of their students than public, [union] schools. Transferring the worst students to the best model of low cost schools is ridiculous.

For god sake get real. We have to stop this craziness of believing the bottom 10% can be educated, devise a range of games they can play while they are mandated to be at school, & keep them out of the way of the rest.

It is becoming more important daily that the best 15% get the best education possible, as they will be carrying the rest as they progress through life.

Until we are prepared to get rid of the bottom 5% of public school teachers, every year for at least 10 years the public system will continue to be too dysfunctional to be of use to the vast majority.

Houellebecq you then talk about getting the parents involved. Which planet would that be on?

My wife & I established & ran the school textbook scheme for the P&C a largish 1700 kid public high school for 15 years. We could rarely get 20 parents to a P&C meeting. We put $170,000 a year into the school with that scheme, but parents were not interested in helping, & neither were the teachers.

Each year we had 200,000 textbooks that had to be inspected page by page, to remove graffiti & pornography, have damage repaired, & missing pages replaced. There were also 100,000 in class sets to get the same treatment. Along with this there were 30,000 to 40,000 new books to be covered, cataloged & fed into the system.

This required about 20 people in working bees, for a dozen weekends, & another 40 evenings to get done. Our kids, & some of their fellow students helped, but I had to beg plead, coerce, & indulge in straight blackmail to get the help required from parents. Some nights were great fun, with the right people helping. Some of the stuff students had written in those books was hilarious, when read out.

You know, in those 15 years I can not remember a single time any teacher turned up or even offered to help.

The public system is like a chook with it's head cut off. It's running, but has no idea of what it's doing, & no idea of where it's going.

I told my son, who was not that interested, that he had to grab his school by the neck & shake what ever he wanted out of it, as it was not interested in giving him anything him. After that things improved. I think he really enjoyed making teachers do their job, & give him what he wanted.

Houl,

I suppose that you would find it difficult to believe that most independent schools take pupils based on a waiting list on a first come first served basis.

The difference is that the thousands of middle class parents that chose to make a huge sacrifice to send their kids to an independent school take their kids' education extremely seriously, and the result is that the kids are motivated through their parents which gives them a huge advantage over parents that don't give a damn.

Secondly, both parents and students know that the schools rules have real teeth and that adherent behaviour is dealt with decisively. So much so that the need to exercise these sanctions is extremely seldom, and kids are very seldom expelled. As a result classes are not held to ransom by a tiny proportion of students that cannot be disciplined, and parents that care are fleeing the public school system.

The low fee independent schools whose subsidy plus fees roughly equals the cost per student of state schools are still producing results well ahead of local public schools which should indicate to any rational being that the independent model beats the public model hands down.

Your solution is to have the government spend tens of $bn to buy these independent schools so that the state can pay more per pupil p.a. to deliver a lower quality of education for the sole purpose to make these parents equally miserable and complain about a system they abandoned?

Are you serious?

'Your solution is to have the government spend tens of $bn to buy these independent schools '

Steady on that's not my solution, that's just what would happen if schools would be forced to close, that the government would take them over. There would be a shortage of schools in the area if they didn't and they would be pressured to 'do something'.

As I asked straight after, what is your position on increasing funds to those very schools at the expense of the very rich private schools with 20mil in the bank charging 20k per year?

I don't really believe many would be forced to close. They may not be able to afford an extra gymnasium and overseas excursions, but they would be viable.

My solution just involves the creation of a middle tier. We need a brand somewhere between Daewoo and Mercedes.

The parents struggling and stretching to afford really expensive private schools would have the option of a cheaper private school, and the public school parents with no chance at a private school now could start stretching to afford a cheap private school.

The advantage is more choice, and a reduction of hasBeen's lost cases...

'We have to stop this craziness of believing the bottom 10% can be educated, devise a range of games they can play while they are mandated to be at school, & keep them out of the way of the rest.'

It is un-PC, unfortunate but sadly true. By the time these kids get to a certain age, with a certain home life there isn't practically a lot that can be done.

But a middle tier would keep more away from that bottom 10%.

I suppose in summary what I am saying is stop funding the richest schools, let them cry, they aren't going to let anything stop them, they have crazy amount of funds and super rich parents who wouldn't dream of taking their kids out. Use the money saved to fund and control lower tier private schools to entice some more out of public system.

H,

You so flippantly use the term "take over" You think that with a sudden shortage of schools that the owners of the independent schools and land are not going to make the government pay through the nose to use its facilities, or that they won't just sell the land to developers?

As I said the policy to defund independent schools will cost the government tens of $bns and deliver a poorer education for everyone.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/nsw-families-abandon-public-schools-in-favour-of-private-education-20150205-1377lg.html

Then I guess that you would support the coalition's policy t ­establish one-quarter of the ­nation’s government schools as independent public schools?

Shadow
You referred to my first post on this thread it as absolute twaddle, now you have pretty much agreed with me by saying “The single biggest contribution to a child's success at school is the intelligence and work ethic of his peers”

I admit that I am biased against private schools due to my experience of UK private schools. The education I received was on the whole poor and certainly no better them my peers who attended state schools in the UK. The first school was awful in almost every respect, to give you an idea our best teacher was a paedophile with a criminal record for stealing. It was not unheard of to find the domestic staff's chewing gum in the porridge. The head master would lose his temper when he canned boys and hit them so hard they could not sit down for a week. The English teacher was reasonable, just so long as he was teaching English, but in maths classes he would hit boys on the back of the hand with edge of the ruler if they made a single error reciting the times tables. Ok that was nearly 60 years ago in the UK hopefully things have improved.

Continued

In my second school things were generally better but we did all go on strike over the food. The teachers were marginally better, but a few of them were totally incapable of keeping order in the class room. The maths teacher we had at one stage was doing well if he could get the day and the date up in the black board in a 45 Min period. One teacher we had, had no problem keeping order but simply dictated notes at every lesson, and was generally hopeless. Our best teacher taught chemistry and physics, he made the subjects interesting and inspired one to learn more. Due to his influence I still read the New Scientist magazine some 50 years after he introduced it to the class.

The problem is this that the best teachers are not motivated by money, but a love of what they are doing and a natural talent to teach. The result is that there is no guarantee you get what pay for when it comes to education.

On balance I see no reason why any private school should be subsided by the taxpayer particularly those that are well off financially, but I do see a need to dramatically improve the public system.

Warmair,

If you read my reply to your first post, my disagreement is not with the contribution of the intellect and work ethic of a pupil's peers, but your assertion that the independent schools cherry pick their students.

The independent schools cater for just about everyone that has the funds and desire to see that their children get a good head start. The smarter and more motivated pupils is due to the smarter and more motivated parents.

As for the quality of teachers, the private schools hire and promote on ability compared to the union run public schools that hire and promote based on seniority.

The private high school that I attended did both. Some kids got a place as they were booked in and paid for before birth. Others, like me, did sufficiently well in the entrance examinations to be offered a place which had hitherto been unavailable.

And of course, whilst there is some variance as to how much religious clap trap is taught in the different religious schools, most of them expect their ethos to be espoused and upheld at all times by the staff in their employ. In order to verify that, just go and look at an advert for say a position advertised by that filthy little rock spider church.

They should be terminated as an organisation and land that was given should be seized even if it requires the power of new retrospective legislation, such is the betrayal and harm perpetrated by them on unsuspecting and formerly trusting members of the Australian community.

Thereafter, children should be protected from being indoctrinated by their parents or anyone else for that matter and then once they are educated and of age, if they choose to enter into a religious organisation, then at that time, that is a matter for them.

Private Schools - Give them nothing except a regulatory and statutory frame work from which to start and within which to operate. The system can always be re-jigged to fund any additional load of students which return to the public system.

..

This thread has a distinct stench emanating from certain quarters ...