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.