“HUSH MONEY” FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS?
It always surprises me how little the market forces gurus in our parliaments actually know about market forces and how they work.
Currently we are watching the unedifying spectacle of PM Julia Gillard rushing about, frantically placating the private school sector before (hopefully) introducing the Gonski reforms.
After promising to respond to Gonski this week, our poorest and most vulnerable students have been put on hold again, while she smoothes the ruffled feathers of those who represent the interests of our more advantaged kids.
Not only is she promising that no private school will lose a dollar in public subsidy, she is now promising to raise their funding.
Depressing as this is, I can see the political realities that are motivating her.
The private school lobby, some parts of it anyway, have been frightening parents (and Gillard) with claims that Gonski will take money from some private (even some public) schools and so drive fees up.
Rather than tackling the lack of logic here, Gillard is throwing money at the problem. Money some might be rude enough to call hush money.
Personally, I am tempted not to care if she gives more money to these schools – even if some of them may now be able to paint their walls with gold leaf as a result – as long as she doesn’t take any badly needed funds away from the schools doing the toughest work in education to do so.
But, like many fiscal conservatives, it does annoy me when tax payers’ money is wasted. And there is absolutely no evidence at all that increasing public subsidies to private schools keeps fees down at all. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest it may do the exact opposite.
Let’s just look at a few facts.
Private school fees have been going up above the rate of inflation every year for decades. Here are just a few headlines from recent years saying precisely that; “Parents feel the squeeze as private school fees rocket” The Age, 9/2/09, or “Richest schools add highest fees to funding pool”, The Australian, 20/12/10, “Our richest schools raise fees by 91%”, The Age, 16/1/11 etc. You get the picture.
As Justine Ferrari and Pia Akerman point out in the article from The Australian mentioned above, these schools raised their fees despite increases in Federal government funding of 8.2% to every private primary school student, and 7% to every private secondary school student.
They also point out that an analysis of school fees showed some private schools had almost doubled their fees in a decade.
Economist Adam Rorris, writing in the SMH as far back as 2008 (“The answer to high private fees is public schools”) said ” The previous Federal Government argued… give more money to private schools than they ever dreamed and tuition fees would surely drop. Unfortunately, the reverse happened.”
Why?
Why does steadily increasing public funding of private schools appear to have no downward pressure on the fees they charge?
| Page 1 of 2 | next >> |
53 Responses to this article
-
beck August 20, 2012
The Government funds private schools because of one over-riding reason: it’s actually the cheapest option for them. If the Government was to have to provide more schools and facilities for all the students currently in private schools, the cost would be huge. Therefore, from the Government’s perspective, it’s far less to take from the coffers to give the funding, thanit is to establish school and facilities for those students.
Not saying I agree with it; just saying why the schools are funded in the first place.-
Ned Manning August 21, 2012
Why does the wonderful Jane Caro spend her time advocating for pubic education? Because she, like those of us who have spent time in the system, is devoted to improving the lot of all our kids. To question her motives, as some respondents have done, reflects the dissolution of the egalitarian ethic we once held so dear. This is what is at the heart of this issue. Providing equal opportunity for all. That is why the Government needs to bit the bullet and institute the findings of the Gonski Report. Cheap shots are easy to hide behind.
-
-
Mez August 20, 2012
Wow, now that is impressive spin and manipulation! Jane, I dips me lid to you. You are indeed masterful.
-
Willie August 20, 2012
As a product of a private school, this disgusts me. Wait… It disgusts me because the big $$ the school I went to charges has been spent on function centres for parents and administrators, elaborate and expensive religious ornaments and stained glass windows, a new administration wing and museum of the schools history, and the expansion of ‘management’ at the school to the point it now resembles a large corporation than a school. The principle and his inner circle of ‘managers (aka deputies)’ was someone I did not meet in person once in 5 years. Not a dollar spent on genuinely sourcing the best teachers, not a cent spent on those genuinely needing academic support (its much easier for them to suggest the student would be better served by enrolling in a trade or a public school). Still no airconditioned classrooms, many still lack fans, and casette players with corresponding slide projector still in short supply from the audio visual dept! They have the nerve to send me quarterly glossy 10 page magazines asking me to buy a $10,000 brick to build a new sports field function centre. Absurd!
-
annie August 20, 2012
if parents are sucked in to thinking that money can buy their kids a life better than those in the public system more fool them then line up suckers.
-
Kath August 20, 2012
OK, before these comments descend into an us versus them brawl, can I just say that I am a public school advocate but my kids attend an independent, private school. And before you get a vision of me driving a Mercedes, let me just say we are very much a working class family – one of a new breed of families being able to make a choice about where our kids go to school. And I drive a Nissan.
It upsets me greatly to see the public schools in the state that they are in and that we are now having to pay for the sort of education for our kids in a private school that we once had in a public school. More funding for public schools is WAY overdue.
We do not live in a “better” part of the city where a lot of the better public schools undoutedly are. We live in rural NSW and are lucky and work bloody hard to be able to afford an alternative and have access to that alternative.
So, before you call people like us suckers or anything else along those lines, spare a thought for what might be the back-story behind why we made a difficult CHOICE. I can assure you, that for us at least, it wasn’t an easy decision and I take offence at the “suckers” attitude put forward by ill-thought out commentators. For our kids, so far it’s been the best decision we have made.
Oh and one other thing, farmers out in woop-woop – a lot of their kids went away to boarding schools. Think about that next time you’re chomping on your lamb roast!
-
Hue August 20, 2012
It’s funny because most Private Schools are loaded, and can afford Swimming Pools, Sailing lessons and trips to Europe, whilst I’m stuck in a Public School, where the school can’t even afford a text book for me, so that I can study.
Parliament: Vote down this absurd and inequal spending measure, and please give my school the money, so that I can study.
-
Lynne August 20, 2012
When these arguments are raised I rarely see the needs of children being addressed. As I see it supporting Public Education by sending my children to a public school when I could “make sacrifices” to send them to a private school will keep said schools alive and thriving. If all middle class parents take their children out of public schools only socio-economically disadvantaged children will be left. Is this the sort of society we really want to live in? How about the children who don’t choose to be born into a socially disadvantaged family – do they get to choose? If we make the public system strong everyone benefits…
-
Hawkesbury Lass August 21, 2012
The community does benefit when the local school is strong, and there is so much to be said for backing your own community.
-
Kath August 21, 2012
Lynne, in my post above I alluded to the fact that it was precisely my children’s needs that were taken into consideration when I withdrew both of them from the public high school and primary school respectively. It is not always obvious why people choose to do the things they do but rest assured the decision to move our children from public school to independant school was not one taken lightly.
I couldn’t agree with you more about building strong communities through local public schools but sometimes that isn’t always going to work for everyone and I am thankful we had an alternative in our case. And why can’t local communities be strong because of combined public/private schooling in any town? That is the case in the town where I live – all the schools exist in the town and everybody who utilises them benefits one way or another and the kids from all the schools are scattered around the various shops/take away joints and supermarkets working after school and on weekends. No discrimination here.
-
-
Dave August 20, 2012
Judging by last years Top Schools ranking for NSW, all the extra funding & fees isn’t doing a lot academically.
-
Mez August 21, 2012
How do you figure that, Dave? The only state schools at the top of the list are selective.
-
-
Bob August 20, 2012
It annoys me greatly to see how much funding Private Schools receive from the Government when compared to public schools. I think it relates to the loyalty politicians have with their past schools. What I’d like to see is who exactly out of the politicians attended private schools! I attended public schooling, my cousins attended private school (due to their mother seeing it as a status symbol and not because of religion). I was amazed and appalled at the amount of money it was costing my poor uncle to fund his children’s education. The school wanted to build a new gymnasium, so the school put their hand out for a compulsory construction fee payment.
People from private schools always talk down to the public school sector. My cousin (searching for status like his mother) was not too pleased to hear six of the top ten in the state’s end-of-college marks were students at my college or the one other public college in the city. To add further to his annoyance, four of those I had attended primary and/or high school with in the public sector.
I did not have the heart to say to my cousin, “All those hours spent in chapel for nothing, eh?”
-
Mez August 21, 2012
Bob, I think the ‘talking down’ to you may have more to do with your false claims than with where they were educated.
Here are some facts for you:
‘Overall, independent school pupils receive under 70 per cent of the total – that is to say state and Commonwealth funding – of a public school student. Overall, the 66 per cent of Australian school students who attend public schools get 79 per cent of government funding; for 34 per cent of Australians who attend independent schools get just 21 per cent of government funding. So, there is no question of injustice to public schools here. If anything, the injustice is the other way.’
-
-
George August 21, 2012
Could someone please state what is the exact difference in total funding (state + federal) per student private vs public. Last night on Q & A Amanda Vanstone said private school students receive less total funding. I have heard figures ranging from $1500 – $3000 less per public student. Even with the lower figure imagine what a large high School could do with an extra $1 million per year.
-
Jayel August 21, 2012
George, go to the MySchool website to see the funding received by each school. I found that my child’s private school (secular, not religious) received about $5000/student combined state and federal funding; some local state high schools I checked received $12,000 – $15,000/student. Religious private schools also have the benefit of tax exemptions, etc., which are propped up by the public purse, so that should probably be included in the equation (not that I’m capable of that kind of calculation!). I don’t know if non-religious private schools receive any tax incentives, etc. so don’t know if there is anything else to be considered when comparing their funding with public schools.
-
Racheal August 21, 2012
Silly George, you are never going to get that info in an artical writen by Jane Caro. Everything that comes out of her mouth or from her pen in regards to this topic is so slanted towards a positive outcome for public schools that there is no point even reading it. She hides the actual truth about funding by using only one funding model. She will never actually tell the truth about how much money IN TOTAL a private school students gets compared to a public school student. She also never seems to be able to answer the question of how come schools in lower socio economic areas have been given HUGE amounts of funding per student, way above the national average and yet they are still under performing in every area. More money being thrown at public schools is not going to make for better students. I have no idea why main stream media continue to give her a platform, she just spouts the same old lines every few months. We get it Jane, you hate private schools and you think public schools are hard done by.
-
-
Lindy August 21, 2012
i don’t accept the argument that private school students going to public schools is the cheapest option for the Gonernment. Students are funded per child so the funding will follow them and will be spent on education not fancy facilities
-
Racheal August 21, 2012
Lindy, simple maths.
If a private student is currently getting $7000* from the government and a public school student is getting $9000* from the government, if all the private students enrolled in a public school the government would have to find another $2000 per student to make up the difference, times that by how many students are enrolled in private schools.
That is why it saves the government money to have some students at private schools. Not to mention the lack of teachers in public schools. And would you be happy for one of your children to be in a class with 50+ others ? Just where do you think all the classrooms, teachers, facilities are going to house all these students coming from the private system???
* These figures are not accurate, just used for illustration purposes.
-
-
Jane Caro August 21, 2012
The total funding varies very much per student and per state. The way it is determined is highly complex and hard to state simply in a fair way. There are myriad funding deals – funding maintained and funding guaranteed, for example, in private schools – that distort the mix. Funding maintained and guaranteed basically means that no matter what sort of students they enroll their funding can never reduce, it can only rise.
Rule of thumb, it works like this; the Federal Govt gives 75% of its total education budget to private schools and each State govt gives about 75% of their (larger) budgets to public schools.
Currently as far as public funds are concerned, I think this works out at roughly $10,000 per public secondary student and about $6000 per private school secondary student – slightly more in Catholic schools, slightly less in Independent. Primary school students generally get a little less, but ratio is about the same.
Where the inequality comes in is in the total resources that are put behind some of our children’s education compared to others. Some students receive the benefit of govt subsidy plus as much as $25,000 in the fees their parents pay. Generally, the schools they attend only need operate in areas where it is economic to do so and enroll a majority of the cheapest and easiest to teach students. These young people usually come from households that are advantaged in many other ways as well. If we looked at what they actually cost to educate to international benchmarks, it might be $6000.
In our poorest schools, mostly public, servicing our most disadvantaged kids, the public subsidy is all they get. Public schools in middle class areas can and do fund raise to support their schools, the schools in poor areas generally cannot. They may get a little extra money from their state govt if they are designated disadvantaged (few schools achieve this) and the occasional one off program from the Feds, but they certainly don’t get the millions in over-payment (according to the already biased SES funding model) that the funding guaranteed crap bestows on some of our richest schools.
Worse, and the reason some of these schools are rapidly becoming sinks of despair, is that many of their students can cost as much as $30,000 to bring up to international accepted standards – because of the disadvantages they bring through the gate visited upon them by their birth. This is what Gonski’s “loadings for disadvantage’ is trying to rectify. Things like rural and remote, indigineity, disability, and plain old poverty, problems that all the research internationally confirms handicaps achievement at school.
Once, when most kids attended public schools, the kids that only cost $6000 to educate helped subsidise the kids who cost much more – what business would call economies of scale. Now that we are stripping the middle class kids out of the public system (they are overwhelmingly the cheaper to bring up to scratch kids) we are losing the economy of scale they brought.
Really ironically, currently private school kids are funded as a % of the average recurrent cost of a kid in a public school. As that current cost goes up, as a direct result of losing the cheaper kids to private schools, guess who gets more subsidy? Yep, those same private schools. That’s partly why, if you consider all the costs, sending your child to a private school does not save the public school system much money, if any at all.
The complexities of how much a disadvantaged child needs to compensate for being unlucky at birth is why simplistic comparisons of total amount of public subsidy tell you nothing and reveal nothing about fairness and equity.
Also, only the public system must build, run and maintain schools in every area in Australia, they cannot pick and choose either their students or the most economically viable places to open schools.
snookered in every direction, it seems.
-
foolio August 21, 2012
Here we go again, stereotyping both public (saintly) and private (greedy) schools … Like Kath, we support the principle of a truly excellent public system, and our children went to the local public primary school. However, our son was clearly struggling and no help was forthcoming because he didn’t quite fall into the six or so spots funded for kids needing special attention.
When we finally got a formal diagnosis (having to resort to the private health system to avoid a long queue) it still took a YEAR for the Department of Education to be able to send someone to even start to assess what help they’d offer.
By that time we had enrolled at a private, independent school where he has since received the help he needs and is blossoming.
This school is becoming well known for the loving care and academic attention it gives to kids with particular challenges (and for its efforts will be mentioned in media reports implying private schools must be rorting the system for special provisions in exams such as the HSC … I volunteer to help as a scribe or reader at such exams at this school and I can attest to these kids being utterly genuine cases).
I’m proud of our private school, which we chose not BECAUSE it was private but because it was the school that best met the needs of our child. I would have happily chosen a public school if it was able to help our child.
One last point — why the issue with private schools and not with a private health system? I know people who grind their teeth about private schools yet work in, and use, private hospitals.
Surely there’s a place for both public and private (for now anyway), but with reformed government funding allowing a truly excellent public system to flourish alongside private schools.
Of course, the ideal would be for no one to feel they NEED to enrol their children in a private school, but that would be a long way down the track. In the meantime, let’s work something out sensibly to benefit the kids, wherever they happen to be.
Oh, and our school doesn’t have gold-painted walls, rifle ranges, a museum or acres of land. It has a higher percentage of Aboriginal students than my local public high school, and about the same proportion of students from lower-income households.
Let’s drop the stereotyping and get on with the job of working out how to fix this problem… -
Racheal August 21, 2012
Something that jane always forgets to mention is the private schools that do not have 20 polo fields and walls of gold. East Sydney High school is a PRIVATE school. It takes students with emotional needs that have dropped out of main stream public schools, many of the students were facing a lifetime of poverty and poor job prospects because they dropped out of school at 15. This school takes them and in most cases they all go on to do their HSC. Jane wants these schools to have their funding taken away and these kids just left to a life of little prospects because the school is classed as PRIVATE.
MOST schools that are classed as private ARE NOT rich powerful institutions, they are low fee paying community based schools. And many are taking care of the kids that public schools either dont want, cant handle or cant help. Where do you want these kids to go when you take away their funding??? -
Annie August 21, 2012
Jane I think you’re perpetuating a common misperception.. You write as though ALL private schools are the high profile, high fee paying ones that grab the headlines. If you check the data you will find that these are only a small percentage of the total number of private schools. Most are small community schools charging minimal fees. If all of their students moved into the public system, it would at best be enormously strained and at worst, it would crash. Governments need to have kids educated outside of the public system because the infrastructure costs to have them all in the system would not be sustainable. In Australia we’ve for years had a health insurance system which ensures that all of us have access to health services that on international comparisons, measure up very well. Those who want and can afford to pay for choice of doctor, private hospital rooms, boob jobs and similar elective medical procedures take out private health insurance. Surely this is the analogy we should learn from? All Aussie kids should get the same support from government to get a decent education. If their Mums and Dads want more, for whatever reason, religious, status, different subjects etc, they choose a private school and they pay the extra. Doesn’t seem like rocket science to me.
-
Caroline B. August 21, 2012
Thanks Jane for a terrific piece, & for your ongoing passion for this issue. It’s a disgrace to see so many tax $$$ wasted on the kids who generally are already the most advantaged. I’m disgusted at the continual whining of the IS sector & their grasping for even more money when all this does is perpetuate the gap between the Haves & the Have Nots – the gap that can be bridged by a quality public education system. If you want to send your children to a private school, fine – but don’t expect everyone else to pick up the tab for the privilege. My kids go to great public schools with wonderful, committed teachers & they mix with a wide range of kids & I wouldn’t have it any other way. Tax $$$ should go where they’re needed, particularly to invest in lower socio-ec, remote communities & special needs sector.
-
Racheal August 21, 2012
Caroline, you do realise that special needs schools,schools for emotional problem kids etc are all classed as private.
Do those kids not deserve funding? Are their parents just stupid fools who want to waste their money?
Please do some actual research on what a private school is in Australia and check out how many are at the top teir in regards to facilities etc. MOST private schools are LOW FEE PAYING COMMUNITY BASED SCHOOLS.
I wish people would think before making statements. Get the facts and then make an INFORMED comment.-
Kath August 21, 2012
Well said. Not every private/independant school is based on or looks remotely like The King’s School or Knox Grammar. People need to understand that private/independant schools span a wide variety of religious communities now, educational philosophies such as Montesorri and then various regional Grammar and Christian based schools. There is no stereotypical private/independant school these days nor stereotypical people that utilise them. Not to mention that the people who choose to send their kids to these schools also pay their fair share of tax.
-
Caroline B. August 22, 2012
@ Shouty Rachael – as I said “Tax $$$ should go where they’re needed, particularly to invest in lower socio-ec, remote communities & special needs sector.” So I am obviously not advocating stripping tax $$ from special needs kids – quite the opposite. Suggest you READ & CONSIDER what others are saying & then perhaps YOU CAN MAKE YOUR SHOUTING a bit BETTER INFORMED.
-
-
-
Beth August 21, 2012
I find this whole debate so sad. Historically colonial Australians decided to build an Australia where everyone had access to free compulsary education. It was agreed that those that wanted to send their children to private schools could do so but they would at their own expense. It was tough going at first and lots of the colonies had trouble particularly in remote areas. But soon after federation most had primary education in most areas (although the quality was not doubt variable
) This decision was based on a determination to reduce poverty and the gap between rich and poor.
By the 2nd World War it was clear that secondary education for all was also important. Again this was through the public system.
It was in the 1960s that governments started to provide funding to private schooling.Initially this to keep some poorer Catholic Schools open but also to keep up with a sudden demand for school places due to the influx of migration and lack of education planning. Since then private schools have continued to be funded and the original goal of funding public education to ensure that education was available to all has been forgotten. The most significant increases have been in the last decade. -
Sophie August 21, 2012
Attacking a person for their opinion and lacing it with vitriol is, to me, more of a disgrace and an indictment of our education system, than any funding decision. Why has a debate on ideas descended to this? Why not embrace the differences of opinion and treat them with respect? Living with an attitude that we already know the answer to everything and that anyone with a differing opinion is somehow ‘lesser’ is dangerous.
-
Martha Roberts August 21, 2012
I could have written foolio’s post myself. I would love not to be paying school fees, however having had the Head of English at the local public High school I sent my dyslexic son to tell him in front of the rest of his class that “dyslexia is no excuse for poor spelling” I am just grateful I had the choice.
-
Mez August 21, 2012
The most privileged private schools are institutions that have existed for over a century and a half. During that time they have been a second home to tens of thousands of boarding students and played a significant role in their childhood. For many of these people, their alma mater holds a special place in their hearts. They lived there for around six years of their lives. When these students grow up, they often donate to the school as a way of showing their gratitude and giving something back for future students. Over the decades there have been some who have died without family who choose to leave their entire estates, others might leave 50 bucks.
It may be hard for the blind to see that over the course of time the facilities build up. The question is not so much ‘why do these schools have so much,’ as ‘why don’t public schools generate the same loyalty from past students and families.’
There is a myth that these schools are populated by the privileged elite and that these children are sheltered from the real world. That is hardly the case. If anything, they are exposed to a larger than average cross-section of society.
You can have an Asian prince sitting next to the scholarship child from the outer suburbs, next to the child whose mum has just died, next to the Aboriginal child. The ethnic and economic mix a vast and differences are accepted and applauded.
I would like to know why private schools are the eternal target. Why aren’t the wealthy who avail themselves of public education not contributing something? I think you’ll find more BMWs and Merc outside Neutral Bay Public or Mosman High than you will at most of the top draw private schools.
Let the wealthy pay school fees too and then distribute the cash out to the schools in need.
-
Mez August 21, 2012
Meant to add that these schools have many students on the autism spectrum and many with learning difficulties. Their parents make great sacrifices to pay for the education and extra help that they can’t get in the public system. Most parents at these schools don’t travel overseas or buy rural retreats.
-
-
Alex August 21, 2012
Stop calling them private schools. They are not private if they are government-funded. In England and the US there is a private system and a public system. In Australia we have two public systems. One that takes children with parents who can top up the funding and one for children whose parents’ can’t.
-
Hawkesbury Lass August 21, 2012
Well put Alex! That’s a very fine point. It is time to level the playing field, in my view. All parents deserve choice in their children’s education, but what has happened in the last 15 years or so has been the loss of that choice. Public schools have lost the best and brightest, because their parents have decided private was the better choice, or because the wealthy private schools have poached the elite students through scholarships (and they are phenomenally aggressive at doing this). With those kids gone, state school numbers drop, reducing funding for facilities and programmes, and the remaining kids don’t get to rub shoulders with engaged learners, so end up in an environment that is intellectually poorer. Chuck in a few kids that no private school will take and you’ve got a problem.
The biggest factor in a child’s success at school is a home environment that values and encourages learning. Parents are our child’s first and most significant teachers. In the last 15 years, in our culture, we’ve seen the development of the idea that the only way parents can demonstrate they value learning is by breaking themselves financially to send their kid to a private school. Thing is, in very many cases, their wonderful kids were going to achieve anyway.
For me, I’d rather spend my money on taking my kid overseas occasionally, or working less so I can spend time with him and foster his learning by being with him, instead of working overtime to pay fees and buy an expensive blazer. And my extra energy can go into my school P&C, to support my community.
-
-
Pro Choice August 21, 2012
Yes they do Mez and Kath, you are so right, us vs them does not help any child in either system. Having been in the public system and the private system I know the difference that can make to a child who has a learning difficulty. Not all private schools are chosen because they have fabulous gardens and rowing clubs. We chose to move from public to private because the smaller classes meant a more individualised learning program. Many parents work hard and make sacrifices for thier children to attend a private school and the gold-leaf rubbish is just offensive and reverse snobbery. Smacks of tall poppy to me. All families have the right to choose the best school for thier child. If the private schools didnt exist then everyone would be in the public system and the over crowded classes etc would become worse. Any child struggling in the public system now would be even less likely to have the extra attention they need in a class that is even larger. Yes we ALL want our public schools to have more funding and for ALL children rich or poor to have access to a top class education but setting people up to the “us/them” mentality does nothing to achieve that.
-
Lynne August 21, 2012
I have put out the argument about providing opportunities to disadvantaged students several times in this post and the Facebook equivalent yet not one person defending Private Education has responded. I suspect no one is willing to take it up because there isn’t a fair and just response. There may be a place for private education but parents need to pay for it. It is the only way to have an equitable society – it really is…
-
Lynne August 21, 2012
I have put out the argument about providing opportunities to disadvantaged students several times in this post and the Facebook equivalent yet not one person defending Private Education has responded. I suspect no one is willing to take it up because there isn’t a fair and just response. There may be a place for private education but parents need to pay for it. It is the only way to have an equitable society – it really is…
-
Monica August 21, 2012
Jane what would happen if the private sector received no government funding? Would they attempt to raise their 5 figure fees to high five’s or even 6 figure fees and discover that too few would or even could pay it? And would that encourage them to keep their fees down? What would happen to what they offer? Genuine question by the way. Or what about making funding to private schools contingent on them opening up their considerable resources to local public schools? would that lower the bottom line for government?
-
Chelsea August 21, 2012
I hate to say it, but I question the education of some of the commenters here. They’ve swallowed it hook, line and sinker that these subsidies are better for state education because they make private school more accessible, etc. did you read the basic economics in Jane’s article?
I remember when th government ‘subsidised’ LPG tank installation (we were looking into it at the time). The subsidy was $1000. What do you know! Every supplier in that town lifted their price by $1000. So it made no difference to us, it just meant there was a bit of free money for the supplier. Sweet for them. Same for a number of independent schools.
The other thing is that I heard a principal from a small independent school on the radio talking about the funding mixes and models. The Howard reforms actually left them with very little assistance. A huge percentage went to the classic in-demand wealthy schools, small or large.
-
Mez August 22, 2012
Actually Chelsea, it’s you who has fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Jane’s article was a cleverly crafted manipulation that any advertising guru would be proud of.
-
-
Caroline B. August 22, 2012
@ Shouty Rachael – as I said “Tax $$$ should go where they’re needed, particularly to invest in lower socio-ec, remote communities & special needs sector.” So I am obviously not advocating stripping tax $$ from special needs kids – quite the opposite. Suggest you READ & CONSIDER what others are saying & then perhaps YOU CAN MAKE YOUR SHOUTING a bit BETTER INFORMED.
-
Steve August 22, 2012
Ah Jane
You and your supporters never stop with this “private schools are sucking on the government teat” stuff. Well my son goes to one of these private schools that you so love to hate. Looking at capital and recurrent funding per year, the government contributes $5,300 per student. At the local high school, our alternative education provider, the government contributes $11,400 per student. More than twice as much per student paid by the government .
I know who is sucking on the government teat Jane, it is people who send their kids to government schools. Worst are the people who can afford private schools but instead send their kids to government schools. Got to finance that O/S trip or new Plasma telly somehow. -
Jane Caro August 23, 2012
Gee, it’d be nice if some of the commentators here actually read the article rather than assuming they know what’s in it.
I have never used the term sucking on the govt teat. Ever.
I don’t mind if you attack me about what i do say. But claiming I’ve said something I haven’t and then putting me down for it is just weird. -
Lynne August 23, 2012
Still waiting for a response about how to support disadvantaged children! It has long been recognised that the way to break the poverty cycle is through education – why not offer ALL children the best education possible.
Saying that elite private schools deserve government funding is like saying that Gina Rinehart should receive Family Tax Benefit A because she pays taxes too & it is her ‘right’!
I’d also like to suggest that the difference between the support for public education vs private eduction is the difference between an ‘I’ mentality and a ‘we’ mentality. Maybe it’s pointless arguing on the technicalities because we will never see it the same philosphically…
Come on – where is the support for children who don’t choose the socio-economic circumstances they are born into?
-
julie August 23, 2012
I love and admire this Article…..would like tomtake and quote tomdinner parties!!!! the idea that this is a ‘cheap’ option for govts is a joke. private schools are not a viable option for most parents. if you think that, you are kidding youraelves. parents who say they both work hard to put their kids in private schools, great, I applaud you…..but the point is, you are still fortunate enough have that choice, many dont. people who bleat about private schools and how much they need funding, clearly have no concept how tough the public schools often have it. forget educational resources, just compare toilet facilities!!! Jane caro is right, govt funding has had no impact on soaring private school fees….this is nit ethically correct. any govts no1 priority needs to be govt schools, by their very nature, they are dependent on it!!!!!
-
linda August 26, 2012
Why sending your children to private schools and the government funding of them is unethical: their primary purpose is to privilege a certain group of children over the others, whoever they be; the fact that by and large the ‘others’ are the relatively less privileged merely reinforces the selfishness which underpins the claim that the community should contribute by means of their taxes to advantaging certain people’s children. The relative level of government funding of each group of children is irrelevant from the child’s point of view: if equal opportunity is the proper goal of education, and it would be hard to argue otherwise and still appear to be committed to any form of democracy, then no child should receive any financial advantage unless some there is some objectively defined need that warrants it. The parents’ desire to maintain or create a position of relative privilege for their child is not a need which justifies their child receiving government assistance to do so, no matter how hard the parents work to pay fees. (The implication that the rest of us are too lazy or uncaring to pay private school fees is simply offensive. Many of us believe that the best outcome for society and our children is free public education.)
What I find especially galling is the propagation of lies to justify the claim that the parents who choose to privilege their child should receive government support to do so. When the scare campaign to push middle class children into private schools began several decades ago I remember the local Catholic school telling parents that the government school at which I then taught was full of drugs, which was just not true. Yesterday I heard parents ringing talkback radio to say that government school teachers are less qualified than private school teachers: the qualifications are identical and I have known teachers move between systems depending on where the jobs are, I have a very good PhD in the VCE subject which I teach in a government school and I know other government school teachers with the same qualification. There are surely incompetent teachers in both systems, as in any profession, but I cannot imagine a more able and enthusiastic group of teachers than those in my present school.
The provision of extra teachers for children with special needs is a matter of government funding but it is citizen pressure that will alter that and it cannot be denied that money that at present is enabling small classes and what are essentially luxury items in private schools would be better spent on helping disadvantaged children and that the sort of funding that would be required is less likely to be provided the more middle class parents surrender to private school propaganda and scare campaigns. How wealthy schools that mount such campaigns against the provision of equal educational opportunities for all children, regardless of their parents’ concern for education or income can call themselves Christian is beyond me.
The main advantage private schools have is not the teachers, not even the resources, it is the ability to pick and choose who they will accept and to reject at any time a difficult student or one whose prospects would not help the school’s reputation. Years of teaching private school rejects in government schools have made it evident how their high VCE scores are achieved (a family member went to a well-known ‘academic’ girls’ school: at the end of Year 10 all girls whose work attitude was lacking were simply sent off to the local state secondary school).
When you send your child to a private school you are making it less likely that all children will receive the best possible education and you justify it by claiming that fairness to the individual taxpayer outweighs fairness to all Australian children. Whether their parents care or not, can afford to choose otherwise or not, all children should receive the best possible education and since money is a finite resource it should be spent where it is most needed not to reinforce the advantage of the already advantaged. -
Liz August 27, 2012
Here are the FACTS
One: public schools get more money per child than private schools.
Two: Most children that go to private schools have both parents working very hard to send them their.
Three: Parents that are working very hard to send their children to private schools are paying more than their fair share of taxes, so why shouldn’t their children get something back.
Four: Most of the funding for private schools comes from parents fees and hard work from parents raising money at fete’s etc etc.
Five: Parents at private schools have to pay their children’s fees or they have to leave.
Six: Public school fees are very low around $80.00 per year and many of these fees are not paid by the parents and nothing can be done about it because the children can still go to school.
Seven: If these small fees were paid by the parents (about $0.22 per day) and some fund raising their wouldn’t be such a big problem as there is.
Eight: Private school children don’t get given text books their parents have to buy them.
Nine: Private school children don’t get given laptops their parents have to buy them.
Ten: Many parents, myself included, who send their children to a private school were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth contrary to what some might believe, we work hard to give our children the best we can, how much more do people want to bleed us. -
linda August 29, 2012
Once fees are added to government funding private school children get more money spent on them per child: they do get less government funding but not less total money.
Most parents sending children to public schools are working very hard to support their families.
A substantial proportion of the funding for private schools comes from the government; public school parents work to provide extra funding for public schools via fetes and so forth: the amount they can provide varies according to the socio-economic status of the parents.
Public school parents’ taxes are going to support a system that is intended to privilege other people’s children over their own, often to a ludicrous extent e.g. the tea lady for the Year 12 boys’ common room.
All children in public schools are educated regardless of their parents’ capacity to pay fees: a point in their favour I would have thought.
Public school fees vary but are much lower than private school fees (see above).
Most public school parents pay fees but their children are not penalised if their parents are found wanting by the school,
e.g., Currently, teachers at my school have found accomodation and are donating, out of their own private resources, household supplies for three students who have no home of their own.
Public school students are not given text books; most are bought by the parents.
The free laptop program will not be extended beyond this year.
Most parents who send their children to public schools were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths and work very hard to give their children the best they can without conspiring in a system that disadvantages other children. -
Liz August 29, 2012
As before my facts stand, I cleaned toilets for a living and still managed but many won’t do work they think beyond them, this is why they are bringing people from overseas to take our jobs eg waitressing. It should not be counted that the fees parents pay are included in the $per child, how unfare, you take that into consideration and they take away more govt funding and our fees go up. Then parents that are struggling to pay these fees will not be able to keep their child in their school and they will have to go to a public. Therefore the funds would drop back for public (after whatever increase they received after taking away from private) because the amount of children that would have to drop back the govt couldn’t cope with. I know there are people that honestly struggle I now work in that industry, but I also work in an industry that see’s a lot of wasted govt funding in many other areas and these areas should be tackled so that school funding could be increased. As I said before we pay our fair share of taxes why shouldn’t our children get a (smaller) percentage than public. I know teachers that work in the public system and like any organization there is always wastage, they also say that their are many people in public that don’t pay their fees. I also know many people that’s children go to public, these people can afford private, this is their choice and I also know that some of them don’t pay their fees. In fact only last week their was a teacher from a public school on air (radio) saying how they have to beg the parents to pay but they don’t. Yes public schools need more funding there is no arguing that, but it shouldn’t come from private school funding. My children went to a private school and the school has two classes of disabled children their, it would be devastating for the school if funds were cut. Why did the govt give parents a hand out to help them with school, it should have just gone to the schools. There is so much wastage in other areas of govt funding and the govt should address this so they can give more funding to public schools, not take from other children. I only made reference to private school in my facts I did not say that public school parents don’t work, and would not my brothers children go to public, I think we all know people in both. My argument is not that public don’t need more funding my argument is that it should’nt come out of the already smaller govt funding from private, it should come from another source. I’m sure that if public schools had an increase in funds private school parents wouldn’t cry hush money.
-
linda August 29, 2012
I have to reply to Mez.
There are two reasons why large sums of money are not left to government schools:
1. Bequests to private schools are tax-deductible, bequests to government schools are not, an injustice that should be remedied immediately;
2. the relatively wealthy who go to private schools have large sums of money to leave to the place that helps maintain the socio-economic advantage.from which they, their children and children’s friends benefit.
My gratitude to the government school that made me the first of my family to attend university is expressed in my attempt to pass the same educational opportunities on to other disadvantaged children. -
Rhoda August 29, 2012
And so it goes on. Who is paying attention to the facts. Most private schools are not rich nor are they elitist. Please don’t tar all private schools with the same brush just to push a social agenda.
Speaking as one who knows a friend who sacrificed her entire income for several years in order to send her children to a boarding school when there was no other option, I can tell you now that this argument over public/private education is wasted on me until there are high schools in the remote outback that are fully funded and staffed. And no my friend is not a grazier – just one of the many workers on properties earning a minimum wage – none of whom get more than the minimum subsidy.
And it’s not only children in remote areas who would be disadvantaged by reduced funding to private schools but those with disabilities – as has already been pointed out.
Can the public system afford the resources for these children. Is it even advisable that these children be educated in the public system. How would teachers cope? Would they be given extra training? Would teachers pack up their households and move to the outback for extended periods?
While I fully support public education I take the view that governments are as good at providing education as they are at providing health and need some competition. What’s wrong with competition in a free and democratic society.
If public schools were good at educating children from all walks of life and with every sort of disability then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
-
Warren Bley January 17, 2013
Friends,
I just created a new petition and I hope you can sign — it’s called: End public funding of private schools
This issue is very important to me, and I’m trying to get to 100 signatures and could use your help.
Read more about it and sign it here:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/End_public_funding_of_private_schools/?Day2ShareCampaigns like this always start small, but they grow when people like us get involved — please take a second right now to help out by signing and passing it on.
Thanks so much,
