Originally written September 02, 2006

On page 22 of the weekend Australian is an article looking at givernment funding of public and private education. It claims that public schools cost about $10000 per student per year in 'recurrent' costs. The government subsidises private education by about $5595, which means that the government is actually saving about $4400 per student per year on private education.

The article suggests a voucher scheme that allows parents to send their students to public schools, or to offset the cost of a private education. This would mean that there would be no saving on private education, but the quality of education would be better and parents would have more choice as to what sort of school they sent their children to.

Many people oppose the idea of the government giving money to private schools, but it doesn't make any sense to withdraw this funding if it means they have to spend more money because parents have to pull their children out of private schools and send them to public schools. The article points out that private schools are not the sole domain of the 'wealthy elite.' 16 or 17% of private school students come from low income households, compared to 25% for public schools.

In funding private schools, should the government aim be to save as much money as possible, thus balancing the cost of the subsidy with the number of families that could (and would) afford to send their children to private schools, or should it aim to give the most choice to parents and give the same amount of funding to each student, private or public?

What about economies of scale? Pulling students from schools in rural areas and sending them to a private boarding school probably won't save much money for small rural schools. What's the difference between the marginal cost and the 'recurrent' cost mentioned in the article?

Do single sex and private schools produce maladjusted graduates? Does private education reduce social cohesion? When I was at uni there was an occasional reference to people as being from private or public schools, but usually as a reference to sport.

Private school enrolment jumped from 29% to 33% between 1995 and 2005 and should hit 35% by 2010, up to 40% for year 11 and 12 students.

In the US, the Bush admin is introducing a voucher scheme for poor students attending underperforming public schools. Parents in other US voucher schemes report higher levels of satisfaction with their children's academic program. There is also evidence that fear of losing students forces public schools to perform better. Private schools appear to instill more tolerance in students and the voucher schemes increase parental involvement.

---

Australian education 'on wrong track'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Australian-education-on-wrong-track/2006/09/22/1158431867655.html

Mr Saul, who will address a public education forum in Sydney on Friday, said Australia could return to a colonial-style education model, where the elite are buying social class as opposed to a better education, Fairfax reports.

"If you get a critical mass level of people in the private system, the public system starts not working for the simple reason that the elite are absent," he said.

Mr Saul said the self-interest involved in the pursuit of private education was undermining community interest.

"You end up with a situation where, in the United States, your child has a fantastic education but, on the other hand, you have a much less functional society for your child to live in," he said.

If people choose to send their children to an elite private school - it is their choice and why should the taxpayer prop up an already profitable business?   Do our elite private schools need that extra tennis court or rifle range?  At many public schools, there is no airconditioning and children have to share textbooks.  

As far as the federal government giving to public schools - this funding has been eroded severely over the years and as 70% of mainstream Australian kids still attend public schools - they are being shortchanged.


Quote:

Today, Julie Bishop said: Over the past 10 years there’s been record investment in schools and in universities and in vocational and technical education. What exactly is the Coalition’s record on education spending? In 1996 government expenditure for education was $10.757 billion, in 2005 it was $13.364 (we’ll forget about the woeful total to October 2006 aT $9.182 billion as it’s an incomplete year, and maybe schools got a Christmas present). Taking CPI into account, that is a rise of a mere 2.5%. But allowing for the increase in population of 0-19 year olds from 3.89 million to 4.1 million, it is a fall of 2.8%. Even more damning, is if you take into account just the CPI component for education (instead of petrol and bananas too). The spend is a fall of 19% before taking the population into account and a fall of a massive 23% if you do. Every child now gets the educational spending power in education that is 77% of what it was in 1996.

it is their choice and why should the taxpayer prop up an already profitable business?

Because it is in their interest to do so, if it saves money. If more people switch to private due to a subsidy, it could also improve public education. Everyone benefits.

At many public schools, there is no airconditioning and children have to share textbooks.  

Fair enough, I attended a public school in inland QLD with no air con. We dealt with it. But we never had to share textbooks.

Ban it! why should some snotty little rich kid have the advantage over the poor kid out west or the child of a factory worker?
That is what is causing the widening class division.

A rich child will always have advantages so long as we live in a capitalist society. The only way around that is socialism. Otherwise you end up taking away people's freedoms for no good reason. You disadvatage the rich child, but society as a whole does not benefit. It's just a destructive form of envy.

I am not a rich man and i have 3 daughters.I have one already enrolled in a private high school and when the other 2 are old enough they will be going there too.At the moment they attend a public primary school.
The cost of sending my oldest is $2,500,the next on gets a 20 percent discount and the third one gets a 50 percent discount.This is for school fees only.Then i have to fork out for uniforms and books.I dont receive any help from the government nor do i ask for any.
So at the moment i am paying about $70 per week for her education which i the great scheme of things is money well spent.I am happy to fork it out because of the quality of education she receives.The kids are there to learn without the problems and distractions that can affect their education at public schools in the area.
I am also a single dad and i put in quite a few hours at work thru the week so my kids can enjoy a good education.You dont have to have a lot of money to send your children to a private school but a bit of planning and dedication the their future goes a long way

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21739395-5006785,00.html

STUDENTS in disadvantaged suburbs are bypassing local government schools and travelling to schools in more affluent areas where they achieve higher results.
Twenty-five years after Victorian parents were given a choice in where to send their children, government high schools in middle-class areas are flourishing and schools in poorer suburbs of Melbourne are turning into ghettos.

Research by University of Melbourne associate professor of education Stephen Lamb, published today, finds students at bigger schools achieve better results in statewide tests.

The average score in the state general achievement test on general knowledge, literacy and numeracy skills is 59.4 per cent for students from poorer suburbs attending schools out of their area, compared with 50.5 per cent for those attending local schools.

---

Schemes like this in the US have seen soft drink manufacturers sponsoring schools in exchange for softdrink vending machines in the classroom.

Govt school sponsorship criticised

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govt-school-sponsorship-criticised/2007/06/06/1181089127892.html

The federal government has been accused of trying to shirk its school funding responsibilities after Education Minister Julie Bishop flagged corporate sponsorship of public schools.

---

ALP vows no private school funding cuts

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/ALP-vows-no-private-school-funding-cuts/2007/06/13/1181414342963.html

Federal opposition education spokesman Stephen Smith has again moved to quell fears a Labor government would strip funds from elite private schools.

The Independent Schools Council of Australia is concerned a Labor government would take account of income from private sources when determining funding, which could leave some schools worse off, The Australian reported.

Mr Smith said no schools would be worse off under a Labor government because current funding indexing arrangements would remain in place.

And Mr Smith renewed his criticism of former Labor leader Mark Latham's plan to reduce public funding to some wealthy private schools.

---

Business-sponsored schools plan floated

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Businesssponsored-schools-plan-floated/2007/06/21/1182019208845.html

Australia's education crisis will deepen unless England's system of business-sponsored schools is adopted to properly equip students for the workforce, an education expert says.

Professor Brian Caldwell, who made headlines last year when he said thousands of government-funded schools should be bulldozed because they were in disrepair, is now targeting public school curriculums, saying schools should take private sector funds to overhaul their teaching programs and specialise in specific teaching areas.

Prof Caldwell has championed a system in England where 2,700 of the 3,100 state secondary schools have partnerships with business entities to specialise in areas such as sport, engineering, business, technology and language.

Each school offers at least one of 11 specialisations, which may involve more than one business partnership, while continuing to offer a general school curriculum.

---

Labor wants to rank schools on scores

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Labor-wants-to-rank-schools-on-scores/2007/06/25/1182623772896.html

All states will be asked to rank their schools, so the performance of students in literacy and numeracy tests can be compared and assessed, if Labor wins the federal election.

Fairfax newspapers have reported that most state Labor governments oppose school ranking tables but opposition education spokesman Stephen Smith said the results of standardised tests in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 should be made public.

This would identify struggling schools, assist public policy decisions and identify the need for early intervention, Mr Smith said.

---

Nurture elitism, says US thinker

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22194712-601,00.html

CONTROVERSIAL American political scientist Charles Murray is urging Australians to ditch egalitarianism as a central tenet of the national culture and to recognise that the country's future is in the hands of the best and brightest.

Dr Murray will tell a forum in Sydney next week that the smartest young Australians are being short-changed by an education system that puts a child's emotional wellbeing ahead of learning.

"We're taking these bright kids and coddling the little darlings," Dr Murray told The Australian. "We placate them because we're a society which says nobody can be stupid, even if they are."

Dr Murray is best known for his book The Bell Curve, co-authored with Richard Herrnstein, which caused a storm by linking race and IQ.

"Australians talk about this tall-poppy syndrome without understanding where it comes from," he said. "It is based on the idea that we're all equal. Well, I've got news for you -- we're not all equal and the sooner we accept that, the better. There's nothing wrong with being elitist and we need to come to terms with that and embrace it."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Independent-schools-save-taxpayers-5b/2007/08/20/1187462118104.html

Students attending private schools save taxpayers $5 billion a year in building and running costs at government schools, according to a report funded by the independent school sector.

Findings of the report have led to claims independent schools should receive greater government funding.

The Australian newspaper reports non-government schools, comprising Catholic and independent schools, receive about 58 per cent of what is spent on government-run schools.

An analysis of the funding breakdown will be released by the Association of Independent Schools Victoria.

The analysis includes 2004-2005 figures showing $10,715 a year of taxpayer money is spent on educating a government school student, compared to $5559 for an independent school student, and $6246 on all non-government students.

---

Australia 'lagging on public education'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Australia-lagging-on-public-education/2007/09/18/1189881519527.html

Australia is spending less on public education than most other developed countries, new figures show.

A report released by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) finds Australia has among the lowest levels of public spending on schools, vocational education and universities combined, and trails only the US and Korea in private spending on education.

The federal government was spending 4.3 per cent of GDP on public education compared with an average among 30 developed nations of 5.0 per cent, it found.

Half of all spending on tertiary education in Australia was private money, the report said.

But when private money was taken into account, Australia spent slightly above the OECD average for total funding on schools, universities and vocational education.

---

HECS burden costing taxpayers

http://news.smh.com.au/hecs-burden-costing-taxpayers/20080115-1lzf.html

Costly problems have been revealed with the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) - but the government has no plans to significantly modify it.

Graduates from private colleges and universities are costing taxpayers more than those from public universities and student debts are out of control.

Past and present university students owe $14 billion in HECS debt, which is underwritten by the Commonwealth government, Fairfax reports.

HECS allows students to wait until they have reached an annual income of nearly $40,000 before paying off their degrees.

The architect of HECS, Bruce Chapman, has calculated that the taxpayer subsidy to privately educated graduates who deferred payment on their courses is 18 to 28 per cent on average.

It is less than five per cent for public university graduates paying off HECS debts.

Professor Chapman told Fairfax that because education loans were interest-free, the taxpayer was effectively subsidising the students, and those privately educated students who paid a premium for their courses were costing more in foregone interest than their public peers.

---

Public school teachers slam funding plan

http://news.smh.com.au/public-school-teachers-slam-funding-plan/20080125-1o4z.html

Public sector teachers say a new report reveals private schools are receiving a disproportionate share of federal government education funding.

"Funding levels for private schools are indexed to the cost of educating children in public schools.

"Because public schools enrol approximately 90 per cent of students with disabilities, Aboriginal students and those from isolated and remote settings, the average cost of this public education provision is higher than in private schools."

That left public schools severely disadvantaged, he said.

"Obviously we have that data for the private sector (but) we don't have all of that information for state schools.

---

Private schools 'over-funded by $2b'

http://news.smh.com.au/private-schools-overfunded-by-2b/20080209-1r6j.html

Private schools have been over-funded by more than $2 billion over four years and some will be overpaid by as much as $23 million each in the next funding cycle, a report by the federal Education Department reveals.

The report, leaked to Fairfax newspapers, criticises arrangements that entrench "inequities" in the distribution of funding to Catholic and independent schools for "purely historical" reasons.

If allowed to continue, private schools will get up to $2.7 billion more than they are strictly entitled to under the next four-year funding agreement, starting next year.

There’s an argument that’s often made that sending your child to a private school saves taxpayer money – I didn’t get it. It sounds like you are being taxed at a higher rate for sending the child/ren to a private school when you take private school fees into account.

Outside the curriculum private schools shouldn’t receive any public monies.

There is also usually a voucher system proposal in this debate.

Its a voucher worth $x so you can choose to go to either a public or private school.

Or alternatively the government funding private schools beyond the curriculum.

But doesn’t this make both schools public defeating the point of a private enterprise system? Thus making all schools public.

Before continuing I must say I still agree with the intent of that. However I have finally understood how sending a child to a private school saves the taxpayer money because it is a lesser burden on the public school system on having to support that child so in theory allows more money to spent on public school education as the parent is still effectively paying for both school systems, one via tax and the other via choice.

My problem with this is it is unlikely ever to be the child or children’s parents intent to alleviate the burden on the public school system. Even if a few do have that intent, it is unlikely that a large number of them share that intent.

I can support the result of a parent to send to their children to a private school but not their perceived intent.

As a result oriented individual I have no choice but to accept that Private Education when applied properly is a good thing.

I voted for whatever saves the government the most money.


mantra wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2007 at 7:05pm:

If people choose to send their children to an elite private school - it is their choice and why should the taxpayer prop up an already profitable business?   Do our elite private schools need that extra tennis court or rifle range?  At many public schools, there is no airconditioning and children have to share textbooks.

If you read the article, you would see that taxpayers save money by subsidising private schools. Also, it is not an already profitable business for most private schools. According to the article, each student at a private school would have to pay more than $10000 a year in order for the business to be profitable, but it is only the elite schools if any, who would charge that much let alone more.

I went to a public school and we had two tennis courts, air conditioning in nearly all classrooms and we never had to share textbooks (I wish we did though, so then I wouldn't have had to lug them to school everyday).

Quote:

But doesn’t this make both schools public defeating the point of a private enterprise system? Thus making all schools public.

It depends what the purpose is. The goal of education is not the same as that of most industries subjected to the whims of supply and demand. Subsidies can still achieve the goal of saving the taxpayer money, which is the opposite of their usual impact, but then again most subsidised goods are not competing with goods that are given away for free by the government. Subsidising it does not mean that the school is identical. It can still have higher standards, both academically and on the sporting field.


Quote:

My problem with this is it is unlikely ever to be the child or children’s parents intent to alleviate the burden on the public school system.

Does that matter? Our whole economy is based on people acting out of self interest in a way that also benefits the community as a whole. You seem to concede that it doesn't matter.

There is another aspect to this. As things get tough (recession etc), less parents will be able to afford private schooling, causing a burden to the public system. If we lift the subsidies, that would have an even worse outcome in terms of overloading.

By maintaining the same rate of subsidy on private education, it's also going to benefit public education for the above reason.

From that perspective, you could argue that subsidising it at a level that maintained equitable loading on both systems was the best place to be.

Also, the cost of building more public schools has got to be higher than diverting some students to the private system.

mantra wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2007 at 7:05pm:

If people choose to send their children to an elite private school - it is their choice and why should the taxpayer prop up an already profitable business?

Well if you want to have John Howard's  liberal North Shore elite to be in charge then you have to pay for it.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2009 at 7:19pm:

Quote: But doesn’t this make both schools public defeating the point of a private enterprise system? Thus making all schools public. It depends what the purpose is. The goal of education is not the same as that of most industries subjected to the whims of supply and demand. Subsidies can still achieve the goal of saving the taxpayer money, which is the opposite of their usual impact, but then again most subsidised goods are not competing with goods that are given away for free by the government. Subsidising it does not mean that the school is identical. It can still have higher standards, both academically and on the sporting field.

Why bother having private schools at all then?


Quote:

[quote]My problem with this is it is unlikely ever to be the child or children’s parents intent to alleviate the burden on the public school system.

Does that matter? Our whole economy is based on people acting out of self interest in a way that also benefits the community as a whole. You seem to concede that it doesn't matter.[/quote]

Is that what our whole economy is based on?  Is that opinion or fact?

Where do I conceded that it doesn't matter?

Quote:

Why bother having private schools at all then?

To give people more choice. To give children a better education. To save money.


Quote:

Is that what our whole economy is based on?  Is that opinion or fact?

In my opinion it is a fact. That's how capitalism works.


Quote:

Where do I conceded that it doesn't matter?

As a result oriented individual I have no choice but to accept that Private Education when applied properly is a good thing.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

x

freediver wrote on Dec 27^th, 2009 at 1:12pm:

Quote: Why bother having private schools at all then? To give people more choice. To give children a better education. To save money. [quote]Is that what our whole economy is based on?  Is that opinion or fact?

In my opinion it is a fact. That's how capitalism works.


Quote:

Where do I conceded that it doesn't matter?

As a result oriented individual I have no choice but to accept that Private Education when applied properly is a good thing. [/quote]

You seem to be ignoring the caveats I applied to reach that conclusion.

Working backwards, responding to your comments:

In your opinion, it is a fact is obfuscation.   Some people in the economy act in self interest, others do not.  Some do this all the time, some do not.  So therefore the economy is not solely based on people acting in their self interest.

Whilst Private schools exist I agree there is a choice but there are plenty of public schools to choose from to so there is still a choice.  It may save the States money sending their children to a private school but it does not save those sending their children money.  I've all ready stated that much in my initial post.  The fact that it is a private school, it is operating in the capitalist economy to apply your definition, so if it cannot attract enough capital to operate on its own merit, it should fail as the market directs.

Therefore the subsidy to a private school is a distortion to the capital market but in recognising that education is a public good I supported the subsidy for the curriculum.  There's that caveat I was talking about.

If it cannot survive in other ways by attracting the necessary capital that is the fault of the private operators.  Subsidies for those areas make it a public school thus defeating the purpose of it being a private school.

Quote:

It may save the States money sending their children to a private school but it does not save those sending their children money.

But they still choose to do it. Giving them this choice is a good thing. Do you think it represents a 'waste' of money for them, and they should buy siome more plasma TVs instead?


Quote:

The fact that it is a private school, it is operating in the capitalist economy to apply your definition, so if it cannot attract enough capital to operate on its own merit, it should fail as the market directs.

You've got that backwards. Private schools would make a furtune if education was left in private hands. The reason it cannot 'compete' is that the government provides a competing service for free, then makes those most likely to choose a private school pay far more than their fair share to support that free service, without giving them a choice. In other words, it is not operating in a capitalist economy. It is operating in parallel to a socialised one. You cannot apply two different standards to the competing systems. Hence my suggestion of a subsidy at least as high as is necessary to minimise government expenditure.


Quote:

Therefore the subsidy to a private school is a distortion to the capital market

So is public education, but you are not demanding we get rid of that. Perhaps because you sift the goal posts?


Quote:

but in recognising that education is a public good I supported the subsidy for the curriculum

I see. The fact that education is a public good makes no distinction between public and private education. Nor do I see any way that it can guide on the choice of whether to subsidise private schools.


Quote:

If it cannot survive in other ways by attracting the necessary capital that is the fault of the private operators.

No Sennex. In economic terms it is the fault of the government in providing a 100% subsidy to its competitors.


Quote:

Subsidies for those areas make it a public school thus defeating the purpose of it being a private school.

You still haven't defined that purpose, or explained how it is defeated. Unless you are suggesting that market based capitalism in competition with a 100% government subsidy is the purpose of private schooling. Is that what you think the purpose is? If so, the purpose would be defeated by a subsidy.

Please stop moving my posts FD, just because you disagree with my points, does not make them off topic, and the mere fact that I mentioned the religious component of private schools does not make it off topic.
The posts also spoke of alternative public systems, and was absolutely on topic.
Are we to assume you want to moderate a topic to steer it so it goes only  in the direction you want it to go, when all aspects of private vs public schooling are worth considering?

That just seems like egotistical control issues.

Quote:

That just seems like egotistical control issues.

No way!  FD  would never abuse his Admin power........never!

Duh.

;D

Mozz, I am happy to discuss both public vs private education, and religious vs secular education. I see no need to make both threads about the same topic, nor do I understand your confusion about it. If I did a poor job in separating the two topics, you are more than welcome to repost your comments about private education in this thread. I would have done it earlier, but I had great difficulty in finding the other thread.

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 1:00pm:

But they still choose to do it. Giving them this choice is a good thing. Do you think it represents a 'waste' of money for them, and they should buy siome more plasma TVs instead?

What does that have to do with the topic.  You're shifting the goal posts of the topic.  I don't deny those that choose to do it.  I oppose the subsidy as it stands for private schools but I am not completely against a subsidy.  See caveats above.



Quote:

You've got that backwards. Private schools would make a furtune if education was left in private hands. The reason it cannot 'compete' is that the government provides a competing service for free, then makes those most likely to choose a private school pay far more than their fair share to support that free service, without giving them a choice. In other words, it is not operating in a capitalist economy. It is operating in parallel to a socialised one. You cannot apply two different standards to the competing systems. Hence my suggestion of a subsidy at least as high as is necessary to minimise government expenditure.

If all schools operated on a private enterprise basis there would be fewer educated people.  You can apply two different standards as one is public and one is private.  Public schools have a certain level of standard expected of them and a Private school has a higher standard (or so it is believed by most).



Quote:

So is public education, but you are not demanding we get rid of that. Perhaps because you sift the goal posts?

LOL.  That's funny.  To answer the question, no.  As I've stated education is a public good, so it makes sense for the public (govt if u like) to run it.

If private operators wish to also enter the market, they may on their own merits with the sole exception being the curriculum.  Thus if they cannot provide the necessary capital or compete with others in the private market (given the funds they receive from their investors) then they should fail as the market dictates.

You could raise the States argument again and say they're publicly funded but even those funds are not a bottomless pit as States are revenue constrained.  Also they need to recognise on startup they will competing against a public sector.


Quote:

I see. The fact that education is a public good makes no distinction between public and private education. Nor do I see any way that it can guide on the choice of whether to subsidise private schools.

See my statement above.  At no point have I proposed to remove wholesale subsidies from private schools.


Quote:

[quote]If it cannot survive in other ways by attracting the necessary capital that is the fault of the private operators.

No Sennex. In economic terms it is the fault of the government in providing a 100% subsidy to its competitors.[/quote]

See my remark above about funding.


Quote:

[quote]Subsidies for those areas make it a public school thus defeating the purpose of it being a private school.

You still haven't defined that purpose, or explained how it is defeated. Unless you are suggesting that market based capitalism in competition with a 100% government subsidy is the purpose of private schooling. Is that what you think the purpose is? If so, the purpose would be defeated by a subsidy.[/quote]

Private Enterprise.  Once again see the remark above about funding.


Quote:

I would have done it earlier, but I had great difficulty in finding the other thread.

Brief Tangent: I'm not real happy with the search feature on the forum either, it makes finding past threads and posts quite difficult but I'm doubtful that anything can be done about it.

Quote:

What does that have to do with the topic.  You're shifting the goal posts of the topic.

You shifted the goal posts by complaining that it does not save the parents money. Obviosuly the parents think they are better off having the choice, even if it does cost them more. It would not make sense to deny them the choice to save them money.


Quote:

If all schools operated on a private enterprise basis there would be fewer educated people.  You can apply two different standards as one is public and one is private.

Again, shifting the goal posts. It doesn;t make sense to apply the two different standards.


Quote:

Thus if they cannot provide the necessary capital or compete with others in the private market (given the funds they receive from their investors) then they should fail as the market dictates.

But they are not just competing with the private market. Their major competitor is the free education.


Quote:

You could raise the States argument again and say they're publicly funded but even those funds are not a bottomless pit as States are revenue constrained.  Also they need to recognise on startup they will competing against a public sector.

Duh. I think they will realise that. You are the one who seems oblivious to revenue constraints of the state. You are the one arguing for shifting goal posts, even if it means a greater burden on state coffers. You are the one calling for free market capitalism despite the fact that it is not a free market. You would have the state undermine private schools by giving a 100% subsidy to their competitors and expecting them to compete on a 'free' market basis, the outcome of which will only be that it costs the state money. Free market capitalism is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. When it doesn;t achieve that end it makes no sense to apply it.


Quote:

I oppose the subsidy as it stands for private schools but I am not completely against a subsidy.  See caveats above.

Your 'caveats' are vague and meaningless.


Quote:

Brief Tangent: I'm not real happy with the search feature on the forum either, it makes finding past threads and posts quite difficult but I'm doubtful that anything can be done about it.

There are two different ways to do a search, one with many options.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2010 at 9:20am:

You shifted the goal posts by complaining that it does not save the parents money. Obviosuly the parents think they are better off having the choice, even if it does cost them more. It would not make sense to deny them the choice to save them money.

Which specific remark are you referring to?  I think you may have misunderstood the point.  I am happy to address it.


Quote:

[quote]If all schools operated on a private enterprise basis there would be fewer educated people.  You can apply two different standards as one is public and one is private.

Again, shifting the goal posts. It doesn;t make sense to apply the two different standards.[/quote]

The topic is about public vs. private education and I've addressed the subsidy issue as well as the result.  How is that shifting the goal posts?


Quote:

Thus if they cannot provide the necessary capital or compete with others in the private market (given the funds they receive from their investors) then they should fail as the market dictates.

But they are not just competing with the private market. Their major competitor is the free education.


Quote:

[quote]You could raise the States argument again and say they're publicly funded but even those funds are not a bottomless pit as States are revenue constrained.  Also they need to recognise on startup they will competing against a public sector.

Duh. I think they will realise that. You are the one who seems oblivious to revenue constraints of the state. You are the one arguing for shifting goal posts, even if it means a greater burden on state coffers. You are the one calling for free market capitalism despite the fact that it is not a free market. You would have the state undermine private schools by giving a 100% subsidy to their competitors and expecting them to compete on a 'free' market basis, the outcome of which will only be that it costs the state money. Free market capitalism is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. When it doesn;t achieve that end it makes no sense to apply it.[/quote]

I've attempted to use your definition of free market capitalism, the way you initially described it would not be the way I would have.  A Private school should fail just as a private company would.  Nothing ordained as the 'free' market is the free market because there are often interventions.  There is no 100% subsidy to a public school against the private school.  It makes sense for a public school to be funded publicly.  It makes no sense for a private school to be publicly funded beyond the curriculum.  There's that caveat again, I don't see how that is vague or meaningless at all.


Quote:

[quote]Brief Tangent: I'm not real happy with the search feature on the forum either, it makes finding past threads and posts quite difficult but I'm doubtful that anything can be done about it.

There are two different ways to do a search, one with many options.[/quote]

It is cumbersome and not always effective.  This is not a slight on you or your site just my findings.

Private education extends to colleges and to at least one private university.

Thanks Shark.


Quote:

It makes sense for a public school to be funded publicly.  It makes no sense for a private school to be publicly funded beyond the curriculum.

How and why does it make sense? Because the names would be proper?

What do you mean by 'beyond the curriculum'?

Shark1975 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2010 at 11:15am:

Private education extends to colleges and to at least one private university.

I concede that private education extends to at least one private university.

With regards to colleges, it depends how you define a college and what you consider a college and there are so many varying definitions.  Some publicly funded primary and early high schools are called colleges.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2010 at 2:06pm:

Thanks Shark. Quote: It makes sense for a public school to be funded publicly.  It makes no sense for a private school to be publicly funded beyond the curriculum. How and why does it make sense? Because the names would be proper? What do you mean by 'beyond the curriculum'?

Because one is public and one is private.  I do not understand what you do not get by that.

By "beyond the curriculum", I mean the essentials of education and any extras that is endorsed by the State.

After all the essentials would just lead us to the three Rs but not so much 'rithmetic anymore sadly but then you have your PE and what I would broadly call social studies.

So in short the curriculum endorsed by the State that the school is hosted in.  If they want a private swimming pool, it is funded by capital raised by private enterprise.  If they want to teach something not in the endorsed State curriculum, thats fine but its funded by capital raised by private enterprise.

Quote:

Because one is public and one is private.  I do not understand what you do not get by that.

So if they gave them a different label you wouldn't have any problems with the funding arrangements? How about government controlled and independent?


Quote:

After all the essentials would just lead us to the three Rs but not so much 'rithmetic anymore sadly but then you have your PE and what I would broadly call social studies.

What about art?

It is really quite simple, the divide between what public and private schools provide is just too great, and the simple fact is that people will always pay a premium for getting what they believe to be better quality.

Education is a basic service that all the community needs access to, and the quality of service provided has lifelong benefits/consequences for the whole society, and if anything in the world should be run by our governments, it certainly should be education.

The whole argument about "choice" works from the premise of a two tier system, with one superior, and one inferior, and while this indeed is the case at present, there is no reason why it should remain that way.
Protecting the status quo is OK if no better options are available, but we do have the option of improving the public education system to bring it up to absolute world best standard, and this seems to me what we really should be striving for.

Sure we can seek to entrench the divide between the haves and have nots, and see individuals handicapped by the economic constraints of their social position, or we can seek to provide a system which offers all kids the chance to be the absolute best they can be, by providing an education system that allows them to fully realise the potential they are born with, irrespective of whether dad is the gardener or the CEO of a huge corporation.

Some will think of such an ideal as being too socialist, or even as a lowering of standard for the most elite, but I disagree, I believe it is within our abilities to provide our kids with a first class education through a full public school system, and all the extra curricular activities that certain people desire for their kids would be just that, "Extra" curricular, and I don't think anybody would have any problem with that.

You'll never get a situation where public schools come up to the standard of private schools. It comes down to the salaries paid to attract good principals and teachers. The better teachers will gravitate to the better paid positions ...usually. *

It's like the jokes about average. Paraphrased and adapted- It always amazes me how lousy the average teacher is.....but then I start to realise that 50% of teachers are even worse than that.  ;D  Seriously if you're going to lift the bar on schooling, first you're going to have to improve the average standard of teachers. Now that's not easy. You could sack half of them, but that would just create an even bigger shortage of teachers.

The current system is not ideal, but then school is not the be all and end all in life. Plenty of people who left school at an early age have gone on to become millionaires and run extremely successful businesses. It comes down to individual determination.

Gifted kids in public schooling have a reasonably good chance of succeeding via the public school system. They might get some rough treatment from other kids sometimes, or be subjected to peer pressure, but these things will actually help them cope much better with pressures when they leave school.

Someone’s said to me that private schools are for rich and stupid and public schools are for poor and smart.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2010 at 9:25pm:

Quote: Because one is public and one is private.  I do not understand what you do not get by that. So if they gave them a different label you wouldn't have any problems with the funding arrangements? How about government controlled and independent?

Yes I would.  I don't accept any of the government controlled, government owned labels, that's attempting to call the government a private company.  If it is 'government controlled' it is controlled by the public (you know those ppl that elect governments).  The Independent label is used for private schools all the time there is no difference.

I've said it many times if the schools can't afford to stay alive, with the funding they receive from private investors than it is not a viable school.  The school itself chose to be in the private market.  You acknowledged they'd be aware they'd be up against the public sector, so they were aware of the risks.  Not all private or independent schools will fail but some will.  That's the free market. (And now we'll go around in circles but the other school is 100% subsidised, yes, & the non-public school was aware of this before they began)


Quote:

After all the essentials would just lead us to the three Rs but not so much 'rithmetic anymore sadly but then you have your PE and what I would broadly call social studies. What about art?

I would argue that art can fit into social studies once you get into the social commentary pieces of art are meant to represent.

muso wrote on Jan 7^th, 2010 at 8:19am:

You'll never get a situation where public schools come up to the standard of private schools. It comes down to the salaries paid to attract good principals and teachers. The better teachers will gravitate to the better paid positions ...usually. *

I note the caveat of 'usually' but that is still debatable whether private schools are a higher standard, and each case would truly have to be judged on its merit.  I accept that is what is usually considered the case but that does not make it so.


Quote:

It's like the jokes about average. Paraphrased and adapted- It always amazes me how lousy the average teacher is.....but then I start to realise that 50% of teachers are even worse than that.  ;D  Seriously if you're going to lift the bar on schooling, first you're going to have to improve the average standard of teachers. Now that's not easy. You could sack half of them, but that would just create an even bigger shortage of teachers.

Some parents expect teachers to be parents, that is not what they are there for.  It depends upon the parenting of the child in the school on how good a teacher is or isn't.  It is not the role of the teacher to parent though they are often forced into this situation.


Quote:

The current system is not ideal, but then school is not the be all and end all in life. Plenty of people who left school at an early age have gone on to become millionaires and run extremely successful businesses. It comes down to individual determination.

Agreed the current system is not ideal or the be all and end all.  There are other forms of education beyond formal schooling but having the knowledge or being educated enough to understand that has to come first, even before an individual's determination.


Quote:

Gifted kids in public schooling have a reasonably good chance of succeeding via the public school system. They might get some rough treatment from other kids sometimes, or be subjected to peer pressure, but these things will actually help them cope much better with pressures when they leave school.

Or suffer a long life mental illness if not handled appropriately.

Quote:

The whole argument about "choice" works from the premise of a two tier system, with one superior, and one inferior, and while this indeed is the case at present, there is no reason why it should remain that way.

Yes there is. Quite simply, the government cannot afford 'the best' education for everyone. In this entire debate I do not think you have once addressed the issue of relaistic constraints on spending. Do you perhaps think that cost is not a factor in quality? Furthermore, private education is not a barrier to better public education. It improves it. It's all well and good to demand better public education, but so far your only solution would make it worse.

Quote:

Some will think of such an ideal as being too socialist, or even as a lowering of standard for the most elite, but I disagree, I believe it is within our abilities to provide our kids with a first class education through a full public school system

So you don;t think cost is an issue? Or maybe you think money grows on trees?


Quote:

Someone’s said to me that privet schools are for rich and stupid and public schools are for poor and smart.

Let me guess - they went to a public school?

Senexx:


Quote:

Yes I would.  I don't accept any of the government controlled, government owned labels, that's attempting to call the government a private company.

No it isn't. Your whole argument seems to boil down to labels that the two different schools must adhere to dogmatically regardless of the reality of the situation.


Quote:

The school itself chose to be in the private market.

I think you'll find it also chose to accept public funding. Therefor it chose not to be in a private market, but in a broader education system that strives to achieve a good education, rather than adherence to labels.


Quote:

You acknowledged they'd be aware they'd be up against the public sector, so they were aware of the risks.  Not all private or independent schools will fail but some will.  That's the free market. (And now we'll go around in circles but the other school is 100% subsidised, yes, & the non-public school was aware of this before they began)

Yours is the argument that circles on itself. Other than the labels 'public' and 'private' you have not come up with a rational supporting argument. You merely argue that they should or should not get funding based on whether they recieve funding, but that is what makes them public or private. When people who know what they are talking about say that private companies should not get subsidies there is usually a sound economic rational for that argument. But that argument does not apply here. That is what I was trying to explain to you when you started seeing circles.


Quote:

I would argue that art can fit into social studies once you get into the social commentary pieces of art are meant to represent.

So only art that has social commentary should be included?

People put far too much emphasis on education and what it provides in general. It's been well shown-- repeatedly-- that when education pushes a person beyond their own potential the gains involved essentially vanish as to become non-existent once you take that person out of their educational environment. The gaps between public and private schools are not made manifest by what the systems provide, but the types of children parents are providing for the systems. As awful as our public schools are (and no, my objections are not because every little s hit doesn't have a fancy new 3 gig RAM laptop on their desk or whatever), you will find, amazingly enough, that if you replaced all of them with schools equivalent in quality to the best of our private schools, the differences would in the long run be absolutely negligble.

This post is probably off-topic but I don't care.

Thanks imperium. I've been waiting for someone to make that argument.

Can you back up your claims?

Senexx wrote on Jan 7^th, 2010 at 11:12am:

Some parents expect teachers to be parents, that is not what they are there for.  It depends upon the parenting of the child in the school on how good a teacher is or isn't.  It is not the role of the teacher to parent though they are often forced into this situation.

I think you're reducing the concept of a good teacher to one variable. A good teacher will be an inspiration. A good teacher is one who believes in teaching and actually wants to be there. It's not just about 'parenting', although role model does come into it.  I remember an English teacher who was definitely in that category. I met up with him recently, even after so many years, because he shone like a beacon over some of the others. He is still memorable even today.

- and I've experienced plenty of bad teachers.

I appreciate the arguments about better teachers, but it is somewhat circular, as a better system will attract better people.

As far as the cost of providing the best possible education we can, I do not believe it necessarily means to copy all the more expensive indulgences of the top private schools, because frills and frippery designed to impress the parents, and to help them rationalise why hey should pay so exorbitantly for education, are not necessary, or even beneficial in a lot of cases. The ideal model would absolutely not be to merely copy the top private schools, but rather to institute a totally new system, with a totally new curriculum, with a wholistic approach to education which equips children to be well rounded and positive citizens in a more productive society.

The point is, that no matter what the cost, it is an investment in our future, and our society that we should be prepared to make.

The system does not require tinkering around the edges, or a shift in financial support a few percent one way or another, it requires being built fresh, from the ground up, and doing that would benefit us all by seeing better social cohesion, and better productivity, as well as happier individuals, and a lot less youth suicide as well I would expect.

Not the "Education Revolution" that our disingenuous PM promised us, but an actual education revolution is what I would love to see for our kids.

So you want to deny people the opportunity to provide a better education for their chuildren, while bankrupting the country with some "whatever the cost" revolution?

Don't you think cost should come into it? It's all well and good to want the best for every child, but surely a reality check will be needed at some stage.

For some people, cost really is no issue. But to imnpose that same standard on the entire country is ludicrous.

So you want to deny people the opportunity to provide a better education for their chuildren, while bankrupting the country with some "whatever the cost" revolution?


Yes, obviously I want to bankrupt the country, I also want to kiss your dog and kick your wife.

I already posted about the Finnish school system as being one worthy of emulating, has Finland been bankrupted by having a better education system, or has it paid off with greater productivity, participation, and not least important, happier kids.

In fact the system you wish to see preserved is far more likely to bankrupt us than if we change now to a better and more progressive education system.

The US has gone down the path of investing more into public schools, with better teacher ratios and services for students, but the payoff for this 75% increase in spending has seen virtually no increase in results of the students.

Now we are much better off than the US, and we do have pretty high quality education in most private schools, and some public schools, but the area we really fall down is the widening gap between the standards for kids from different socio-economic groups, and the attitudes of those who wish to see the staus quo enshrined, either ignore, or do not care about that critical factor.

So, we can continue to have private schools, and parents can pay for their kids to go to them, so long as they follow prescribed curriculum guidelines, but we need to direct all government money into reforming the state school system and make it one we can be proud of, it would be an investment that would pay dividends for generations to come.

How much does the Finnish system cost?


Quote:

It's been well shown-- repeatedly-- that when education pushes a person beyond their own potential the gains involved essentially vanish

How do you measure a person's potential?

I'm surprised teachers have time to teach these days when they're expected to solve all the world's problems. Whenever something goes wrong in society the first thing the masses say is "Why aren't kids being taught about this at school?" when they real question should be "Why don't you parents get off your bloody arse and parent?!". If you want teachers to educate your kids, give them the breathing space they need to do it. That goes for public and private.

Hello Megalodon, and welcome to the forum, I hope you enjoy engaging in something infuriating, amusing, and occasionally interesting, when it comes to seeing just how diverse a range of opinions we humans can attach ourselves to.

The usual form we go for here is to boldly state an ill considered opinion, then google like crazy to try and find evidence to validate our prejudices, lol.

I have been doing just that myself, in search of the figures for Finland's expenditure on education, to answer Freediver's assertion that only our current two tiered education system is a viable economic option for our country.

SO FD, here are some figures pertinent to our argument, but bear in mind that the figures alone do not tell the whole tale, for what is provided, and how it is provided, is also of the utmost importance in this matter of our childrens' education.

(All amounts are in US dollars, as they are obtained from an international report on education in the OECD from 2008)
So the OECD average for public expenditure on education, is just over 13%
(that is the percentage of the total government expenditure across all areas of public spending)
and Finland comes in just a little below that with 12.5% of it's budget devoted to education, of which the Tertiary level uses the most, by a significant margin.

Now for our purposes, we need to know the broad public costs for a child's education, and the figures supplied in the report I read are that the OECD average total cost, for the period of the ten years from 6 to 15 years old is, USD67,895.
Finland has a lower spend rate than the OECD average, and they spend, USD64,363 per child for the same period.

The breakdown for per child spending in each area in Finland is as follows;
Primary spending is USD5,557,
Secondary spending is, USD7,324,
both of which are a little below the OECD average.

Here is the link to the report I have obtained these figures from.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/46/41277828.pdf

If you read it you will see that they do not place total importance on spending costs alone, education has so many variable influences that no single indicator will give a true picture of the quality of education supplied, and I am certainly not an expert in the field of education, but I do believe that we are going down the wrong path as a society, with the system we have now, and would certainly welcome suggestions on how we could improve the education system so that all kids get the best possible start in life that we can provide for them.

Personally, I believe that concentrating our efforts into providing absolutely top class Public Education is the way we should go, and if that means we direct our public expenditure solely into public education systems, to acheive that goal, then I think that is what we should do.

Megalodon wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 8:20pm:

I'm surprised teachers have time to teach these days when they're expected to solve all the world's problems. Whenever something goes wrong in society the first thing the masses say is "Why aren't kids being taught about this at school?" when they real question should be "Why don't you parents get off your bloody arse and parent?!". If you want teachers to educate your kids, give them the breathing space they need to do it. That goes for public and private.

A sentiment brilliantly and lyrically expressed by the great Frank McCourt in his last memoir, 'Teacher Man'.

I would put more emphasis on student’s dedication to obtain education.

If not very bright kid tries very hard should be allowed to study, on the other hand kid that is disruptive and doesn’t try at all should be given back to parents as there should be no room in school for somebody who doesn’t make any effort.

Quite simple.

You don’t need the best teacher to learn as you can learn a lot of stuff from books, now even computer programs, Internet.
Of course fantastic teacher will make big difference, but uninterested student will not benefit if is bent on not trying.

As some say: we don’t need too many chiefs.

Those who realise later that should have study when they were young, there is plenty opportunity at their own time, but there is always best time to be educated and later in life isn’t one of them.

Mozz, you criticise our system for being two tiered. Isn't it the Finnish system that is two tiered?

Happy wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 4:37pm:

I would put more emphasis on student’s dedication to obtain education. If not very bright kid tries very hard should be allowed to study, on the other hand kid that is disruptive and doesn’t try at all should be given back to parents as there should be no room in school for somebody who doesn’t make any effort. Quite simple. You don’t need the best teacher to learn as you can learn a lot of stuff from books, now even computer programs, Internet. Of course fantastic teacher will make big difference, but uninterested student will not benefit if is bent on not trying. As some say: we don’t need too many chiefs. Those who realise later that should have study when they were young, there is plenty opportunity at their own time, but there is always best time to be educated and later in life isn’t one of them.

I couldn't agree more. If somebody wants to learn, they should be given every opportunity.

On the question of the cost of education that others are talking about, the factor that should come into play is the cost benefit analysis.

If we find that society benefits in the long term through increased investment in education, it must be possible to measure the tangible benefit in some way and thus justify the expenditure.    

I don't think we do enough of that in Australia. My impressions are that the government tends to be less concerned with a rational approach than an approach of oiling the squeaky wheels in order to stay in power.

Any thoughts?

muso wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 10:04am:

Happy wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 4:37pm: I would put more emphasis on student’s dedication to obtain education. If not very bright kid tries very hard should be allowed to study, on the other hand kid that is disruptive and doesn’t try at all should be given back to parents as there should be no room in school for somebody who doesn’t make any effort. Quite simple. You don’t need the best teacher to learn as you can learn a lot of stuff from books, now even computer programs, Internet. Of course fantastic teacher will make big difference, but uninterested student will not benefit if is bent on not trying. As some say: we don’t need too many chiefs. Those who realise later that should have study when they were young, there is plenty opportunity at their own time, but there is always best time to be educated and later in life isn’t one of them. I couldn't agree more. If somebody wants to learn, they should be given every opportunity. On the question of the cost of education that others are talking about, the factor that should come into play is the cost benefit analysis. If we find that society benefits in the long term through increased investment in education, it must be possible to measure the tangible benefit in some way and thus justify the expenditure.     I don't think we do enough of that in Australia. My impressions are that the government tends to be less concerned with a rational approach than an approach of oiling the squeaky wheels in order to stay in power. Any thoughts?

if we are going to do education on a const return basis we need to have less in uni and more in tafe...

Here is a thread imcrook could have added to.

Happy wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 4:37pm:

I would put more emphasis on student’s dedication to obtain education. If not very bright kid tries very hard should be allowed to study, on the other hand kid that is disruptive and doesn’t try at all should be given back to parents as there should be no room in school for somebody who doesn’t make any effort. Quite simple. You don’t need the best teacher to learn as you can learn a lot of stuff from books, now even computer programs, Internet. Of course fantastic teacher will make big difference, but uninterested student will not benefit if is bent on not trying. As some say: we don’t need too many chiefs. Those who realise later that should have study when they were young, there is plenty opportunity at their own time, but there is always best time to be educated and later in life isn’t one of them.

We have this in a sense with selective schools.  You do need to be bright and dedicated to get in them though.

Only trouble is they are rorted to some degree. Certain cultures which have pushy parents, and the kids play 5 instruments by 7 years old, and do 10 hours of outside school tutoring a week, tend to flood the selective schools.

Parents, like me, of reasonably smart kids, who would rather they play  in the tree house than learn the obo, tend to miss out.