Why should the public fund private schools?


State schools must be the government's priority in education.

I ATTENDED a private school for a decade of my childhood. The school ran to type, boasting grand buildings, landscaped gardens, swimming pools and rowing sheds. Its ethos was filched from archaic British independent schools such as Eton or Harrow and it clearly sought to emulate an old-world class system. The school was politically conservative (most staff were vocal supporters of the Liberal Party) and it featured an "old grammarians" network - future contacts for business and politics.

I imagine the school must have improved in the 25 years since I left it, because the institution I attended was stifling and hidebound, presided over by dull teachers who enjoyed bullying their students. My experiences made me an enthusiastic supporter of the state school system.


Supporters of private school education argue that it inculcates students with values. But even cursory research into the antics of some private school students will uncover incidents involving drugs, shoplifting, bullying and violence that make the values argument look shaky. Teenagers will make mistakes and mischief no matter where they go to school.

But since we're talking values, how can our top private schools justify yearly fees of between $16,000 and $27,000 for year 12 tuition? And how do they rationalise raising those fees by 5 to 10 per cent every year?

Private school education in Australia poses questions that go directly to the matter of values. The most important of these has been debated for years: should elite private schools receive taxpayer funding?

Many state school administrations struggle to find the money to undertake simple repairs to their portable classrooms.

The contrast between the two school types is often dramatic. In New South Wales, the Federation of Parents and Citizens found that some state schools are so under-resourced that parents have had to purchase school library books and in some cases even the toilet paper. By contrast, private schools have access to enormous resources. Should the government's job be to perpetuate this disparity?

In 2001, the Howard government set up the school funding model that is still in place. When it was introduced, the socio-economic status (SES) funding formula provided an immediate bonus of $50 million to 67 of the country's wealthiest schools.

SES funding was meant to make elite schools more affordable for ordinary families. But it didn't prevent schools increasing their fees. Just how is a school that charges $27,000 for year 12 tuition ever going to be accessible to ordinary families?

A University of Sydney research paper by Dr Jim McMorrow reveals that by 2012-13, private schools will have received $47 billion in funding, compared with $35 billion for public schools.

It is hard to justify government funding of private schools, particularly when two-thirds of Australians are educated at state schools. The schools that receive government funding should be those that educate the majority of our population.

We were among the first countries to initiate free and compulsory education, but we appear to have lost our way. Former High Court judge Michael Kirby is a proud advocate of state schools. In a 2009 speech, "In Praise of Public Education", Kirby summed up the problem with characteristic precision: "It constantly amazes me that leaders of government in Australia, who themselves have benefited from public education, go along with inequity in the distribution of public funds for schooling."

Free education of an excellent standard should be a reasonable expectation in our democracy. A civilised society is only possible if you have a well-educated public, and woe betide any culture in which excellence in education can only be had if you pay.

It is no secret that most of our nation's disadvantaged students attend state schools. Their disadvantage is intensified when public money goes to private schools. The best pathway out of poverty is education. Intergenerational poverty can only be combatted if we channel all resources into public education.

Private school websites boast that the secondary education they can provide will lead their students to prosperity. The argument isn't without merit: the advantages our children gain in later life often come from those they receive early on. Consequently, state school funding must be the government's priority. Excellence in education should be available to all, not just the prerogative of the rich.

We expect our government to allocate serious taxpayer dollars to fund vital services such as police or ambulances. But how would we feel if wealthy families could access Commonwealth money to help fund their private security service or their home ambulance service? Isn't the Commonwealth's funding of private schools the same thing?

Last year, the federal government appointed a panel to review school funding. Led by businessman David Gonski, the panel will be taking submissions until March. A preliminary issues paper is due in the latter half of this year.

It's a safe bet that the discussion generated by this paper will be lively and acrimonious.

Quote:

1963 Election In 1963 PM Robert Menzies took the step of providing State Aid (government funding) for independent schools. In Goulburn NSW in 1962 Catholic schools had shut their doors for a week - and dumped their kids on the State school system - to protest against a lack of government funding (State Aid as it was called). While Menzies funded independent schools (and won over many Catholic voters) Labor wrestled with the issue and resisted State Aid. This is the story of that strike and the 1963 election. http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Transcripts/s1213157.htm

It's simple: the state school system wouldn't be able to cope. If governments were forced to build schools to provide education it might lead to a cessation of our foreign aid. OUR money would be spent on OUR needs and not on things like propping up Indonesia. If that happened we'd have the UN and AI wailing about how uncaring we are with our neighbours. Want the UN and outfits like AI and Tim Costello crying and lashing us? No. I don't either.

However, if we do commit to spending the right amount of money on education that should not happen immediately. First, a study tour by the relevant minister to Paris, Rome, London, New York, and Vienna must be undertaken to find out how they do it. Of course the minister's spouse/partner must go along for the ride. The minister MUST stay at 5 star digs at all times.

Article by Chris Middendorp
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-should-the-public-fund-private-schools-20110106-19hhn.html

As a general principle I am against public funding for private schools, and have really tried to support the state system. Eventually however, after two years at a bloody awful state high school, we did send one of our children to a private school.  This was not a fancy or hugely expensive school,  just a local catholic boys high, however the quality of the teachers ,the education and discipline provided was vastly superior. That things are this way is wrong, that we had to send our son to a private school to ensure he got a decent education still annoys me, but that is, unfortunately, the way things are at the moment.

There are arguments for public funding  of private schools such as private parents pay taxes and are entitled to have a share of the education dollar, and that not funding these schools will only ensure that they become even more elitist and exclusive for those that can afford them, however I don't believe that these outweigh the benefits of properly funding state education.  

More money is itself not the whole answer. The entire system needs to be overhauled, all the trendy touchy feely PC crap eliminated, incompetent teachers removed and proper discipline restored. Only then will we have an education system like the one that once saw Australia a world leader in education.

Addendum: I have followed gizmos link and have noticed that there is no attribution on the OP.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 7:23am:

As a general principle I am against public funding for private schools, and have really tried to support the state system. Eventually however, after two years at a bloody awful state high school, we did send one of our children to a private school.  This was not a fancy or hugely expensive school,  just a local catholic boys high, however the quality of the teachers ,the education and discipline provided was vastly superior. That things are this way is wrong, that we had to send our son to a private school to ensure he got a decent education still annoys me, but that is, unfortunately, the way things are at the moment. There are arguments for public funding  of private schools such as private parents pay taxes and are entitled to have a share of the education dollar, and that not funding these schools will only ensure that they become even more elitist and exclusive for those that can afford them, however I don't believe that these outweigh the benefits of properly funding state education.   More money is itself not the whole answer. The entire system needs to be overhauled, all the trendy touchy feely PC crap eliminated, incompetent teachers removed and proper discipline restored. Only then will we have an education system like the one that once saw Australia a world leader in education. Addendum: I have followed gizmos link and have noticed that there is no attribution on the OP.

Perhaps there are many that believe that the public system cant be saved by more money? it is already the case that a number of low-fee private schools already provide a vastly superior experience for less money per student than public schools. Is it perhaps the case that the public system is intrinsically flawed so much that money ISNT the problem? You talk about discipline, yet you know that private schools are free to develope discipline systems that public schools cannot. Private schools can develop curriculums with a focus on skills and subjetcs that students need in the real world while public schools are infested with PC crap. The very left-wing education unions dominates the teaching profession int he public sector and dramatically limits its teachers abilities to actually teach geunine skills while the eductaion department seems intent on destroying the charter it has for educating our kids.

Im a believer in private education  - not from ideology as much as from seeing the obvious need to give our kids a better education.

Quote:

A University of Sydney research paper by Dr Jim McMorrow reveals that by 2012-13, private schools will have received $47 billion in funding, compared with $35 billion for public schools.

A convenient yet dishonest figure since that is only the federal govts figure and does not include state govt figures which favour public schools 90/10. the TOTAL ACTUAL figure has public schools funded at around $10,000 per student and private at $7,000.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 8:42am:

Belgarion wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 7:23am: As a general principle I am against public funding for private schools, and have really tried to support the state system. Eventually however, after two years at a bloody awful state high school, we did send one of our children to a private school.  This was not a fancy or hugely expensive school,  just a local catholic boys high, however the quality of the teachers ,the education and discipline provided was vastly superior. That things are this way is wrong, that we had to send our son to a private school to ensure he got a decent education still annoys me, but that is, unfortunately, the way things are at the moment. There are arguments for public funding  of private schools such as private parents pay taxes and are entitled to have a share of the education dollar, and that not funding these schools will only ensure that they become even more elitist and exclusive for those that can afford them, however I don't believe that these outweigh the benefits of properly funding state education.   More money is itself not the whole answer. The entire system needs to be overhauled, all the trendy touchy feely PC crap eliminated, incompetent teachers removed and proper discipline restored. Only then will we have an education system like the one that once saw Australia a world leader in education. Addendum: I have followed gizmos link and have noticed that there is no attribution on the OP. Perhaps there are many that believe that the public system cant be saved by more money? it is already the case that a number of low-fee private schools already provide a vastly superior experience for less money per student than public schools. Is it perhaps the case that the public system is intrinsically flawed so much that money ISNT the problem? You talk about discipline, yet you know that private schools are free to develope discipline systems that public schools cannot. Private schools can develop curriculums with a focus on skills and subjetcs that students need in the real world while public schools are infested with PC crap. The very left-wing education unions dominates the teaching profession int he public sector and dramatically limits its teachers abilities to actually teach geunine skills while the eductaion department seems intent on destroying the charter it has for educating our kids. Im a believer in private education  - not from ideology as much as from seeing the obvious need to give our kids a better education.

I'm not !!

We don't need anymore lawyers and sports morons with single digit IQ's. That seems to be what comes out of these private schools. We need innovative people with technical abilities who can create and manufacture things. You won't get that from elitist private schools run by Luddite Liberal supporters with no vision :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 10:32am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 8:42am: Belgarion wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 7:23am: As a general principle I am against public funding for private schools, and have really tried to support the state system. Eventually however, after two years at a bloody awful state high school, we did send one of our children to a private school.  This was not a fancy or hugely expensive school,  just a local catholic boys high, however the quality of the teachers ,the education and discipline provided was vastly superior. That things are this way is wrong, that we had to send our son to a private school to ensure he got a decent education still annoys me, but that is, unfortunately, the way things are at the moment. There are arguments for public funding  of private schools such as private parents pay taxes and are entitled to have a share of the education dollar, and that not funding these schools will only ensure that they become even more elitist and exclusive for those that can afford them, however I don't believe that these outweigh the benefits of properly funding state education.   More money is itself not the whole answer. The entire system needs to be overhauled, all the trendy touchy feely PC crap eliminated, incompetent teachers removed and proper discipline restored. Only then will we have an education system like the one that once saw Australia a world leader in education. Addendum: I have followed gizmos link and have noticed that there is no attribution on the OP. Perhaps there are many that believe that the public system cant be saved by more money? it is already the case that a number of low-fee private schools already provide a vastly superior experience for less money per student than public schools. Is it perhaps the case that the public system is intrinsically flawed so much that money ISNT the problem? You talk about discipline, yet you know that private schools are free to develope discipline systems that public schools cannot. Private schools can develop curriculums with a focus on skills and subjetcs that students need in the real world while public schools are infested with PC crap. The very left-wing education unions dominates the teaching profession int he public sector and dramatically limits its teachers abilities to actually teach geunine skills while the eductaion department seems intent on destroying the charter it has for educating our kids. Im a believer in private education  - not from ideology as much as from seeing the obvious need to give our kids a better education. I'm not !! We don't need anymore lawyers and sports morons with single digit IQ's. That seems to be what comes out of these private schools. We need innovative people with technical abilities who can create and manufacture things. You won't get that from elitist private schools run by Luddite Liberal supporters with no vision :(

ENVY AND JEALOUSY rule your perceptions. it remains a indisputable FACT that private school students have a higher rate of tertiary education and generally superior life outcomes including better employment, more wealth and in fact longer lives. Like it or not, it remains true.

Quote:

We expect our government to allocate serious taxpayer dollars to fund vital services such as police or ambulances. But how would we feel if wealthy families could access Commonwealth money to help fund their private security service or their home ambulance service? Isn't the Commonwealth's funding of private schools the same thing? http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-should-the-public-fund-private-schools-20110106-19hhn.html

My LONG-HELD view

Quote:

State schools must be the government's priority in education.

Shouldn't the quality of education for our children be a priority? Followed by the cost to the taxpayer?

If you removed fuunding to private schools, many of those students would have to go to lower quality state schools, and the taxpayer would have to carry the full burden of all those extra students.

You need to consider the economic reality you are faced with rather than some silly ideological preference for state schools.

Public vs private education: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287188096

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1284255594

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1282100721

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1280901113

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279677842

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228987231

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294344299

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223424129

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 11:30am:

ENVY AND JEALOUSY rule your perceptions. it remains a indisputable FACT that private school students have a higher rate of tertiary education and generally superior life outcomes including better employment, more wealth and in fact longer lives. Like it or not, it remains true.

Not from the public high school I came from. It has such a good reputation that the chinese can't wait to buy million dollar homes in the same area just to send their kids to it. But of course the chinese will do well because they don't try and rip people off at the retail end. They believe the value in engineering, science, manufacturing and value adding whereas lazy aussies like you and your good libbo mate Gerry GE just want  to hatch up new ways of robbing people with minimal effort :( That's all your private schools are good for :( Word smiths and useless sports idiots kicking a piece of leather around a paddock :(

Why should they?

Because private schools also provide an education to our children.

Why should my taxes go to funding other kids to go to school and yet mine will get none because I choose to pay for them?

Everyone should be funded if we do it that way and the private schools get additional funding through fees.

If you are going to have a two tier system with a fee paying and a free - there has to be an advantage. That's how the world works.

If we withdrew public funding from private schools, how would the public system cope with the influx of ex-private school students?

Likewise with private health.

::) Part of a free and democratic society means having choices, the choice between affordable private health and education and public.

Sorry, but your Orwellian concept just doesn't make sense.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 11:58am:

Quote: We expect our government to allocate serious taxpayer dollars to fund vital services such as police or ambulances. But how would we feel if wealthy families could access Commonwealth money to help fund their private security service or their home ambulance service? Isn't the Commonwealth's funding of private schools the same thing? http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-should-the-public-fund-private-schools-20110106-19hhn.html My LONG-HELD view

Reasonably comfortable in your armchair on the sidelines is it?

No children and pay in no tax.

Hence it pretty much has nothing to do with you.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 1:02pm:

Why should they? Because private schools also provide an education to our children. Why should my taxes go to funding other kids to go to school and yet mine will get none because I choose to pay for them? Everyone should be funded if we do it that way and the private schools get additional funding through fees. If you are going to have a two tier system with a fee paying and a free - there has to be an advantage. That's how the world works.

That's your choice. Nobody forced you to pay for them. Send them to a public school and you won't have to pay more for them.

Most of these private schools are run by corrupt church institutions looking to make a quick buck from gullible tax payers :( Why should tax payers pay for these religious schools to spread their propaganda and brainwash students ?

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 12:54pm:

Quote: State schools must be the government's priority in education. Shouldn't the quality of education for our children be a priority? Followed by the cost to the taxpayer? If you removed fuunding to private schools, many of those students would have to go to lower quality state schools, and the taxpayer would have to carry the full burden of all those extra students. You need to consider the economic reality you are faced with rather than some silly ideological preference for state schools. Public vs private education: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287188096 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1284255594 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1282100721 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1280901113 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279677842 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228987231 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294344299 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223424129

ABSOLUTELY! the notion of putting the children's education FIRST seems to slip the minds of the ideologically bound. and thats even before you consider the costs of changing our priorities and if it wil even work!

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 12:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 11:30am: ENVY AND JEALOUSY rule your perceptions. it remains a indisputable FACT that private school students have a higher rate of tertiary education and generally superior life outcomes including better employment, more wealth and in fact longer lives. Like it or not, it remains true. Not from the public high school I came from. It has such a good reputation that the chinese can't wait to buy million dollar homes in the same area just to send their kids to it. But of course the chinese will do well because they don't try and rip people off at the retail end. They believe the value in engineering, science, manufacturing and value adding whereas lazy aussies like you and your good libbo mate Gerry GE just want  to hatch up new ways of robbing people with minimal effort :( That's all your private schools are good for :( Word smiths and useless sports idiots kicking a piece of leather around a paddock :(

And what public high school was that? or do we add this new bit of fantasy to the long list of Walter Mitty-esque claims you have made?

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 1:46pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 1:02pm: Why should they? Because private schools also provide an education to our children. Why should my taxes go to funding other kids to go to school and yet mine will get none because I choose to pay for them? Everyone should be funded if we do it that way and the private schools get additional funding through fees. If you are going to have a two tier system with a fee paying and a free - there has to be an advantage. That's how the world works. That's your choice. Nobody forced you to pay for them. Send them to a public school and you won't have to pay more for them. Most of these private schools are run by corrupt church institutions looking to make a quick buck from gullible tax payers :( Why should tax payers pay for these religious schools to spread their propaganda and brainwash students ?

Why is it that EVERY TIME you post you demonstrate conclusively that you know next to nothing about the topics you post on? The academic outcomes of Private schools crap all over those from Public schools. It isnt even in debate!

I agree with you on the matter of funding review, both private and public school funding for that matter, given some of your more 'elite' schools in 'nicer' areas both public and private are receiving exuberant amounts of funding in comparison to other government and non-government schools.

Though to stop funding to all private schools is just outrageous, what about parents who work their guts out and pay their taxes to afford their children a private school education, don't you think they deserve to see a little of what they pay in the way of tax  find it's way to their own children's schools?

Look, both my children have enjoyed both public and private schools, so I am by no means biased here, and my own mother worked her fingers to the bone to send me to private schools as a child also, and on a single parent salary I will just add. No assistance back then...not like there is now for single working mums wanting to send their kids to private schools.

Why shouldn't all schools, who's students parents pay their taxes be entitled to some public funding, (these kids parents forming a percentage of the public too after all)..something in return for trying to give their kids the best possible start in life.

Private or public, either way it goes, there's no such thing as a free education/lunch these days, and suggesting we cut funding to private schools will only place increasing pressure on government schools.

You like many people are of the misconception that kids who attend private schools are privileged snotty brats....you couldn't be more wrong when it comes to your average local private school.

Many family's are living below the bread line just to afford their kids school fees, and this is/was a sacrifice they chose to make and should not be penalised for.

What do you think it costs the government to educate one public student for a year at the tax payers expense?

Now if these kids are going to private schools, then why shouldn't their own schools receive at least part of what they would have received had they gone to a public school?

There needs to be an incentive/compromise  to encourage family's in a position to send their kids to private schools to do so ... or else the public system will buckle under the strain of increasing student numbers and staff shortages.


:P

This whole debate is nothing more than another version of the 'should the rich be allowed govt funding' argument. It gets old listening to the same class-based, envy-driven nonsense that espouses ideology over practicallity and outcomes.

FACT: private schools have vastly better outcomes with 35% LESS govt funding per student than public schools. Live with it but dont deny it

FACT: private schools charge fees to improve their level of service. No one is forced to go to one. GET OVER IT.

FACT: most private schools are Catholic or low fee private schools with fees of $2000pa or less.

Education is one of the fundamental rights of children and the rights of all children and the parents to aspire to the very best level they can afford is one we shoudl support and encourage. The more that attend private schools, the more money is available for the public sector. This is good for EVERYONE.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 1:56pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 12:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 11:30am: ENVY AND JEALOUSY rule your perceptions. it remains a indisputable FACT that private school students have a higher rate of tertiary education and generally superior life outcomes including better employment, more wealth and in fact longer lives. Like it or not, it remains true. Not from the public high school I came from. It has such a good reputation that the chinese can't wait to buy million dollar homes in the same area just to send their kids to it. But of course the chinese will do well because they don't try and rip people off at the retail end. They believe the value in engineering, science, manufacturing and value adding whereas lazy aussies like you and your good libbo mate Gerry GE just want  to hatch up new ways of robbing people with minimal effort :( That's all your private schools are good for :( Word smiths and useless sports idiots kicking a piece of leather around a paddock :( And what public high school was that? or do we add this new bit of fantasy to the long list of Walter Mitty-esque claims you have made?

You are ignoramus badweekend. I know plenty of dropouts from private schools. Money doesn't buy class or brains. You should know that ;) Most of those private schools have their head office located in the Vatican. Why do you think they were the first to jump on Kevin Dudds BER scam ? They had their accountants working over time to get a grab of the money that was on offering ;) Those religious institutions are quicker than a rat up a drain pipe when it comes to handouts ;)

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

This whole debate is nothing more than another version of the 'should the rich be allowed govt funding' argument. It gets old listening to the same class-based, envy-driven nonsense that espouses ideology over practicallity and outcomes. FACT: private schools have vastly better outcomes with 35% LESS govt funding per student than public schools. Live with it but dont deny it FACT: private schools charge fees to improve their level of service. No one is forced to go to one. GET OVER IT. FACT: most private schools are Catholic or low fee private schools with fees of $2000pa or less. Education is one of the fundamental rights of children and the rights of all children and the parents to aspire to the very best level they can afford is one we shoudl support and encourage. The more that attend private schools, the more money is available for the public sector. This is good for EVERYONE.

Lets see how good the private schools are without the Corporate welfare from the Government ??

Why should tax payers pay corrupt religious institutions to provide  education ? That is totally absurd !!

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

This whole debate is nothing more than another version of the 'should the rich be allowed govt funding' argument. It gets old listening to the same class-based, envy-driven nonsense that espouses ideology over practicallity and outcomes. FACT: private schools have vastly better outcomes with 35% LESS govt funding per student than public schools. Live with it but dont deny it FACT: private schools charge fees to improve their level of service. No one is forced to go to one. GET OVER IT. FACT: most private schools are Catholic or low fee private schools with fees of $2000pa or less. Education is one of the fundamental rights of children and the rights of all children and the parents to aspire to the very best level they can afford is one we shoudl support and encourage. The more that attend private schools, the more money is available for the public sector. This is good for EVERYONE.

The thing is though is that its a broad brush for people to use on the class front.

I am a working class kid myself but hold the view that private schools should also receive funding.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 1:46pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 1:02pm: Why should they? Because private schools also provide an education to our children. Why should my taxes go to funding other kids to go to school and yet mine will get none because I choose to pay for them? Everyone should be funded if we do it that way and the private schools get additional funding through fees. If you are going to have a two tier system with a fee paying and a free - there has to be an advantage. That's how the world works. That's your choice. Nobody forced you to pay for them. Send them to a public school and you won't have to pay more for them. Most of these private schools are run by corrupt church institutions looking to make a quick buck from gullible tax payers :( Why should tax payers pay for these religious schools to spread their propaganda and brainwash students ? Why is it that EVERY TIME you post you demonstrate conclusively that you know next to nothing about the topics you post on? The academic outcomes of Private schools crap all over those from Public schools. It isnt even in debate!

I am not a religious person, but can only speak highly of my catholic schooling.

Does it look like they converted or brainwashed me? ;D *shakes head*

I have very fond memories of my Catholic primary school especially the nuns, ... they were all gorgeous and really enjoyed being around kids...especially the nuns I think because we essentially became their children.

There were quite a few poor kids at my private school, two families in particular from memory, both of which had in excess of 8 kids from the same family.

They were by no means well-off, and my mother and grandmother used to pack extra sandwiches in my lunch-box for this one boy in my class for an entire year, because he never brought lunch to school and I was feeding him mine.

:-/ I recall his shoes being warn down on one side of his heels on the very first day in Kindergarten and his school tie being ultra faded also, they were obviously hand me downs from one of several older siblings.

Was a huge family, and the kids all looked exactly the same. All boys! Every last one of them. Like children of the corn, only much much skinnier.

:-/

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 2:11pm: This whole debate is nothing more than another version of the 'should the rich be allowed govt funding' argument. It gets old listening to the same class-based, envy-driven nonsense that espouses ideology over practicallity and outcomes. FACT: private schools have vastly better outcomes with 35% LESS govt funding per student than public schools. Live with it but dont deny it FACT: private schools charge fees to improve their level of service. No one is forced to go to one. GET OVER IT. FACT: most private schools are Catholic or low fee private schools with fees of $2000pa or less. Education is one of the fundamental rights of children and the rights of all children and the parents to aspire to the very best level they can afford is one we shoudl support and encourage. The more that attend private schools, the more money is available for the public sector. This is good for EVERYONE. The thing is though is that its a broad brush for people to use on the class front. I am a working class kid myself but hold the view that private schools should also receive funding.

All education providers should operate on equal footing. Good education is a right not a privilege and every student should have the same opportunities. Education is an investment for the future of the country. It should not be seen as an opportunity for some corrupt religious institutions to make a quick buck out of the  tax payer :(

Lastnail you are correct that money doesn't buy brains.

Some of the dumbest kids in my school were from absurdly wealthy families. They got into uni by way of flashing cash around.

You could argue they never really bothered at school because they didn't need to.
One of them I know now has a job with the McLaren racing team and travels the world - yep I am sure that was based on his intellect eh? LOL

But in reality mate we are talking about averages.

There are dumb rich kids at private school, there are exceptionally bright public kids from shithouse backgrounds.

But on the whole private education craps all over public education.

Agreed, just another misguided rob the rich to feed the poor thread....coming from no other than a union commie who's probably never even had school-aged kids themselves.

I'm out of here...

::) Reason, POINTLESS!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 2:23pm:

Lastnail you are correct that money doesn't buy brains. Some of the dumbest kids in my school were from absurdly wealthy families. They got into uni by way of flashing cash around. You could argue they never really bothered at school because they didn't need to. One of them I know now has a job with the McLaren racing team and travels the world - yep I am sure that was based on his intellect eh? LOL But in reality mate we are talking about averages. There are dumb rich kids at private school, there are exceptionally bright public kids from shithouse backgrounds. But on the whole private education craps all over public education.

It doesn't matter. Allowing religious institutions to run schools is privatization of the education system by stealth :( It should be discouraged or the funding should be cut !! Let them pray for the money they need. Let them prove the power of prayer  ;) LOL

Belgarion wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 7:23am:

As a general principle I am against public funding for private schools, and have really tried to support the state system. Eventually however, after two years at a bloody awful state high school, we did send one of our children to a private school.  This was not a fancy or hugely expensive school,  just a local catholic boys high, however the quality of the teachers ,the education and discipline provided was vastly superior. That things are this way is wrong, that we had to send our son to a private school to ensure he got a decent education still annoys me, but that is, unfortunately, the way things are at the moment. There are arguments for public funding  of private schools such as private parents pay taxes and are entitled to have a share of the education dollar, and that not funding these schools will only ensure that they become even more elitist and exclusive for those that can afford them, however I don't believe that these outweigh the benefits of properly funding state education.   More money is itself not the whole answer. The entire system needs to be overhauled, all the trendy touchy feely PC crap eliminated, incompetent teachers removed and proper discipline restored. Only then will we have an education system like the one that once saw Australia a world leader in education. Addendum: I have followed gizmos link and have noticed that there is no attribution on the OP.

I'm against public moneys funding private schools too...
I mean, isn't that the whole point to the different classifications, PUBLIC(funded) Schools as opposed to PRIVATE(funded) Schools???
If they're government funded, why are they called 'Private'??


Oh and I only included the link to show that imcrookonit didn't actually write it him/herself..

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 1:55pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 12:54pm: Quote: State schools must be the government's priority in education. Shouldn't the quality of education for our children be a priority? Followed by the cost to the taxpayer? If you removed fuunding to private schools, many of those students would have to go to lower quality state schools, and the taxpayer would have to carry the full burden of all those extra students. You need to consider the economic reality you are faced with rather than some silly ideological preference for state schools. Public vs private education: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287188096 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1284255594 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1282100721 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1280901113 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279677842 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228987231 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294344299 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223424129 ABSOLUTELY! the notion of putting the children's education FIRST seems to slip the minds of the ideologically bound. and thats even before you consider the costs of changing our priorities and if it wil even work!

Ahh longy, you must also consider the idea that if the Governments STOPPED funding 'private' schools, they'd have a whole lot more money to improve equipment, buildings and teacher quality at public schools..

I mean lets face it, the Catholic Church (for example) has more than enough money to independantly fund their schools in Australia, they seem to manage in every other country, as do all the other religious and indpendant schools...

And the fees that private schools charge should be more than enough to pay for quality education for the students

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 7:23am: As a general principle I am against public funding for private schools, and have really tried to support the state system. Eventually however, after two years at a bloody awful state high school, we did send one of our children to a private school.  This was not a fancy or hugely expensive school,  just a local catholic boys high, however the quality of the teachers ,the education and discipline provided was vastly superior. That things are this way is wrong, that we had to send our son to a private school to ensure he got a decent education still annoys me, but that is, unfortunately, the way things are at the moment. There are arguments for public funding  of private schools such as private parents pay taxes and are entitled to have a share of the education dollar, and that not funding these schools will only ensure that they become even more elitist and exclusive for those that can afford them, however I don't believe that these outweigh the benefits of properly funding state education.   More money is itself not the whole answer. The entire system needs to be overhauled, all the trendy touchy feely PC crap eliminated, incompetent teachers removed and proper discipline restored. Only then will we have an education system like the one that once saw Australia a world leader in education. Addendum: I have followed gizmos link and have noticed that there is no attribution on the OP. I'm against public moneys funding private schools too... I mean, isn't that the whole point to the different classifications, PUBLIC(funded) Schools as opposed to PRIVATE(funded) Schools??? If they're government funded, why are they called 'Private'?? Oh and I only included the link to show that imcrookonit didn't actually write it him/herself..

Are you against private/public partnerships as well? What about the notion of Gov delivering its servics by partnering with the private sector? Roads are built by the private sector. Govt Buildings and hospitals are built by the private sector. Arae you suggesting that this should all be ONLY done by govt departments because other wise you are SUBSIDISING private industry with govt money! When private industry (such as schools) do a demonstrably BETTER job than govt in providing a service then govt should bow out and let private industry do the job - better and cheaper.

Perhaps a solution would be to get rid of public operated schools entirely and have the govt pay the $10,000 per student directly to a private education body to proved no-fee education. It would provide a higher standard of education for no extra cost.

Thoughts?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 3:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 2:43pm: Belgarion wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 7:23am: As a general principle I am against public funding for private schools, and have really tried to support the state system. Eventually however, after two years at a bloody awful state high school, we did send one of our children to a private school.  This was not a fancy or hugely expensive school,  just a local catholic boys high, however the quality of the teachers ,the education and discipline provided was vastly superior. That things are this way is wrong, that we had to send our son to a private school to ensure he got a decent education still annoys me, but that is, unfortunately, the way things are at the moment. There are arguments for public funding  of private schools such as private parents pay taxes and are entitled to have a share of the education dollar, and that not funding these schools will only ensure that they become even more elitist and exclusive for those that can afford them, however I don't believe that these outweigh the benefits of properly funding state education.   More money is itself not the whole answer. The entire system needs to be overhauled, all the trendy touchy feely PC crap eliminated, incompetent teachers removed and proper discipline restored. Only then will we have an education system like the one that once saw Australia a world leader in education. Addendum: I have followed gizmos link and have noticed that there is no attribution on the OP. I'm against public moneys funding private schools too... I mean, isn't that the whole point to the different classifications, PUBLIC(funded) Schools as opposed to PRIVATE(funded) Schools??? If they're government funded, why are they called 'Private'?? Oh and I only included the link to show that imcrookonit didn't actually write it him/herself.. Are you against private/public partnerships as well? What about the notion of Gov delivering its servics by partnering with the private sector? Roads are built by the private sector. Govt Buildings and hospitals are built by the private sector. Arae you suggesting that this should all be ONLY done by govt departments because other wise you are SUBSIDISING private industry with govt money! When private industry (such as schools) do a demonstrably BETTER job than govt in providing a service then govt should bow out and let private industry do the job - better and cheaper. Perhaps a solution would be to get rid of public operated schools entirely and have the govt pay the $10,000 per student directly to a private education body to proved no-fee education. It would provide a higher standard of education for no extra cost. Thoughts?

Yes and look what has happened to privatisation of power ? Bills going up every month :( And what of privatization of public transport ?? Come to Melbourne. What a complete disaster :(

Essential services should never be privatised. That's what we pay Governments to do and they should do it instead of offloading it onto scammers that can't run things properly :(

And who would be the scammers operating these private schools ? Your good opportunist libbo religious mates :(

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 3:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 2:43pm: Belgarion wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 7:23am: As a general principle I am against public funding for private schools, and have really tried to support the state system. Eventually however, after two years at a bloody awful state high school, we did send one of our children to a private school.  This was not a fancy or hugely expensive school,  just a local catholic boys high, however the quality of the teachers ,the education and discipline provided was vastly superior. That things are this way is wrong, that we had to send our son to a private school to ensure he got a decent education still annoys me, but that is, unfortunately, the way things are at the moment. There are arguments for public funding  of private schools such as private parents pay taxes and are entitled to have a share of the education dollar, and that not funding these schools will only ensure that they become even more elitist and exclusive for those that can afford them, however I don't believe that these outweigh the benefits of properly funding state education.   More money is itself not the whole answer. The entire system needs to be overhauled, all the trendy touchy feely PC crap eliminated, incompetent teachers removed and proper discipline restored. Only then will we have an education system like the one that once saw Australia a world leader in education. Addendum: I have followed gizmos link and have noticed that there is no attribution on the OP. I'm against public moneys funding private schools too... I mean, isn't that the whole point to the different classifications, PUBLIC(funded) Schools as opposed to PRIVATE(funded) Schools??? If they're government funded, why are they called 'Private'?? Oh and I only included the link to show that imcrookonit didn't actually write it him/herself.. Are you against private/public partnerships as well? What about the notion of Gov delivering its servics by partnering with the private sector? Roads are built by the private sector. Govt Buildings and hospitals are built by the private sector. Arae you suggesting that this should all be ONLY done by govt departments because other wise you are SUBSIDISING private industry with govt money! When private industry (such as schools) do a demonstrably BETTER job than govt in providing a service then govt should bow out and let private industry do the job - better and cheaper. Perhaps a solution would be to get rid of public operated schools entirely and have the govt pay the $10,000 per student directly to a private education body to proved no-fee education. It would provide a higher standard of education for no extra cost. Thoughts?

Again, why not stop paying government money to 'private' schools and use the extra money to improve public schools..

Perhaps a solution would be to ONLY fund public schools with public monies and therefore provide a higher standard of education in public schools???

Its the Governments solemn legal obligation to fund free education for all.  Ideally we will do away with the private school system and have all schools funded by the tax payer. :)

1: The parents from private schools pay tax so why shouldn't the private school receive a subsidy.

2: Some parents scrape and save to send their children to a private school.

3: The subsidy is less per child than the public sector.

4: It would cost the government more if all students went to public school.

5: Jealousy and envy are soul destroying.

And who would be the scammers operating these private schools ? Your good opportunist libbo religious mates :([/quote]

Lastnail check out how many labor, green and independent scammers send their children to private schools.

ohnoitisnt wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 5:45am:

Lastnail check out how many labor, green and independent scammers send their children to private schools.

I don't care who goes to those schools. Tax payers money should not be given to church institutions to run schools. If the Government can run most schools and then have to pay for private schools then they should be able to run all schools !

I have no problem with funding private schools after adequate funds are provided to public schools.

There are different catagories under private schools as well.

Most of the catholic and religious schools are not significantly different from public schools they represent a general cross section of the community and are low funded.

The more exclusive schools to me are a different matter and the facts have shown that we pay more to support some schools boat fleet or swimming pools then we do to support near by struggling public schools in total.

salad in wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 6:59am:

Quote: 1963 Election In 1963 PM Robert Menzies took the step of providing State Aid (government funding) for independent schools. In Goulburn NSW in 1962 Catholic schools had shut their doors for a week - and dumped their kids on the State school system - to protest against a lack of government funding (State Aid as it was called). While Menzies funded independent schools (and won over many Catholic voters) Labor wrestled with the issue and resisted State Aid. This is the story of that strike and the 1963 election. http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Transcripts/s1213157.htm It's simple: the state school system wouldn't be able to cope.

SILLY old arguement, that one

It could be EQUALLY argued that if the Federal Government didn't bankroll the so-called "private" system there would be a lot more funding available to a more egalitarian, universal education model

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 6:23pm:

It could be EQUALLY argued that if the Federal Government didn't bankroll the so-called "private" system there would be a lot more funding available to a more egalitarian, universal education model[/size]

SOCIALISM!!!!!!!

No thanks Princess, that's been tried, tested and canned since the 70s

Quote:

It could be EQUALLY argued that if the Federal Government didn't bankroll the so-called "private" system there would be a lot more funding available to a more egalitarian, universal education model

Except that the subsidies to private schools are less than what it costs per student to go through the public system.

I can't get my head around why people opbject to a situation like this where everybody benefits. Is it pure jelousy? Do they simply not understand the implications?

Perhaps a solution would be to get rid of public operated schools entirely and have the govt pay the $10,000 per student directly to a private education body to proved no-fee education. It would provide a higher standard of education for no extra cost.

Thoughts?

Very interesting idea; and maybe it would work.
The private schooling is much more utilised in english speaking countries, and the english speaking citizens are also very reluctant to pay taxes, as are the Greeks and look where it got that couintry.
That the private enterprise can built roads and other infrastructure better is, because they can use the whip a lot harder than it is done in government works.In one case the worker is driven to ever increased effort and the safety is at times sacrificed, in government works some workers think they do not have to do anything except pick up their pay every so often.

Read a joke about two workers in the former USSR, says Boris to Ivan, it really puzzles me that we have been stealing from the government for the last 40 years, and there is still something left to be stolen.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 7:29pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8th, 2011 at 6:23pm: It could be EQUALLY argued that if the Federal Government didn't bankroll the so-called "private" system there would be a lot more funding available to a more egalitarian, universal education model[/size] SOCIALISM!!!!!!! No thanks Princess, that's been tried, tested and canned since the 70s

Is that "let them eat cake"?

tonegunman1 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 7:35pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 8th, 2011 at 7:29pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8th, 2011 at 6:23pm: It could be EQUALLY argued that if the Federal Government didn't bankroll the so-called "private" system there would be a lot more funding available to a more egalitarian, universal education model[/size] SOCIALISM!!!!!!! No thanks Princess, that's been tried, tested and canned since the 70s Is that "let them eat cake"?

Fraternite and Egalite as they say.
Same old story.

Everyone should pay for someone else.

How about people pay their own way in this world? Novel concept eh?

Quote:

Perhaps a solution would be to get rid of public operated schools entirely and have the govt pay the $10,000 per student directly to a private education body to proved no-fee education.

I suspect the standards would drop. At the moment only not-for-profit groups run schools - ie governments and churches, and a few other groups. I would hate for us to end up like the US, with coke vending machines in the classrooms as part of a sponsorship deal.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 7:49pm:

Quote: Perhaps a solution would be to get rid of public operated schools entirely and have the govt pay the $10,000 per student directly to a private education body to proved no-fee education. I suspect the standards would drop. At the moment only not-for-profit groups run schools - ie governments and churches, and a few other groups. I would hate for us to end up like the US, with coke vending machines in the classrooms as part of a sponsorship deal.

Yet my cost of living is half yours and I enjoy a better quality of life than Australians.
Say what you like about the US system, taxes are lower and I have no doubt my girls will get a great education that California can provide.

Novel thing is - we pay for it ourselves but we don't have an overburdened tax system costing us in our pay packet.

May explain why we pay 80c for petrol and you pay $1.35 eh?

Think about it - it cant be that bad.

The reason your petrol costs less is because you have more people to pay for the roads.

really?

Care to explain then why the tax on petrol in Australia doesn't go to road upkeep (as it should) and instead goes into 'General Revenue'??

I pay 12c per litre in tax. You pay 51c per litre.

Are you sure that's just the reason????

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 8:00pm:

really? Care to explain then why the tax on petrol in Australia doesn't go to road upkeep (as it should) and instead goes into 'General Revenue'?? I pay 12c per litre in tax. You pay 51c per litre. Are you sure that's just the reason????

Yes I am sure. Who cares if it goes into general revenue first?

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 8:08pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 8th, 2011 at 8:00pm: really? Care to explain then why the tax on petrol in Australia doesn't go to road upkeep (as it should) and instead goes into 'General Revenue'?? I pay 12c per litre in tax. You pay 51c per litre. Are you sure that's just the reason???? Yes I am sure. Who cares if it goes into general revenue first?

Because how do you track all of it is going to road upkeep and it is not being funded into all sorts of failed Government white elephant and social improvement projects.

Tax on petrol, you are correct, should be for road infrastructure - in Australia it is used to run a social welfare state - which is why you pay an absurd amount of tax compared to here.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 7:54pm:

The reason your petrol costs less is because you have more people to pay for the roads.

Do you honestly believe this is the only determinant freediver?

How simplistic , very.

But I'll give you points for guessing. ;)

The overall average price of petrol also closely tracks the movements
of both Tapis crude oil price and the Singapore petrol price.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=commwkpapers

Basically,'Fuel watch' was a conveniently timed ruse to make it look like something labor implemented was actually proving beneficial for once, at a time when they knew petrol prices would drop anyway due to global supply and demand , and that which relates specifically to our pacific region

::) Was a waste of money, but watch them take credit for it anyway.

Quote:

Because how do you track all of it is going to road upkeep and it is not being funded into all sorts of failed Government white elephant and social improvement projects.

It is quite easy actually. You compare the total revenue raised from fuel taxes with the total expenditure on roads. No need to track every penny.


Quote:

The overall average price of petrol also closely tracks the movements of both Tapis crude oil price and the Singapore petrol price.

We were talking about the difference in price, not the absolute price.

It is quite easy actually. You compare the total revenue raised from fuel taxes with the total expenditure on roads. No need to track every penny.


Quote:

The overall average price of petrol also closely tracks the movements of both Tapis crude oil price and the Singapore petrol price.

We were talking about the difference in price, not the absolute price.[/quote]

Freediver are you a simpleton?

I  and millions of drivers have spent years looking to see where the money has been spent on roads. The only new roads we have are tollways that are NOT built with petrol tax money.

Sydney alone has 7 tollways. It used to be 8 but the M4 toll was removed when the contract expired and the NSW government took control of the road.

Quote:

I  and millions of drivers have spent years looking to see where the money has been spent on roads.

You spent years looking? It took me a few minutes of looking.


Quote:

The only new roads we have are tollways that are NOT built with petrol tax money.

I agree with you there. They should pay for these roads by raising fuel taxes, not with tolls. It annoys me that they have to make toll roads less useful so they can force people to pay up. Only problem is so many ignorant people whinge about fuel prices and expect the government to lower them.

....just giving me an idea for a book and I'm gonna call it "The Rip".
;) :) 8-)

...thanks to AussieFree2Ride or Sprintcyclist for giving an example of "The Rip" in another topic  ;)

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 7:59am:

[quote] I agree with you there. They should pay for these roads by raising fuel taxes, not with tolls. .

You already pay over 50c per litre in petrol tax whilst I pay 12c.

As a result your cost of petrol is 50c more per litre than me.

You don't think you are already ripped off?
You want people in Australia to PAY MORE??????????

What next? A carbon tax to pay more for the same services of energy??
;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 11:27am:

freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2011 at 7:59am: [quote] I agree with you there. They should pay for these roads by raising fuel taxes, not with tolls. . You already pay over 50c per litre in petrol tax whilst I pay 12c. As a result your cost of petrol is 50c more per litre than me. You don't think you are already ripped off? You want people in Australia to PAY MORE?????????? What next? A carbon tax to pay more for the same services of energy?? ;D

The taxes we are already paying are more than enough to pay for everything the country needs, we don't need more taxes we need accountability in how the taxes are spent.  The Banks and Corporate sector are stealing our revenue so what good would raising taxes do?  Lets go after the crooks, get our country and Government back on a legal basis and then we wont have any problems.:)

Quote:

You don't think you are already ripped off?

No.


Quote:

You want people in Australia to PAY MORE??????????

I want them to pay at the bowsers instead of at a toll.


Quote:

The taxes we are already paying are more than enough to pay for everything the country needs, we don't need more taxes we need accountability in how the taxes are spent.

That does not negate the need to rationally assess how those taxes are collected.

Prevailing wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 11:59am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 9th, 2011 at 11:27am: freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2011 at 7:59am: [quote] I agree with you there. They should pay for these roads by raising fuel taxes, not with tolls. . You already pay over 50c per litre in petrol tax whilst I pay 12c. As a result your cost of petrol is 50c more per litre than me. You don't think you are already ripped off? You want people in Australia to PAY MORE?????????? What next? A carbon tax to pay more for the same services of energy?? ;D The taxes we are already paying are more than enough to pay for everything the country needs, we don't need more taxes we need accountability in how the taxes are spent.  The Banks and Corporate sector are stealing our revenue so what good would raising taxes do?  Lets go after the crooks, get our country and Government back on a legal basis and then we wont have any problems.:)

The only trouble being if we all call for accountability, we'll have a minister for accountability, 400 public servants to serve in the office of accountability and lots of consultants to check the accountability. They never take form the public service, they only ever add to.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

Quote: [quote]The taxes we are already paying are more than enough to pay for everything the country needs, we don't need more taxes we need accountability in how the taxes are spent. That does not negate the need to rationally assess how those taxes are collected.

We can however look at ways we can reduce the Governments tax take whilst maximizing direct accounting for how those tax dollars are spent, legislation banning the Government from using surpluses to pay down debt for instance and restricting banks freedom to issue credit are proactive reforms. :)

hawil wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 7:34pm:

Perhaps a solution would be to get rid of public operated schools entirely and have the govt pay the $10,000 per student directly to a private education body to proved no-fee education. It would provide a higher standard of education for no extra cost. Thoughts? Very interesting idea; and maybe it would work. The private schooling is much more utilised in english speaking countries, and the english speaking citizens are also very reluctant to pay taxes, as are the Greeks and look where it got that couintry. That the private enterprise can built roads and other infrastructure better is, because they can use the whip a lot harder than it is done in government works.In one case the worker is driven to ever increased effort and the safety is at times sacrificed, in government works some workers think they do not have to do anything except pick up their pay every so often.Read a joke about two workers in the former USSR, says Boris to Ivan, it really puzzles me that we have been stealing from the government for the last 40 years, and there is still something left to be stolen.

I'd disagree with idea that 'private enterprise' can build and maintain roads better.....in my experience (around where I live at least) I don't consider road re-surfacing that produces potholes within 10 days to be 'better'.....

When the RTA or council did the repair work, it used to last at least 6 months before pot holes appeared...

Quote:

legislation banning the Government from using surpluses to pay down debt for instance

WTF?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2011 at 2:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 1:55pm: freediver wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 12:54pm: Quote: State schools must be the government's priority in education. Shouldn't the quality of education for our children be a priority? Followed by the cost to the taxpayer? If you removed fuunding to private schools, many of those students would have to go to lower quality state schools, and the taxpayer would have to carry the full burden of all those extra students. You need to consider the economic reality you are faced with rather than some silly ideological preference for state schools. Public vs private education: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1287188096 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1284255594 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1282100721 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1280901113 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1279677842 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228987231 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294344299 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1223424129 ABSOLUTELY! the notion of putting the children's education FIRST seems to slip the minds of the ideologically bound. and thats even before you consider the costs of changing our priorities and if it wil even work! Ahh longy, you must also consider the idea that if the Governments STOPPED funding 'private' schools, they'd have a whole lot more money to improve equipment, buildings and teacher quality at public schools.. I mean lets face it, the Catholic Church (for example) has more than enough money to independantly fund their schools in Australia, they seem to manage in every other country, as do all the other religious and indpendant schools... And the fees that private schools charge should be more than enough to pay for quality education for the students

That is wrong on so many levels plus chronically naive. aLL YOU WOULD DO IS SEND A FLOOD Of students from the private sector back to public schools where the govt ourl have to pay 50% MORE per student than currently.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 6:23pm:

salad in wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 6:59am: Quote: 1963 Election In 1963 PM Robert Menzies took the step of providing State Aid (government funding) for independent schools. In Goulburn NSW in 1962 Catholic schools had shut their doors for a week - and dumped their kids on the State school system - to protest against a lack of government funding (State Aid as it was called). While Menzies funded independent schools (and won over many Catholic voters) Labor wrestled with the issue and resisted State Aid. This is the story of that strike and the 1963 election. http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Transcripts/s1213157.htm It's simple: the state school system wouldn't be able to cope. SILLY old arguement, that one It could be EQUALLY argued that if the Federal Government didn't bankroll the so-called "private" system there would be a lot more funding available to a more egalitarian, universal education model

It could be 'argued', but only a fool would support it. it is nonsensical, uneconomic and totally opposed to actual real-world experience. IE a PERFECT Greens policy!

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 7:49pm:

Quote: Perhaps a solution would be to get rid of public operated schools entirely and have the govt pay the $10,000 per student directly to a private education body to proved no-fee education. I suspect the standards would drop. At the moment only not-for-profit groups run schools - ie governments and churches, and a few other groups. I would hate for us to end up like the US, with coke vending machines in the classrooms as part of a sponsorship deal.

So let's make it a non-profit organisation then. Im just saying that the govt-run education system is systemically screwed and cant be 'fixed'. only a new group with zero ties to the old system could rebuild a free education system without the hopeless ideologically-bound structure that exists now.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 11:27am:

freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2011 at 7:59am: [quote] I agree with you there. They should pay for these roads by raising fuel taxes, not with tolls. . You already pay over 50c per litre in petrol tax whilst I pay 12c. As a result your cost of petrol is 50c more per litre than me. You don't think you are already ripped off? You want people in Australia to PAY MORE?????????? What next? A carbon tax to pay more for the same services of energy?? ;D

You are also $14T in debt or per head nearly TEN TIMES what the average aussie is.

Our petrol prices are fine thank you very much.

Quote:

FACT: most private schools are Catholic or low fee private schools with fees of $2000pa or less.

-Longweekend

OK Longy, you are big on providing figures, you claim to be facts, so please reference this claimed "FACT".

I hope I do not have to once again highlight your lack of integrity, when adding "personal beliefs" labelled as facts, and for once you actually substantiate one of your claims.

The figures quoted on the sites I have looked at state the figure to be between 2K to 10 K for Catholic Secondary schools, so perhaps you are just making up your own 'Facts" to suit your argument, as everyone here has already seen to be your pattern.

Over to you, pants on fire.

'd disagree with idea that 'private enterprise' can build and maintain roads better.....in my experience (around where I live at least) I don't consider road re-surfacing that produces potholes within 10 days to be 'better'.....

When the RTA or council did the repair work, it used to last at least 6 months before pot holes appeared...
gizmo you may be right, but working for many years in a government department I have seen too much bludging to be efficient.
If the government workers would be prepared to put a decent days work for a decent wage then the government system would definitely be superior because it would not have to create large profits for the private industry.

You are at least not in the same mould as longweekend, who sees everything in dollar terms for the elite in this world.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 5:46pm:

Quote: FACT: most private schools are Catholic or low fee private schools with fees of $2000pa or less. -Longweekend OK Longy, you are big on providing figures, you claim to be facts, so please reference this claimed "FACT". I hope I do not have to once again highlight your lack of integrity, when adding "personal beliefs" labelled as facts, and for once you actually substantiate one of your claims. The figures quoted on the sites I have looked at state the figure to be between 2K to 10 K for Catholic Secondary schools, so perhaps you are just making up your own 'Facts" to suit your argument, as everyone here has already seen to be your pattern. Over to you, pants on fire.

well for starters I actually SENT kids to a low fee school with fees of under $8000 for 4 kids. and the fees i paid were typical of many lower fee private schools. Catholic schools are similar in price and there would be VERY few $10K catholic schools and then not one of the more typical low-fee schools.

But what exactly is your point? You hate private schools. we get it. so how about you actually construct a credible argument for your position rather than simply attack everyone elses. The basic experience is that private schools generate better outcomes at a lower cost the the govt than would otherwise be. do u understand now why the govt supports private schools???

hawil wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 6:17pm:

'd disagree with idea that 'private enterprise' can build and maintain roads better.....in my experience (around where I live at least) I don't consider road re-surfacing that produces potholes within 10 days to be 'better'..... When the RTA or council did the repair work, it used to last at least 6 months before pot holes appeared... gizmo you may be right, but working for many years in a government department I have seen too much bludging to be efficient. If the government workers would be prepared to put a decent days work for a decent wage then the government system would definitely be superior because it would not have to create large profits for the private industry. You are at least not in the same mould as longweekend, who sees everything in dollar terms for the elite in this world.

you sound like some kind of jealous envious left-wing unemployed yobbo.  I dont have the opinions you claim I have. I do however understand that EVERYTHING in life has to be paid for by someone. You still have along way to go to understand that!

Quote:

So let's make it a non-profit organisation then.

We already have them.


Quote:

Im just saying that the govt-run education system is systemically screwed and cant be 'fixed'. only a new group with zero ties to the old system could rebuild a free education system without the hopeless ideologically-bound structure that exists now.

I think you would find the same problems reappearing. If you can't fix the problems with the current system, what makes you think throwing it all away and restarting will get you something better?


Quote:

If the government workers would be prepared to put a decent days work for a decent wage

Ah, but you'd have to pay them a decent wage for that to happen. So already taxes are going up.

Quote:

Im just saying that the govt-run education system is systemically screwed and cant be 'fixed'. only a new group with zero ties to the old system could rebuild a free education system without the hopeless ideologically-bound structure that exists now. I think you would find the same problems reappearing. If you can't fix the problems with the current system, what makes you think throwing it all away and restarting will get you something better?

Private schools have ALREADY shown how to make it work. All I'm saying is to extend the concept with the government paying its $10,000 to a non-profit run school with no additional fees. That is essentially privatising the public school system. It costs the govt no more than currently while greatly improving the outcomes and comparable to the outcomes of low-fee private schools now.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 8:48pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jan 9th, 2011 at 5:46pm: Quote: FACT: most private schools are Catholic or low fee private schools with fees of $2000pa or less. -Longweekend OK Longy, you are big on providing figures, you claim to be facts, so please reference this claimed "FACT". I hope I do not have to once again highlight your lack of integrity, when adding "personal beliefs" labelled as facts, and for once you actually substantiate one of your claims. The figures quoted on the sites I have looked at state the figure to be between 2K to 10 K for Catholic Secondary schools, so perhaps you are just making up your own 'Facts" to suit your argument, as everyone here has already seen to be your pattern. Over to you, pants on fire. well for starters I actually SENT kids to a low fee school with fees of under $8000 for 4 kids. and the fees i paid were typical of many lower fee private schools. Catholic schools are similar in price and there would be VERY few $10K catholic schools and then not one of the more typical low-fee schools. But what exactly is your point? You hate private schools. we get it. so how about you actually construct a credible argument for your position rather than simply attack everyone elses. The basic experience is that private schools generate better outcomes at a lower cost the the govt than would otherwise be. do u understand now why the govt supports private schools???

So are you saying you have no actual valid reference for your claimed "FACT"?
Are you admitting that once again you are just making up lies to suit your argument?

MY POINT IS, reference where you got the information that you provided, and stated was a fact.

Quote:

FACT: most private schools are Catholic or low fee private schools with fees of $2000pa or less.

-Longweekend

A single example of what you paid to one school, at one time, in the past, does not validate your false statement about the average cost of "MOST" private schools, so admit you just made up the facts you wanted to suit your argument, or provide a reference to show where you obtained these facts if you wish to claim you did not just invent these facts, as you do with so many others you cite..

mozzaok wrote on Jan 10^th, 2011 at 10:30am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2011 at 8:48pm: mozzaok wrote on Jan 9th, 2011 at 5:46pm: Quote: FACT: most private schools are Catholic or low fee private schools with fees of $2000pa or less. -Longweekend OK Longy, you are big on providing figures, you claim to be facts, so please reference this claimed "FACT". I hope I do not have to once again highlight your lack of integrity, when adding "personal beliefs" labelled as facts, and for once you actually substantiate one of your claims. The figures quoted on the sites I have looked at state the figure to be between 2K to 10 K for Catholic Secondary schools, so perhaps you are just making up your own 'Facts" to suit your argument, as everyone here has already seen to be your pattern. Over to you, pants on fire. well for starters I actually SENT kids to a low fee school with fees of under $8000 for 4 kids. and the fees i paid were typical of many lower fee private schools. Catholic schools are similar in price and there would be VERY few $10K catholic schools and then not one of the more typical low-fee schools. But what exactly is your point? You hate private schools. we get it. so how about you actually construct a credible argument for your position rather than simply attack everyone elses. The basic experience is that private schools generate better outcomes at a lower cost the the govt than would otherwise be. do u understand now why the govt supports private schools??? So are you saying you have no actual valid reference for your claimed "FACT"? Are you admitting that once again you are just making up lies to suit your argument? MY POINT IS, reference where you got the information that you provided, and stated was a fact. [quote]FACT: most private schools are Catholic or low fee private schools with fees of $2000pa or less.

-Longweekend

A single example of what you paid to one school, at one time, in the past, does not validate your false statement about the average cost of "MOST" private schools, so admit you just made up the facts you wanted to suit your argument, or provide a reference to show where you obtained these facts if you wish to claim you did not just invent these facts, as you do with so many others you cite..


[/quote]

When this argument was raised in parliament there was a media report that also made the claim that the vast majority of private schools were low fee ones. you can choose to believe otherwise if you choose. But everyone who actually puts kids in private schools has checked around and the fees structure is predominatly the low to medium range. there are in fact very few ultra-high fee elite private schools.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 5:28pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8th, 2011 at 6:23pm: salad in wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 6:59am: Quote: 1963 Election In 1963 PM Robert Menzies took the step of providing State Aid (government funding) for independent schools. In Goulburn NSW in 1962 Catholic schools had shut their doors for a week - and dumped their kids on the State school system - to protest against a lack of government funding (State Aid as it was called). While Menzies funded independent schools (and won over many Catholic voters) Labor wrestled with the issue and resisted State Aid. This is the story of that strike and the 1963 election. http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Transcripts/s1213157.htm It's simple: the state school system wouldn't be able to cope. SILLY old arguement, that one It could be EQUALLY argued that if the Federal Government didn't bankroll the so-called "private" system there would be a lot more funding available to a more egalitarian, universal education model It could be 'argued', but only a fool would support it. it is nonsensical, uneconomic and totally opposed to actual real-world experience. IE a PERFECT Greens policy!

It's typical of you to defend the channeling of tax payers money into the pockets of corrupt religious institutions who run these schools.

Schools should be run by the Government. That's what we all pay taxes for. There is no need for fancy swimming pools and tennis courts at any school and nor should the Government be paying for it.

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 10^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2011 at 5:28pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8th, 2011 at 6:23pm: salad in wrote on Jan 7th, 2011 at 6:59am: Quote: 1963 Election In 1963 PM Robert Menzies took the step of providing State Aid (government funding) for independent schools. In Goulburn NSW in 1962 Catholic schools had shut their doors for a week - and dumped their kids on the State school system - to protest against a lack of government funding (State Aid as it was called). While Menzies funded independent schools (and won over many Catholic voters) Labor wrestled with the issue and resisted State Aid. This is the story of that strike and the 1963 election. http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Transcripts/s1213157.htm It's simple: the state school system wouldn't be able to cope. SILLY old arguement, that one It could be EQUALLY argued that if the Federal Government didn't bankroll the so-called "private" system there would be a lot more funding available to a more egalitarian, universal education model It could be 'argued', but only a fool would support it. it is nonsensical, uneconomic and totally opposed to actual real-world experience. IE a PERFECT Greens policy! It's typical of you to defend the channeling of tax payers money into the pockets of corrupt religious institutions who run these schools. Schools should be run by the Government. That's what we all pay taxes for. There is no need for fancy swimming pools and tennis courts at any school and nor should the Government be paying for it.

You must have really gone to a crappy school. my PUBLIC primary school had a pool and my PUBLIC high school had tennis courts - all paid for by the govt.

The kids at the local comprehensives in my city learned how to set fire to cars and steal from houses.....

Quote:

There is no need for fancy swimming pools and tennis courts at any school and nor should the Government be paying for it.

So your real problem is that some kids get to play tennis at school, and if your kids can't do it none of them should? Why hold this against them if it costs you nothing and actually saves you money and improves the education for your child?

hawil wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 6:17pm:

'd disagree with idea that 'private enterprise' can build and maintain roads better.....in my experience (around where I live at least) I don't consider road re-surfacing that produces potholes within 10 days to be 'better'..... When the RTA or council did the repair work, it used to last at least 6 months before pot holes appeared... gizmo you may be right, but working for many years in a government department I have seen too much bludging to be efficient. If the government workers would be prepared to put a decent days work for a decent wage then the government system would definitely be superior because it would not have to create large profits for the private industry. You are at least not in the same mould as longweekend, who sees everything in dollar terms for the elite in this world.

The problem is ,hawil, that council/RTA workers get paid the same amount whether they're working on the roads or putting in new pipes or sitting around scratching themselves..where private enterprise get paid 'by the job', so the sooner private workers finish, the sooner they move on to the next job/pay cheque....so they rush, and a fast job is never a 'good' job..

So, while it might take government workers 3 days to do a job private enterprise can do in one day, the gov workers spend more time compressing the road base and more time to lay and cure the tarmac, which in turn means a better, tougher job..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2011 at 2:58pm:

hawil wrote on Jan 9th, 2011 at 6:17pm: 'd disagree with idea that 'private enterprise' can build and maintain roads better.....in my experience (around where I live at least) I don't consider road re-surfacing that produces potholes within 10 days to be 'better'..... When the RTA or council did the repair work, it used to last at least 6 months before pot holes appeared... gizmo you may be right, but working for many years in a government department I have seen too much bludging to be efficient. If the government workers would be prepared to put a decent days work for a decent wage then the government system would definitely be superior because it would not have to create large profits for the private industry. You are at least not in the same mould as longweekend, who sees everything in dollar terms for the elite in this world. The problem is ,hawil, that council/RTA workers get paid the same amount whether they're working on the roads or putting in new pipes or sitting around scratching themselves..where private enterprise get paid 'by the job', so the sooner private workers finish, the sooner they move on to the next job/pay cheque....so they rush, and a fast job is never a 'good' job.. So, while it might take government workers 3 days to do a job private enterprise can do in one day, the gov workers spend more time compressing the road base and more time to lay and cure the tarmac, which in turn means a better, tougher job..

gov workers do a better job than private industry?  Thanks, I needed the laugh!

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2011 at 2:32pm:

Quote: There is no need for fancy swimming pools and tennis courts at any school and nor should the Government be paying for it. So your real problem is that some kids get to play tennis at school, and if your kids can't do it none of them should? Why hold this against them if it costs you nothing and actually saves you money and improves the education for your child?

No the problem is the private school institutions expect the tax payers to compensate them for their extravagant tastes :( And having a tennis court doesn't improve a childs education. This notion that sports can somehow provide an alternative career path for most children is totally absurd. Only a select few kids become good at sport whereas the rest would have been better off focusing on a real education just like the chinese students do ;)

Quote:

This notion that sports can somehow provide an alternative career path for most children is totally absurd.

Sure. We should all have obese children who go to public school and are never challenged to do something they might fail at. Would that make you happy?


Quote:

Only a select few kids become good at sport

Only a select few become good enough at maths to make a living out of it. Something tells me you simply don't appreciate the value of a good education.

I struggle to understand the position of the anti private school brigade.  A child, regardless of which school they attend should be entitled to the same level of tax payer funded education, if their parents choose to pay additional fees on top of that what's the issue?

Personally, if I had children (and probably won't), I wouldn't subject them to the Queensland Education System, lacklustre at best.

Here imcrook, the search button is a wonderful invention.