Before the small government /privatization virus took hold, Whitlam introduced free tertiary eduction ....BUT....as a trade off he was forced to accept public funding for private schools. 

Much abused by Howard; now private schools are overfunded at all levels (tertiary and secondary) by the public purse, while public schools are underfunded.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2024/05/11/free-education-possible?utm_campaign=SharedArticle&utm_source=share&utm_medium=link&utm_term=29r1h2Gi&token=2hQybcbg#shared-unlock

Free education is possible

In 1975, when I went to university, it was free. We were Gough Whitlam’s children – the beneficiaries of his education reforms. Back then, only 10 per cent of Australians went to university. Thanks in large part to Whitlam’s visionary policies – at least as far as higher education is concerned – that proportion is now close to 40 per cent.

Many of my fellow students at Macquarie University back in the day were also on teacher scholarships, which continued even when fees were abolished. They were being paid to study – not just to go on prac, as workplace placements are known, but to turn up to class every day.

Federal Education Minister Jason Clare has declared this country will need 80 per cent of the population to go on to tertiary education, including university, if we want to remain internationally competitive. However, another of Whitlam’s education policies has made that figure much harder to achieve than it needs to be: namely, the recurrent public funding of private schools. He did it to finally resolve the split with the Catholic anti-communist Democratic Labor Party that had kept Labor out of office for 23 years. It worked politically, but it has become a long-term disaster for Australian education.

Australia now has one of the most socially segregated school systems in the world. We are second worst in the OECD for the increasing concentration of disadvantaged students in disadvantaged schools, which compounds their disadvantage. Far from our schooling system helping to narrow the inevitable inequalities visited upon every child by the lottery of birth, our system uses public money to turbocharge them. I doubt this was Whitlam’s intention, and John Howard and his education minister David Kemp must bear much of the responsibility. They removed all of the remaining safeguards and deregulated the establishment of private schools, allowing them to open in areas where there was no need, essentially encouraging schools to compete against one another for students. They justified this by declaring parental choice should be the central driver of education policy and funding.

For perfectly obvious reasons, prioritising parental choice over children’s opportunities – no matter who their parents are – can only entrench generational privilege and underprivilege, which is exactly what it has done over the past two decades. The sources of disadvantage for children today are circumstances not of their own making or choice but of their birth: socioeconomic, location, immigration status, indigeneity or disability. Regardless of the intent of those creating our educational policy settings, the damage has been done and even governments that are uncomfortable with this inequality seem at a loss to know what to do about it.

If we are going to increase the participation of the least well-off students in tertiary education, we must first tackle their experience in primary and secondary education, not to mention early childhood, where the poorest are the ones most likely to miss out.
I am prepared to accept that Minister Clare has public education in his heart. He attended a public school, and was the first of his family to finish year 10. His predecessor in the previous Labor government, Tanya Plibersek, has long been a champion and, unusually for a politician, even a Labor one, sent her children to public schools. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is fond of talking about his own childhood in public housing with a single mother. I think they get it. I think they know our unfair, unequal and inefficient education system is a bleeding sore. They also know changing it is political dynamite, thanks to the combined lobbying of the churches, various conservative think tanks devoted to market forces and the more prosperous among our population who are now thoroughly indoctrinated with the “private schools good, public schools bad” mantra.

Quote:

now private schools are overfunded at all levels

I'm guessing you don't know the actual numbers. Just the spin that little pinks are supposed to put on them.

Private schools should not receive any funding.  You want a private school,  you pay for it.

John Smith wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 3:33pm:

Private schools should not receive any funding.  You want a private school,  you pay for it.

So the government should only be allowed to fund 100% or 0% of a school? Did you read that in a pamphlet? Why not anywhere in between?

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 3:03pm:

Quote: now private schools are overfunded at all levels I'm guessing you don't know the actual numbers. Just the spin that little pinks are supposed to put on them.

The actual numbers?

(google)

"Per student, public schools received $16,174 on average in recurrent government funding in 2021, while Independent schools, which are able to charge unlimited tuition fees, received $11,840.17 July 2023"

The outcome?

Far from our schooling system helping to narrow the inevitable inequalities visited upon every child by the lottery of birth, our system uses public money to turbocharge them. 

Try "spinning" that; the point is public schools are underfunded while public resources are handed to  wealthy private schools.

John Smith is correct: you want your kids to go to schools which teach your "shared beliefs" ideology, that's your choice. I - and the general public who want equality of opportunity for all school kids - are not interested in funding you. 

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 3:42pm:

John Smith wrote on May 19th, 2024 at 3:33pm: Private schools should not receive any funding.  You want a private school,  you pay for it. So the government should only be allowed to fund 100% or 0% of a school? Did you read that in a pamphlet? Why not anywhere in between?

No, the govt shouldn't fund private schools. The rest of your stupidity is yours and yours alone

thegreatdivide wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 5:00pm:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2024 at 3:03pm: Quote: now private schools are overfunded at all levels I'm guessing you don't know the actual numbers. Just the spin that little pinks are supposed to put on them. The actual numbers? (google) "Per student, public schools received $16,174 on average in recurrent government funding in 2021, while Independent schools, which are able to charge unlimited tuition fees, received $11,840.17 July 2023" The outcome? Far from our schooling system helping to narrow the inevitable inequalities visited upon every child by the lottery of birth, our system uses public money to turbocharge them.  Try "spinning" that; the point is public schools are underfunded while public resources are handed to  wealthy private schools. John Smith is correct: you want your kids to go to schools which teach your "shared beliefs" ideology, that's your choice. I - and the general public who want equality of opportunity for all school kids - are not interested in funding you.

So they are funded less than public schools, on a per student basis? In what sense is that "over" funded?


Quote:

Try "spinning" that; the point is public schools are underfunded while public resources are handed to  wealthy private schools.

What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close? Would that make it easier or harder for the government to fund public schools?


John Smith wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 5:11pm:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2024 at 3:42pm: John Smith wrote on May 19th, 2024 at 3:33pm: Private schools should not receive any funding.  You want a private school,  you pay for it. So the government should only be allowed to fund 100% or 0% of a school? Did you read that in a pamphlet? Why not anywhere in between? No, the govt shouldn't fund private schools. The rest of your stupidity is yours and yours alone

Can you explain why John? Or are you just chanting a mantra you read in a pamphlet?

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 5:26pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 19th, 2024 at 5:00pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2024 at 3:03pm: Quote: now private schools are overfunded at all levels I'm guessing you don't know the actual numbers. Just the spin that little pinks are supposed to put on them. The actual numbers? (google) "Per student, public schools received $16,174 on average in recurrent government funding in 2021, while Independent schools, which are able to charge unlimited tuition fees, received $11,840.17 July 2023" The outcome? Far from our schooling system helping to narrow the inevitable inequalities visited upon every child by the lottery of birth, our system uses public money to turbocharge them.  Try "spinning" that; the point is public schools are underfunded while public resources are handed to  wealthy private schools. John Smith is correct: you want your kids to go to schools which teach your "shared beliefs" ideology, that's your choice. I - and the general public who want equality of opportunity for all school kids - are not interested in funding you.  So they are funded less than public schools, on a per student basis? In what sense is that "over" funded?

Good to see you asking a 'sensible' question (allowing for your crippled capacity for rational thought, of course).

(google)

https://www.indaily.com.au/news/adelaide/2024/04/30/campaign-begins-amid-public-school-underfunding

The AEU has reported public schools will be underfunded by $1.8 billion from 2024-2028, with each student underfunded by an average of $2004 in 2024, based on the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS).

The SRS, based on recommendations made in the 2011 Review for Funding for Schooling, indicates the amount of public funding needed at a school for its students’ educational needs to be met.

Based on these figures, the AEU found all public schools in South Australia are being underfunded by a total of $337 million in 2024, while private schools are overfunded by $64.2 million.30 Apr 2024

That's $64 million which should be going to public schools in SA alone, based on those figures which themselvesare based on the SRS (noted above).

But in my book, NO public funding ought being going to private schools; the state's responsibility is  to provide the best education for all; any 'special' education requirements (mostly ideology)  beyond that should be a matter for the private sector alone.    


Quote:

What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close? Would that make it easier or harder for the government to fund public schools?

 

Given the overfunding for private schools (fancy swimming pools etc), it's hard to say; but in any case education should be free up to the levels commensurate with the student's ability.


Note: literally free: after the infrastructure is built, Treasury can fund  education for free because education is a 'renewable' resource (as one mainstream economist conceded); the transmission of knowledge from teacher to student (requiring mostly mental effort and time from both) doesnt expend scarce resources. 

Quote:

But in my book, NO public funding ought being going to private schools

I see you have resorted to John Smith's logic rather than pretending you have a rational argument.

Is it because you like to use binary labels like private and public and you get confused if public funds go to "private" schools?

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 6:08pm:

Quote: But in my book, NO public funding ought being going to private schools I see you have resorted to John Smith's logic rather than pretending you have a rational argument.

Wow, a supreme example of your ideologically deluded brain's crippled capacity for reason, and/or simply missing the argument which I provided:

the state's responsibility is to provide the best education for all; any 'special' education requirements (mostly ideology)  beyond that should be a matter for the private sector alone.   


Quote:

Is it because you like to use binary labels like private and public and you get confused if public funds go to "private" schools?

No, see above.

Quote:

the state's responsibility is to provide the best education for all; any 'special' education requirements (mostly ideology)  beyond that should be a matter for the private sector alone.

That is not an explanation. That is you taking twice as long to say the same thing.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 6:41pm:

Quote: the state's responsibility is to provide the best education for all; any 'special' education requirements (mostly ideology)  beyond that should be a matter for the private sector alone.  That is not an explanation. That is you taking twice as long to say the same thing.

Priceless! (laughter is the best medicine :-)   )

What part of "the state's responsibility is to provide the best education for all" don't you understand?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 6:52pm:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2024 at 6:41pm: Quote: the state's responsibility is to provide the best education for all; any 'special' education requirements (mostly ideology)  beyond that should be a matter for the private sector alone.  That is not an explanation. That is you taking twice as long to say the same thing. Priceless! (laughter is the best medicine :-)   ) What part of "the state's responsibility is to provide the best education for all" don't you understand?

1) It is illogical. Banning payments to private schools does not guarantee this.

2) It does not actually mean anything. It is vague enough to be interpreted any way you want. You could say the same thig in support of private school funding.

For each school there is an income and assets test...................... once past the point determined, funding is progressively reduced in relation to income and assets - same as pension and unemployment - with a defined cut-off point.

Means the rich schools don't get richer out of the public purse.  No more Olympic swimming pools in the backyard unless the school budget pays for it out of funds received for tuition.

One of the things wrong with our country at this time, and like affirmative action, it fed the fat who still copped all their benefits of connections and even 'name (I worked in the PS with a guy who was grandson of an Admiral - guess who was on the 'inside running'), and all the other forms of discrimination that persist in such bodies, as well as the largesse of 'belonging' to a socially disadvantaged or oppressed group.

Now look at the state of the joint ................. quarter-baked twerps are artificially fed into the Gauleiter spots to obey der Fuhrergruppen with the same predictable results as with the Nazis.  What are these 'contracted senior management' in the PS other than Gauleiters appointed from the equivalent of the old schoolyard mobs, the SA, SS and other old party fighters and comrades?

How many are NOT of the 'old school tie' and 'connections' mobs?  NFMIA!!  (Nicht viele, wenn überhaupt!)

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2024 at 7:04pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 19th, 2024 at 6:52pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2024 at 6:41pm: Quote: the state's responsibility is to provide the best education for all; any 'special' education requirements (mostly ideology)  beyond that should be a matter for the private sector alone.  That is not an explanation. That is you taking twice as long to say the same thing. Priceless! (laughter is the best medicine :-)   ) What part of "the state's responsibility is to provide the best education for all" don't you understand? 1) It is illogical. Banning payments to private schools does not guarantee this.

Ah - progress: so an assertion that "the state's responsibility is to provide the best (possible) education for all" is "illogical", when ONLY the state can guarantee education for all, since not everyone can afford private education.

And to hand responsibility for education over to private instutions with their own axe to grind implies students being caught up in a competition between conflicting ideologies.

But let's examine your "logic" which claims my point about universal public education is "illogical":

FD: Banning payments to private schools does not guarantee this

Does not guarantee what, exactly? Quality education? That's up to the state resourcing teachers and schools properly (same as private schools are resourced with the benefit of  public AND private funds, allowing then to build flash swimming pools while public schools are under-resourced. ...). 

By definition, the state CAN guarantee quality education for everyone regardless of a student's wealth - indeed there is no private education at all in Finland, a country which ranks among the highest in educational outcomes in the world. 


Quote:

2) It does not actually mean anything. It is vague enough to be interpreted any way you want. You could say the same thig in support of private school funding.

Examined - and your errors exposed above.

Quote:

Ah - progress: so an assertion that "the state's responsibility is to provide the best (possible) education for all" is "illogical", when ONLY the state can guarantee education for all, since not everyone can afford private education.

Our state does guarantee education for all. But it is absurd to suggest it is responsible to provide everyone with the best possible education, unless you have a very limited imagination. Really, this is just more meaningless gibberish.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 12:59pm:

Quote: Ah - progress: so an assertion that "the state's responsibility is to provide the best (possible) education for all" is "illogical", when ONLY the state can guarantee education for all, since not everyone can afford private education. Our state does guarantee education for all.

But doesn't actually do it - a subtle difference - because the current small government/debt and deficit mainstream mythology causes the government to underfund public schools while siphoning public funds to private schools in a misconstued responsbility shifting exercise (to "save" governement money).
   

Quote:

But it is absurd to suggest it is responsible to provide everyone with the best possible education, unless you have a very limited imagination. Really, this is just more meaningless gibberish.

Er - it means providing all students and all schools  with the necessary resources as noted in the 2011 SRS report (have you forgotten already?)

thegreatdivide wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 2:00pm:

freediver wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 12:59pm: Quote: Ah - progress: so an assertion that "the state's responsibility is to provide the best (possible) education for all" is "illogical", when ONLY the state can guarantee education for all, since not everyone can afford private education. Our state does guarantee education for all. But doesn't actually do it - a subtle difference - because the current small government/debt and deficit mainstream mythology causes the government to underfund public schools while siphoning public funds to private schools in a misconstued responsbility shifting exercise (to "save" governement money).     [quote]But it is absurd to suggest it is responsible to provide everyone with the best possible education, unless you have a very limited imagination. Really, this is just more meaningless gibberish.

Er - it means providing all students and all schools  with the necessary resources as noted in the 2011 SRS report (have you forgotten already?)
[/quote]

Ah. Of course. You were not referring to the best possible education. You were referring to some paperwork.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 2:17pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 2:00pm: freediver wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 12:59pm: Quote: Ah - progress: so an assertion that "the state's responsibility is to provide the best (possible) education for all" is "illogical", when ONLY the state can guarantee education for all, since not everyone can afford private education. Our state does guarantee education for all. But doesn't actually do it - a subtle difference - because the current small government/debt and deficit mainstream mythology causes the government to underfund public schools while siphoning public funds to private schools in a misconstued responsbility shifting exercise (to "save" governement money).     [quote]But it is absurd to suggest it is responsible to provide everyone with the best possible education, unless you have a very limited imagination. Really, this is just more meaningless gibberish. Er - it means providing all students and all schools  with the necessary resources as noted in the 2011 SRS report (have you forgotten already?)

Ah. Of course. You were not referring to the best possible education. You were referring to some paperwork.[/quote]

Ok you win; no I was referring to necessary education standards as outlined by the body charged with identifying them.

....to achieve  "the best educational outcomes for all" ...my bad...

Quote:

Everything you post is meaningless jargon.

You never explained what would happen with the funding for all the students who leave private schools if the government cancelled the funding to them. You understand that they would all end up costing the government more money, right? And those students would receive a lower quality education?

Sorry Gnads I am trying to move your two posts to the relevant threads but am having trouble.

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 12^th, 2022 at 8:45pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2022 at 7:25pm: Quote: SO far you haven't provided any evidence that private education provides better results. Sure I have. The fact that so many people are willing to pay so much for it. Money talks, BS walks. In NSW we only have 2 government non selective high schools in the top 100 schools. Willoughby Girls High school is highest ranked at 65th that area has large Asian population. A government selective high school only takes bright kids these schools do well because they don't admit dim wits.The kids sit a test in 6th grade to qualify for a selective high school. The high school i went to is ranked 2nd best in NSW. 10 private schools are ranked in the top 21 high schools. https://www.matrix.edu.au/high-school-rankings/2021-high-school-rankings/ If your offspring aren't smart enough to get into selective high school then private schools have better results compared to non selective government schools.

They charge a fortune for your children to attend.

Why should they get any Govt aka taxpayer funding at all?

The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school.

Private schools save us all money.
The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 2:39pm:

You never explained what would happen with the funding for all the students who leave private schools if the government cancelled the funding to them. You understand that they would all end up costing the government more money, right? And those students would receive a lower quality education?

1. The parents currently sending their kids to private schools would be richer, while the government money currently devoted to funding private schools would be freed up to fund better public education and schools.

2. As for costing the government more money (as private funding for private schools is withdrawn),  government money created in Treasury is free for the government (or alternatively, given the general public's ignorance of how money is created,  the govt. could raise more taxes from the wealthy who currently want to send their kids to exclusive ideology-based schools).

In either case, the issue is providing sufflicient resources to provide quality education for all. 

Ah I keep forgetting. Money is "free" so the government can spend whatever it wants.

Gordon wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 5:56pm:

The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer.

Argh aye - personal choice, innit?  Choice-mobile...

Of course my pair both got scholarships to a private college, don' cha know?  No stuffing about... but I suppose I shouldn't discuss the situation of others with lesser offspring  (ooooOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH!!) ....

Gordon wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 5:56pm:

The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer.

My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding???

Gnads wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 9:10am:

Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 5:56pm: The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer. My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding???

Why shouldn't they?

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 6:15pm:

Ah I keep forgetting. Money is "free" so the government can spend whatever it wants.

 
Money CAN be free for a currency-issuing government, by definition. What part of that don't you understand?

[Government can also control inflation - the usual, objection by mainstream 'flat-earth' economists].

Alternatively, rich people used to be taxed appropriately, until the false low tax = high productivity, "trickle down" nonsense gained support in the mainstream.  Gina Rinehart is laughing all the way to the bank.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 9:34am:

Gnads wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:10am: Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 5:56pm: The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer. My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding??? Why shouldn't they?

Because they push their own ideology-based concept of education, not an education for the collective, eg based on universal morality, justice and fairness. 

Now.... why should private schools get government funding?

Gnads wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 9:10am:

Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 5:56pm: The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer. My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding???

FD answered that - in the form of a question - earlier in the thread:

"What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?"

thegreatdivide wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 12:27pm:

freediver wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:34am: Gnads wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:10am: Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 5:56pm: The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer. My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding??? Why shouldn't they? Because they push their own ideology-based concept of education, not an education for the collective, eg based on universal morality, justice and fairness.  Now.... why should private schools get government funding?

So you oppose private schools because they teach a different concept of morality and fairness from public schools?

How does it differ?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 12:27pm:

freediver wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:34am: Gnads wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:10am: Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 5:56pm: The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer. My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding??? Why shouldn't they? Because they push their own ideology-based concept of education, not an education for the collective, eg based on universal morality, justice and fairness.  Now.... why should private schools get government funding?

Because the parents pay tax at the same rate as anyone else. So they are entitled to similar education funding for their children. That they choose to pay extra on top of the government funding is their decision. You don't have to, you can send your kiddies to the state school.

There are all sorts of good reasons to fund them. But no-one has presented a good reason not to. Just an idiotic mantra.

For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question:

"What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?"

greggerypeccary wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 4:59pm:

For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?"

A lot of future leaners in Australia would lose their opportunity to network and develop connections ... some of them might even be introduced to the real world.....

Frank wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 3:12pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 12:27pm: freediver wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:34am: Gnads wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:10am: Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 5:56pm: The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer. My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding??? Why shouldn't they? Because they push their own ideology-based concept of education, not an education for the collective, eg based on universal morality, justice and fairness.  Now.... why should private schools get government funding? Because the parents pay tax at the same rate as anyone else. So they are entitled to similar education funding for their children. That they choose to pay extra on top of the government funding is their decision. You don't have to, you can send your kiddies to the state school.

Government has an obligation to provide equal education - not equal funding.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 5:38pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 4:59pm: For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?" A lot of future leaners in Australia would lose their opportunity to network and develop connections ... some of them might even be introduced to the real world.....

You went to a public school, didn't you Grapps?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 5:40pm:

Frank wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 3:12pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 12:27pm: freediver wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:34am: Gnads wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:10am: Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 5:56pm: The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer. My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding??? Why shouldn't they? Because they push their own ideology-based concept of education, not an education for the collective, eg based on universal morality, justice and fairness.  Now.... why should private schools get government funding? Because the parents pay tax at the same rate as anyone else. So they are entitled to similar education funding for their children. That they choose to pay extra on top of the government funding is their decision. You don't have to, you can send your kiddies to the state school. Government has an obligation to provide equal education - not equal funding.

Not at all.

Education started out as a it private matter, governments came later.

Compulsory education is funded by government and where necessary, government sets up it's own schools. But it does not take over existing schools from privates or prevents others from setting up schools. It doesn't even prevent home schooling.

So government's self-appointed obligation is to facilitate education, regulate it, police it - but not to deliver it always and everywhere as a government monopoly.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 9:34am:

Gnads wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:10am: Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 5:56pm: The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer. My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding??? Why shouldn't they?

Here we go again ::)... you answer my question first.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 3:16pm:

There are all sorts of good reasons to fund them. But no-one has presented a good reason not to. Just an idiotic mantra.

No more idiotic than your own.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 4:59pm:

For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?"

Stiff shyte .. that's what happens in the private sector ......no?

And the govt funding that was given to those private schools could then be diverted to the public schools to cope with the extra students from the private ones that closed.

Gnads wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 11:58am:

freediver wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 3:16pm: There are all sorts of good reasons to fund them. But no-one has presented a good reason not to. Just an idiotic mantra. No more idiotic than your own.

What are my arguments?


Gnads wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 4:59pm: For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?" Stiff shyte .. that's what happens in the private sector ......no? And the govt funding that was given to those private schools could then be diverted to the public schools to cope with the extra students from the private ones that closed.

Would it be enough to cope with them?

Gnads wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 4:59pm: For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?" Stiff shyte .. that's what happens in the private sector ......no? And the govt funding that was given to those private schools could then be diverted to the public schools to cope with the extra students from the private ones that closed.

They'll just build new classrooms and toilet blocks overnight?

Frank wrote on May 21^st, 2024 at 3:12pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 12:27pm: freediver wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:34am: Gnads wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:10am: Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 5:56pm: The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer. My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding??? Why shouldn't they? Because they push their own ideology-based concept of education, not an education for the collective, eg based on universal morality, justice and fairness.  Now.... why should private schools get government funding? Because the parents pay tax at the same rate as anyone else. So they are entitled to similar education funding for their children. That they choose to pay extra on top of the government funding is their decision. You don't have to, you can send your kiddies to the state school.

What a ridiculous argument ... my taxes go towards airports and ports I don't use, ports. Why don't they build me a port near my place so I can use it? Afterall, i pay the same taxes as those who use a port in their city

greggerypeccary wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:22pm:

Gnads wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 4:59pm: For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?" Stiff shyte .. that's what happens in the private sector ......no? And the govt funding that was given to those private schools could then be diverted to the public schools to cope with the extra students from the private ones that closed. They'll just build new classrooms and toilet blocks overnight?

they'd have the money to do it.

John Smith wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 6:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:22pm: Gnads wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 4:59pm: For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?" Stiff shyte .. that's what happens in the private sector ......no? And the govt funding that was given to those private schools could then be diverted to the public schools to cope with the extra students from the private ones that closed. They'll just build new classrooms and toilet blocks overnight? they'd have the money to do it.

What makes you think that?

John Smith wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 6:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:22pm: Gnads wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 4:59pm: For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?" Stiff shyte .. that's what happens in the private sector ......no? And the govt funding that was given to those private schools could then be diverted to the public schools to cope with the extra students from the private ones that closed. They'll just build new classrooms and toilet blocks overnight? they'd have the money to do it.

And the tradespeople?

The materials?

greggerypeccary wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 12:22pm:

Gnads wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 4:59pm: For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?" Stiff shyte .. that's what happens in the private sector ......no? And the govt funding that was given to those private schools could then be diverted to the public schools to cope with the extra students from the private ones that closed. They'll just build new classrooms and toilet blocks overnight?

Richmond River High and Trinity both remain closed after the 2022 flood they have not and will not reopen. Where did the students go? RRH students went to Lismore and Kadina high schools, the Trinity kids all went to demountables next door to SCU. Both Trinity and RRH were reasonably big schools.

Setanta wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 6:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:22pm: Gnads wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 4:59pm: For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?" Stiff shyte .. that's what happens in the private sector ......no? And the govt funding that was given to those private schools could then be diverted to the public schools to cope with the extra students from the private ones that closed. They'll just build new classrooms and toilet blocks overnight? Richmond River High and Trinity both remain closed after the 2022 flood they have not and will not reopen. Where did the students go? RRH students went to Lismore and Kadina high schools, the Trinity kids all went to demountables next door to SCU. Both Trinity and RRH were reasonably big schools.

Who needs private schools when we have demountables?

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 8:53pm:

Setanta wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 6:50pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:22pm: Gnads wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 4:59pm: For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?" Stiff shyte .. that's what happens in the private sector ......no? And the govt funding that was given to those private schools could then be diverted to the public schools to cope with the extra students from the private ones that closed. They'll just build new classrooms and toilet blocks overnight? Richmond River High and Trinity both remain closed after the 2022 flood they have not and will not reopen. Where did the students go? RRH students went to Lismore and Kadina high schools, the Trinity kids all went to demountables next door to SCU. Both Trinity and RRH were reasonably big schools. Who needs private schools when we have demountables?

Filled with 50+ students.

Primary schools in NSW are pretty good.
Secondary schools are an abject failure and are totally propped up by the coaching industry.

People love the say how the kids with the best ATARs in NSW come from Govt selective schools but it's a total fraud because their parents pay for coaching to a financial level rivaling private school fees.

John Smith wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 6:04pm:

Frank wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 3:12pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 12:27pm: freediver wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:34am: Gnads wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:10am: Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 5:56pm: The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer. My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding??? Why shouldn't they? Because they push their own ideology-based concept of education, not an education for the collective, eg based on universal morality, justice and fairness.  Now.... why should private schools get government funding? Because the parents pay tax at the same rate as anyone else. So they are entitled to similar education funding for their children. That they choose to pay extra on top of the government funding is their decision. You don't have to, you can send your kiddies to the state school. What a ridiculous argument ... my taxes go towards airports and ports I don't use, ports. Why don't they build me a port near my place so I can use it? Afterall, i pay the same taxes as those who use a port in their city

You DO use airports and ports, you ridiculously thick, militant idiot.
All the goods and services you use and people who provide them to you  come through them.

Gordon wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 9:40pm:

Primary schools in NSW are pretty good. Secondary schools are an abject failure and are totally propped up by the coaching industry. People love the say how the kids with the best ATARs in NSW come from Govt selective schools but it's a total fraud because their parents pay for coaching to a financial level rivaling private school fees.

True.  Selective schools are hugely rorted by Asians. Coaching colleges for Asians are huge. Selective schools are full of their products.

Two of my sons went to private schools, one to a selective school. The brown kids were pointing to him as a rarity: a smart white kid because the coaching colleges where the Asians all go are full of tinted kiddies , Monday to Friday until 9, 10 pm. So they thought white kids were less inteligent because they didnt see any at those colleges and saw only three white kids in a class of 30 in the selective school.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 6:39pm:

John Smith wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 6:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:22pm: Gnads wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 12:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 4:59pm: For those who oppose private school funding, think (hard) about FD's question: "What do you think would happen if the government cut funding to private schools, and a bunch of students went to public schools instead, and some of the private schools had to close?" Stiff shyte .. that's what happens in the private sector ......no? And the govt funding that was given to those private schools could then be diverted to the public schools to cope with the extra students from the private ones that closed. They'll just build new classrooms and toilet blocks overnight? they'd have the money to do it. And the tradespeople? The materials?

See, creating employment as well.  Bonus.

Frank wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 9:43pm:

John Smith wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 6:04pm: Frank wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 3:12pm: thegreatdivide wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 12:27pm: freediver wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:34am: Gnads wrote on May 21st, 2024 at 9:10am: Gordon wrote on May 20th, 2024 at 5:56pm: The per student cost to the Govt for a child in a private school is about 25% lower than a Govt school. Private schools save us all money. The 2 Steinway D-274s my daughter gets to play on aren't paid for by the taxpayer. My point was: why should private schools get any Govt funding??? Why shouldn't they? Because they push their own ideology-based concept of education, not an education for the collective, eg based on universal morality, justice and fairness.  Now.... why should private schools get government funding? Because the parents pay tax at the same rate as anyone else. So they are entitled to similar education funding for their children. That they choose to pay extra on top of the government funding is their decision. You don't have to, you can send your kiddies to the state school. What a ridiculous argument ... my taxes go towards airports and ports I don't use, ports. Why don't they build me a port near my place so I can use it? Afterall, i pay the same taxes as those who use a port in their city You DO use airports and ports, you ridiculously thick, militant idiot. All the goods and services you use and people who provide them to you  come through them.

And all the doctors , nurses tradesmen etc that save your miserable arse are able to do so because they were educated in public schools.     :D
You dumbarse. 

Frank wrote on May 22^nd, 2024 at 9:59pm:

Gordon wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 9:40pm: Primary schools in NSW are pretty good. Secondary schools are an abject failure and are totally propped up by the coaching industry. People love the say how the kids with the best ATARs in NSW come from Govt selective schools but it's a total fraud because their parents pay for coaching to a financial level rivaling private school fees. True.  Selective schools are hugely rorted by Asians. Coaching colleges for Asians are huge. Selective schools are full of their products. Two of my sons went to private schools, one to a selective school. The brown kids were pointing to him as a rarity: a smart white kid because the coaching colleges where the Asians all go are full of tinted kiddies , Monday to Friday until 9, 10 pm. So they thought white kids were less inteligent because they didnt see any at those colleges and saw only three white kids in a class of 30 in the selective school.

That's not a rort. That is the intention. If you put in the effort, you get to go. Even smart kids have to work hard.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 6:43am:

Frank wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 9:59pm: Gordon wrote on May 22nd, 2024 at 9:40pm: Primary schools in NSW are pretty good. Secondary schools are an abject failure and are totally propped up by the coaching industry. People love the say how the kids with the best ATARs in NSW come from Govt selective schools but it's a total fraud because their parents pay for coaching to a financial level rivaling private school fees. True.  Selective schools are hugely rorted by Asians. Coaching colleges for Asians are huge. Selective schools are full of their products. Two of my sons went to private schools, one to a selective school. The brown kids were pointing to him as a rarity: a smart white kid because the coaching colleges where the Asians all go are full of tinted kiddies , Monday to Friday until 9, 10 pm. So they thought white kids were less inteligent because they didnt see any at those colleges and saw only three white kids in a class of 30 in the selective school. That's not a rort. That is the intention. If you put in the effort, you get to go. Even smart kids have to work hard.

It is a rort, a distortion, a manipulation.



My daughter might not get into the top class, but at least I know she's had a childhood


Securing a spot in the prestigious program is a numbers game — and with only 1,700 places for some 11,000 applicants, the odds are stacked against them.


While the OC stream was designed to give children a classroom environment where they could excel, in recent times, it seems the classes are full of those children who have excelled at sitting a test.

It means children (or rather, their parents) are forced to up the ante, forking out exorbitant fees for tuition colleges to get exam ready.

"Parents can spend more than $20,000 a year on preparation for [opportunity class] or selective high school tests," NSW Department of Education secretary Mark Scott remarked in 2017.

And they do.

At our local tuition college, intensive coaching holiday workshops cost $100 a day or more, depending on how many hours the children attend.

If the intention of the OC and selective stream classes was to give children from disadvantaged backgrounds a boost, then that has certainly gone out of the window.

There has been much talk about overhauling the test so it could not be coached.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-19/opportunity-class-nsw-children-coaching-colleges-tuition-holiday/11604608

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-26/why-we-dont-need-more-selective-schools/8745560

Quote:

It means children (or rather, their parents) are forced to up the ante, forking out exorbitant fees for tuition colleges to get exam ready.

No-one is forced to do anything. If your child needs tutoring, they probably aren't at the top of the class. A student who is naturally gifted will be able to get in if they make the effort.

A lot of those asian families you complain about are probably spending a fortune getting their children's English skills close to those of a native speaker.

My high school years were generally a learning experience about how to socialise and be educated in a balance. Knowing what I know about life in general, if I could go back and redo my high school years, I would take it a lot more seriously on the education side, and be more casual about the social side of things.

Going home and starting up the Nintendo to rescue Mario's girlfriend is what had my grades going downhill. If I did my homework for an hour of the afternoon, I would have had everything done and could well have been a B-average student at the very least with even my worst subjects.

You don't need tutors. You need discipline to value education to succeed.

There are many problems with selective schools, rorting by coaching - ie training for the entance exam rather than being selected for genuine academic ability - is just one. Asians are used to and prefer rote learning and drill ("don't think, do it our way") and so coaching colleges suit them, hence the disproportionate number of Chinese and Indian pupils. Note the near total absence of Arabs, Islanders, Africans.
White Australian parents have a much more rounded, holistic view of personhood, childhood, development etc so they do not act like Dragon mothers, forcing their kiddies to be at a coaching college until 8 pm memorising test q uyestions instead of doing some sport or play with friends.

The other big problem, possibly at the root of all the problem, is the general low quality of schooling in comprehensive schools. Low ability, low motivation pupils set the tone andeth o s  of such schools so anyone with ability and interest in learning soon finds them a boring waste of time. Discipline is low, disruptive, thick pupils and their parents keep standards low.

Anyone with ability and interest in learning turns away from them and send their children to private or selective schools - and so the low ability, low motivation to learn cohort takes over comprehensive schools more and more.

https://youtu.be/_O5U9irS3iA?si=myztAkoSgrI7owcI

Not satire, documentary.

Quote:

training for the entance exam rather than being selected for genuine academic ability

What is the distinction you are trying to make? The only way to systematically measure, or even define academic ability is with an exam.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2024 at 10:48am:

Quote: training for the entance exam rather than being selected for genuine academic ability What is the distinction you are trying to make? The only way to systematically measure, or even define academic ability is with an exam.

You really do not understand the difference between genuine academic ability and training to pass certain types of exams?

A lot of these kiddies are not particularly smart but are coached in passing exams of a very well defined type. They become obscessed by exams and marks with genuine knowledge and understanding a distant consideration. They are only interested in "what's in the test" and this goes on for most of their high school years and at uni.

Many of them are unhappy because they are doing what they parents want them to do rather than what their own talents and interests would lead them to. It is social climing for most families rather than genuine education and personal formation.

Well to do families from any background send their kiddies to private schools where they get a much more rounded education. We sent two of our boys to private, non-Catholic schools. The third was always really good at maths and aced the selective exam. He is now doing post-grad studies in mathematics at a G8 uni.

Quote:

You really do not understand the difference between genuine academic ability and training to pass certain types of exams?

How do you measure academic ability, or define it, other than by exam marks?