Originally written September 02, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Australian education 'on wrong track'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Govt school sponsorship criticised

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

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

---

ALP vows no private school funding cuts

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

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

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

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

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

---

Business-sponsored schools plan floated

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

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

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

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

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

---

Labor wants to rank schools on scores

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

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

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

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

---

Nurture elitism, says US thinker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or alternatively the government funding private schools beyond the curriculum.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

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


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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