[Senexx]

Eb2, on 30 January 2011 - 06:41 AM, said:

All good suggestions Bam except I would cut all government funding to private schools.
Your list is proof that a levy was not required to raise funds to repair flood damage.
So if a bunch of amateur bloggers can solve the problem than why cant the government.

Yes I know the opposition are being hypocritical and yes
I know Steve Lewis is a Liberal stooge but it wasn't the point of linking the article.

Epicurus, on 30 January 2011 - 07:00 AM, said:

The removal of private school funding requires and equal or increased allocation of funding to public schools as there would be a mass exodus from private to public schools because parents couldn't afford the increased fees.

Following on from these posts, its time for my Public vs. Private schooling education post.

MY POLITICAL CONCEIT

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 in my opinion.

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.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Neil]

Except that private schools get more federal tax money than government schools. Another thing to thank Howard for.
Has anyone noted that the media constantly supports tax payer funding of private schools? Perhaps the media should declare their conflict of interest if their own children attend private schools.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Warrigal]

"Perhaps the media should declare their conflict of interest if their own children attend private schools."

Unfortunately that's not the only area where media tarts are conflicted. Sadly they seem for the most part to be unable to resolve the conflict between the truth, or what may pass for it, and the power elite's agenda with regard to all manner of issues including education funding.

Even our "Eight Cents A Day" seems to now be supporting a creeping insidious kryptofascist editorial policy. For all Mark Scott's protestations that the ABC will maintain its independence as it tries to establish itself on the high ground in the new media landscape, methinks he doth protest too much. His press releases and "to camera" announcements seem to sound hollow and unconvincing as the third party deals roll on in news and current affairs, giving many institutions, some with commercial or ideological barrows to push, a legitimacy their biased or fringe opinions simply do not warrant.

When balance is reduced to a license for all and any ideas, no matter their probity or provenance; that these ideas are then presented untested, then there is no idea, no opinion worth more than what I may come up with over a few drinks with friends. In such a media environment it is a simple matter to sew the sour seeds of disunity and discombobulation, and the previously mentioned license gives these pieces the appearance of "news", "important information" absolutely necessary in the forming of worthwhile political opinions. except that what they really do is increase the polarisation of the polity and eventually lead to social de-cohesion.

Modern politics is about the gaining and maintenance of power by a collusive power elite not all of whom are elected. It has very little to do with actual governance and actual service delivery these days and I can see no end to this dystopia in sight.

Education being the basis of any constituents ability to critique the political milieu, you can see why it is that funding tends to increase for private schools whenever conservative governments are elected. Sadly this cycle doesn't seem to have included its necessary and concomitant reverse, extra funding for public schools when a progressive government is elected.

But then I'd hardly call the Rudd Gillard ascendancy progressive. Indeed it can only cling to any threadbare notion of progressive policy because Big Ears The Mad Monk and his coterie of poo tossing monkeys are manifestly incompetent to govern a cage at the zoo let alone the nation.

Poor Fella My Country.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Eb2]

I have no problem with private education, as long as that's what it is, but it is not, it is heavily subsidised by our taxes.
Same with the BER grants, fine for public schools, but no private school should have received infrastructure grants, that's just plain wrong in my book.
That's my ideological view anyway.
The reality is we do have funding of private schools but a fair and equatable system needs to be found to accommodate all the communities needs.
The current funding system seems to favour private schools according to my info, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

http://forourfuture....-current-system

The simple fact is it is to difficult to unfund (I know it's not a proper word, see public education does work.) private schools now, no matter how much I believe they should be.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Epicurus]

Neil, on 30 January 2011 - 12:59 PM, said:

Except that private schools get more federal tax money than government schools.

This is true, but it is also true that federal funding represents less than a quarter of total funding... at least in 2005. Most of the school funding comes from the States.

http://www.acer.edu....s_Dowling07.pdf

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Senexx]

Where does all today's modern money come from?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Eb2]

Thanks for the doc link Epicurus.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Kuzushisan]

Let me start my reply by saying the education of my children is paramount to me, and that very little of this education actually comes from schooling. Schools serve as a vehicle by which some of this education takes place, but not all of it. In fact, the older children get, the less beneficial I see in schooling as it currently exists. That, however, is definitely another topic.

Where I live, the State withholds 60% of its funding to Public Schools, every year. These schools must therefore budget with 40% of the funding they are meant to receive. When the State is questioned (and not nearly often enough), it points to a time when public schools "mismanaged" their budgets. So, in order to 'protect' the children in public schooling from mismanagement and resultant underfunding, the State, in its wisdom withholds funding to protect the children of the public schools from underfunding.

So, my children went to a public school during primary school, and a brilliantly managed school it was too, with one of the best teaching cultures I've ever come across. Funding is an issue here, but the management team do amazing things, and the P&F association does great work in raising additional income for school projects and education experiences for our children. One of its fortunes was that it was a small school relative to others in the area, so the money raised went further.

Time moves on, and secondary school beckons.We begin the search of the local secondary schools, which includes a private one, and the process of speaking to the principals, friends, education department, AEU, IEUA, and the residents surrounding the schools. Also helps that we have friends who are teachers in or previously in all of these schools.

What we find after 2.5 years of looking and discussion is that the secondary schools that are public are woefully underfunded, as a result understaffed, and the buildings can best be described as in a dilapidated state, plus 30 years out of date with regard to current worldwide beliefs about 'learning 'spaces'. The students were miserable, the staff were miserable; it was a negative environment, and secondary school being what it currently is, there is enough inherent negativity (far too much) already. The private school is the antithesis.

The teachers in the public system are underfunded, so their vision for their subject matter in the context of 'the modern world' is never going to reach what they see in their minds, let alone their lesson plans, yet they do great work. In general, none of the teachers we spoke to at the private school voiced this issue, because it wasn't one.

Examples of the differences abound. At the end of the day, we chose the private school. Why? Because the taxes we are paying to fund public schools are not reaching them; instead they fill up the coffers of the state. The taxes that are paid for the money that goes to private schools, well near enough 100% of that reaches the school. Why pay money to fund a school only to have the money not reach it? The fees paid at a private school do not all go to the students, but the majority of it does, and most certainly the students benefit from money that is spent on their behalf in facilities, computers, staff, grounds etc..

Had I believed that the State was about to change its ways, and that the schools and staff and, most importantly, the students would be the beneficiaries, then we may have chosen differently. Yet no one we spoke to would give us any indication that it would change, in fact, it was to the contrary.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

Neil, on 30 January 2011 - 12:59 PM, said:

Except that private schools get more federal tax money than government schools.

State governments fund government schools IIRC. We need to look at the total funding picture for schools and not just the contribution from one tier of government. Only then can we get a true indication of the funding of all schools.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Marat]

It is very simple. Public Schools are available to all( or nearly all)children,irrespective of income. Similarly public transport is available to all(or nearly all ). If you want a taxi you pay extra. If you want a private education YOU PAY EXTRA.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

It would probably be fairest if all schools receive the same funding per student without regard to whether they are public or private. Parents who send their kids to private schools pay their taxes too.

There is little justification to funding elite schools more. If you've got the money to send your kids to an elite school, you should pay for it. User pays is not just for the poor!

The only schools that can be justified with special funding arrangements would be selective entry schools for gifted students. Being gifted is not the exclusive provenance of wealthy students, so a system of scholarships is needed so that gifted students from poorer families can attend such schools.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Kuzushisan]

Bam, on 02 February 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

There is little justification to funding elite schools more. If you've got the money to send your kids to an elite school, you should pay for it. User pays is not just for the poor!

Um, maybe you meant to say user pays isn't just for the rich? Or did I miss something???

My understanding is that schools are funded more or less equitably, but that the states play with federal money given to schools, whereas pvt schools receive the money directly...

Many Universities work on this principle - the so-called EFTSU Enrolled Full Time Student Units (or variations on that theme) - but this too has it's inequities. Post-Grad students attract x $, Honours y $ and Masters/PhD differing amounts again. The 'bigger' the degree, the bigger the numbers, hence the sudden push to offer more Masters and PhD places in Universities.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Bam]

Kuzushisan, on 02 February 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:

Um, maybe you meant to say user pays isn't just for the rich? Or did I miss something???

Yes, you did. In the last 20 years, conservative governments - both state and federal - introduced the concept of "user pays" to make the poor pay more for services. Sure, the wealthy usually paid more as well, but unlike the poor they can afford it.

User pays is code from conservative politicians for "make the poor pay more". It is never mentioned by them in the context of making the wealthy pay more because that would alienate their base.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Kuzushisan]

Bam, on 03 February 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Yes, you did. In the last 20 years, conservative governments - both state and federal - introduced the concept of "user pays" to make the poor pay more for services. Sure, the wealthy usually paid more as well, but unlike the poor they can afford it.

User pays is code from conservative politicians for "make the poor pay more". It is never mentioned by them in the context of making the wealthy pay more because that would alienate their base.

Examples being?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Marat]

Yes, parents who send their kids to private schools pay tax too. These taxes enable all children to go to public schools.They don't allow anyone to claim any extra advantage. If you want extras pay yourself.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Kuzushisan]

Marat, on 03 February 2011 - 10:10 AM, said:

Yes, parents who send their kids to private schools pay tax too. These taxes enable all children to go to public schools.They don't allow anyone to claim any extra advantage. If you want extras pay yourself.

Aye.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Epicurus]

Marat, on 03 February 2011 - 10:10 AM, said:

Yes, parents who send their kids to private schools pay tax too. These taxes enable all children to go to public schools.They don't allow anyone to claim any extra advantage. If you want extras pay yourself.

So long as those advantages you speak of are extra-curricular advantages, then yes, I agree with you. The curriculum however should be comparable across public and private schools.

As to claiming an advantage, I think that private and public schools need to make allowances for the gifted and remedial students to the extent that it can be claimed that they are getting an advantage over average students. There is no such thing as equality and it is foolish to strive for uniformity in education based on that false concept of equality.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Kuzushisan]

Epicurus, on 03 February 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

So long as those advantages you speak of are extra-curricular advantages, then yes, I agree with you. The curriculum however should be comparable across public and private schools.

As to claiming an advantage, I think that private and public schools need to make allowances for the gifted and remedial students to the extent that it can be claimed that they are getting an advantage over average students. There is no such thing as equality and it is foolish to strive for uniformity in education based on that false concept of equality.

To my knowledge, the Curricula are identical. Current educational training is geared toward helping emerging teachers to be more aware of the differences in students abilities, and to tailor lessons/classes that meet this need. On the face of the evidence I have seen, private schools are well on top of recognising both gifted/remedial students, and offer different class levels to suit. Some public schools are too, but the lack of funding in the state I reside means that the efforts of many more public schools are hampered by lack of means (generally space and teaching staff).

I think we need to be aware though that terms such as gifted/remedial are subjective terms that do not portray an equal picture. One gifted student in Maths may well be a remedial student in Arts, and so on. The recognition that not all students will excel at all subjects is one that needs to be borne in mind. Students/young children/young adults are best treated on a case-by-case, subject-by-subject basis; each one is unique and from a unique set of circumstances that affect directly (often heavily) on their ability to learn, and to want to learn.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

This post has been edited by Kuzushisan: 03 February 2011 - 11:07 AM

[Epicurus]

Kuzushisan, on 03 February 2011 - 10:59 AM, said:

I think we need to be aware though that terms such as gifted/remedial are subjective terms that do not portray an equal picture. One gifted student in Maths may well be a remedial student in Arts, and so on. The recognition that not all students will excel at all subjects is one that needs to be borne in mind. Students/young children/young adults are best treated on a case-by-case, subject-by-subject basis; each one is unique and from a unique set of circumstances that affect directly (often heavily) on their ability to learn, and to want to learn.

Your argument could be used to suggest that classes not be aged based but ability based. I like that idea except for one thing... education is competitive. A 14 year old may not appreciate learning along side a 12 year old as they would view themselves as a failure rather than a different kind of learner. Then again, you could separate the gifted and remedial from the average and have those as mixed age classes.

Otherwise, I have never heard of a gifted maths student being a remedial arts student, unless they are savants. Usually a gifted student will be above average in those subjects that are not their gifted subjects. Likewise, a remedial student will range from below average to remedial in their subjects. It is because of this predictability that there can exist schools for the gifted such as Melbourne University High School and Community schools for the remedial.

Then again, I am not suggesting that we should have 'special' schools for the gifted and remedial, not only is it economically expensive, but socially it is elitist and somehow morally repugnant as it takes all kinds of ability working with each other successfully to make a sound and healthy society.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Kuzushisan]

Epicurus, on 03 February 2011 - 12:30 PM, said:

Your argument could be used to suggest that classes not be aged based but ability based. I like that idea except for one thing... education is competitive. A 14 year old may not appreciate learning along side a 12 year old as they would view themselves as a failure rather than a different kind of learner. Then again, you could separate the gifted and remedial from the average and have those as mixed age classes.

Otherwise, I have never heard of a gifted maths student being a remedial arts student, unless they are savants. Usually a gifted student will be above average in those subjects that are not their gifted subjects. Likewise, a remedial student will range from below average to remedial in their subjects. It is because of this predictability that there can exist schools for the gifted such as Melbourne University High School and Community schools for the remedial.

Then again, I am not suggesting that we should have 'special' schools for the gifted and remedial, not only is it economically expensive, but socially it is elitist and somehow morally repugnant as it takes all kinds of ability working with each other successfully to make a sound and healthy society.

Preshil in Melbourne is an example of the type of school you suggest in your opening paragraph, and to many, similar to what you state in your last.

Quote

Otherwise, I have never heard of a gifted maths student being a remedial arts student

Really? I meet them all the time. Really keen on maths/science/computing but not big fans of drawing/photography/art theory, contrasted with the really gifted artists who do not do well in maths/science/computing, and some in both streams who are good to brilliant at both and into that you can throw music and sport, though they are the exception rather than the rule. The first are hardly Savants, but perhaps it bears me clarifying the original intent of what I was saying.

Students learn at differing rates due to maturity, upbringing, attitudes (toward learning and of learning), interest and many other factors in between. Some students have a predisposition towards Maths and Science (and music) while others display another towards Arts/Creatives (and music), and a some share a passion for both, whilst others again, none, meaning they seem to have no real desire, or see any great need in learning. The most recent example was a lad I had in a class who wished not to be at school, because he was 'just gonna end up working on the family farm'. When it was pointed out that he would need to know at some point about how to manage the books, dealing with suppliers/buyers, understanding the markets, etc., he replied, "I'm not stupid, I already know all that. I made $185,000 out of my share of the farm last year, so I don't see the point in being here." He was 15 years old.

Quote

It is because of this predictability

Do you have a source(s) for this statement? Genuine interest; if you see my profile.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

This post has been edited by Kuzushisan: 03 February 2011 - 12:53 PM