[Swagman]

...being your long held view that private enterprise should be free from government interference to enable them to develop themselves unimpeded?

If we take private schools - your view here that they should receive government funding basically gives the government a stake in those schools. In theory, by being "part owner" - or "shareholder" if you will, they can legitimately claim to have an input into the running of the schools. Then, you know, those pesky "ferals" who suck the government purse will no doubt conspire to have those schools adopt some lefty welfare agenda to discriminate against those poor downtrodden rich folk.

Not really GTG. There are countless non-government social enterprises and private contractors that receive Govt funding (payment for services) to do the Governemt's job for them more efficiently. Non-Govt schools are just one. Just because you pay for a service doesn't make you a part owner.

The Govt is getting the children of its citizens educated at a 69% discount. That's a bloody good deal so I can't see how you can't fathom that.......?

Just who are the "Horseshit rich"?........the minority that pays the majority of tax perhaps?

Yeah...I'd do some research on that point if I were you....

I have looked into that once or twice and by your answer I expect I am pretty close to the mark.........

[colliric]

What a load of cod's wallop! If the private schools are getting the same funding per studnet, they ought not be private. Private schooling is a private business to provide private education for affluent families. If their want a private education, they ought pay for it themselves. If they want the pulbic to pay, they ought go to public schools.

Australia has a really problem with a horseshit rich sector claiming welfare for itself. Meanwhile disadvantaged sectors go without.

St Philips Catholic Primary School(my local) is about as far from an "affluent" school as you can get.... I look at the brand new publlic school right next to it and think where's the sense of funding justice... one school looks like it's struggling to financially survive and the other has got all the brand spanking new facilities you would want to have these days?

Take your uninformed bigotry elsewhere please. This measure is obviously aimed at keeping the two-tiered system mostly alive. I agree with swagman on this issue.

Fucking outrageous. I can't think of anything else to say.

You would say that....


Even Peter Garrett disagrees with you(apparently it's part of his job to secure government funding for private schools) on this Gandalf, and that should tell you something about it:
http://ministers.deewr.gov.au/garrett/s ... ing-reform

Well, I think it's a question that I can answer in a couple of ways Marius, without ducking around it, because it is really important to remember that state governments provide the majority of funding to government schools and traditionally the Commonwealth has provided the majority of funding to non-government schools. So it's misleading just to look at the spends that the Commonwealth makes when you don’t identify how much money is received in schools and that's the first thing to say.

So your knee jerk comment is shown to be absolute uninformed, bigoted, "how dare Peter Garrett actually do his traditional job" lunacy. Oh and by the way, that's his response to the very question this thread is posing... "It's my job to do that".

Would have been money better spent on the dilapidated public school sector.

Well that's Ted Ballieu's decision to make, NOT Peter Garrett's.... His job, as came from the horse's mouth, is "traditionally" to secure relative funding for the private sector. Part of this move no doubt is to challenge the Liberal State Governments to bring some public schools up to scratch. As after all that's THEIR TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION. If you want to open up that ole "State VS Federal" can of worms then go ahead Igor, I won't be standing behind you.

In Victoria for instance they(Labor originally, Liberals now) choose to spend over a billion dollars on Myki rather than spend it on Public Schools, they choose to spend more than $100 million on a damn glorified Ferris Wheel thats still incomplete(after 4 damn years after it was original suppose to open) rather than on hospitals or public schools.... I could go on and on here, not to mention the disaster that was Labor in NSW.

Edit:

Anyone else find it hillerious that Gandalf is essentially unwittingly argueing that Peter Garrett should be on welfare and out of a job? Gandalf believes that the government should only fund Public Schools... well that means as he said himself, Peter Garrett would be essentially useless as a minister under the current funding arrangements between the states and the federal government. Hillerious! So he's essentially argueing to put Garrett out of his job!

and also.. LOL... for once I agree with both Notorious B.I.G and Swagman!!

[GandalfTheGrey]

The Govt is getting the children of its citizens educated at a 69% discount.

you're going to have to explain that one to me.

There are countless non-government social enterprises and private contractors that receive Govt funding (payment for services) to do the Governemt's job for them more efficiently.

Well thats the same point I made to Notorious BIG in response to his comparison between religious schools and religious charities. As I said then, it makes sense to "outsource" the providing of shelter and soup kitchens to the experts like the Smith Family, because its something that would have to be done by the state anyway - and religious charities can do it more efficiently. Its an investment that gives the government a direct return. However the argument makes less sense to me when talking about private schools. The elite private schools will be the best resourced and will provide the best education in the state with or without government funding. Also, we can safely say that the funding won't make any meaningful difference in terms of affordability. If government funding can make a difference to the quality of the school (and I accept that there may be some marginal independent schools where this may apply), then its a different story. However just making a blanket increase to all schools without assessing need makes no sense to me.

Just because you pay for a service doesn't make you a part owner.

in practical terms it does. Why would the government invest money into something if it didn't expect some sort of return on that investment? At the very least, the schools are required to meet certain minimum standards set by the government, such as follow a state-run curriculum. Thats exercising control right there - and I assume that is the main reason the government provides funding to independent schools.

Even Peter Garrett disagrees with you

and? I don't need you to point out to me what a retarded position the government is taking on this.

By the way, the whole thing is little more than pork barreling. Labor lost a ton of votes in 2004 when Latham infamously issued his "hit list" - basically taking the imminently sensible approach that certain schools simply don't need the same level of funding as others.

So your knee jerk comment is shown to be absolute uninformed, bigoted, "how dare Peter Garrett actually do his traditional job" lunacy. Oh and by the way, that's his response to the very question this thread is posing... "It's my job to do that".

Right - so the Gonski review is uninformed bigoted knee jerking is it? Because thats the position that I'm coming from. And in case you don't even know the crux of the Gonski reccomendations, its basically that school funding should be based on need. In practical terms that would mean the implementation of some sort of means testing. So lets just recap on what I'm actually disputing. From the OP:

every independent school in Australia will see its funding increase no matter how wealthy.

The irony here, is your support for a policy that actually discriminates against less-affluent independent schools like your St Philips Catholic Primary School. If we had a sensible policy of means-testing, then the money that is now needlessly going to go to Nox or Kings can be better used for say your local school, and all the dilapidated public schools. Yes, all schools will supposedly get an increase in funding, but is actually not fair. In a fair system, your St Philips school would be getting far more of an increase than the best resourced private schools - whose funding should either remain static or decrease. Keeping in mind that the budget is finite - so the more money that goes to Kings, the less that St Philips will get.

Gandalf believes that the government should only fund Public Schools

oh God, you really have no clue. My dispute was with the statement that *ALL* private schools will receive an increase in funding - rather than a much fairer system where funding increases would be determined by need. Is that really so hard to process?

[Swagman]

The Govt is getting the children of its citizens educated at a 69% discount.

you're going to have to explain that one to me.

Actually that's a typo it should read a 79% discount. This is based on a non-Govt student only receiving 21c in the Govt education dollar....hence the Govt gets its citizen child educated at a 79% discount......

Source

[GandalfTheGrey]

Actually that's a typo it should read a 79% discount. This is based on a non-Govt student only receiving 21c in the Govt education dollar....hence the Govt gets its citizen child educated at a 79% discount.

sorry swag, but you got it wrong. Non-govt schools receive 21% of total government funding - but represent only 34% of full-time student enrollments. so that obviously doesn't translate into a 79% discount for government education.

The actual per-student funding cited by your source is 45 cents in the Govt education dollar - which would represent a discount of 55%.

But why is this point even relevant when your position from the outset is:

If you pay tax and you have children of school age then your kids are entitled (YES entitled) to get the same amount of public education dollar as the next litttle feral's parents sucking at the tit of the public purse.

so you argue that dollar for dollar funding should be equal, and then turn around and tell us that private schools are so wonderful because the current unequal funding is saving the government money. You can't have it both ways.

[colliric]

Parents can either send their kids to any of the public schools for free, or they can pay tens of thousands of dollars per year to go to a private school. Thats the choice here. Private schools are called private for a reason - its just a simple contradiction in terms to have a "private" institution that is significantly funded by the government. If there are private schools that are so marginal they can't survive without public funding, then as my libera-conservative friends would no doubt point out, they are not meant to be - let the market decide.

From your own words Gandalf, you want to put Peter Garrett out of a job....

as well as potentially thousands of Catholic Primary School teachers.

You can't seperate Private schools that are struggling to survive off some government funding and funding from the Church(mostly their local parish's collection plate) from "elite private schools"(Whatever that means)..... You can't have your cake and eat it too.....

Before you do that to someone else, make sure you go over your own posts first...

If you really want to help, then point out how dumb State Governments can be in choosing to spend over a billion bucks on a flawed public transport ticketing system instead of pouring that cash into improving Public Schools.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

From your own words Gandalf, you want to put Peter Garrett out of a job....

Why do you keep repeating this comment? What GtG thinks of Garrett and his employment has nothing to do with any of this.
Besides, in other threads, GtG has been critical of Garrett. So I don't see why you keep trying to turn this into a big deal.

[GandalfTheGrey]

From your own words Gandalf, you want to put Peter Garrett out of a job....

yes, because his one and only role is providing funding to private schools Please familiarise yourself with the entire list of roles and responsibilities of the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth before making such idiotic statements again.

You can't seperate Private schools that are struggling to survive off some government funding and funding from the Church(mostly their local parish's collection plate) from "elite private schools"

of course you can and you should. Its called means testing. Please familiarise yourself with the Gonski report, because its his idea, not mine.

(Whatever that means)

you separate schools according to need. The concept is rather simple - schools that can demonstrate an ability to provide the best educational services without government assistance are not in need, while schools like your St Phillips catholic school would presumably be classed as being in need. Its an eminently fairer system than just providing a blanket increase in funding across the board regardless of need. And I'll explain again to you why you should be supporting this system - because the school budget - like any government budget - is finite, there is a fixed amount of money that is allocated each year to private schools. So when you increase the funding to schools like Kings who clearly are not in need, then that is less money that is going to schools in need - like your St Phillips school. Schools like Kings and Nox are quite literally sucking money out of the schools that are trully in need.

[Swagman]

sorry swag, but you got it wrong. Non-govt schools receive 21% of total government funding - but represent only 34% of full-time student enrollments. so that obviously doesn't translate into a 79% discount for government education.

The actual per-student funding cited by your source is 45 cents in the Govt education dollar - which would represent a discount of 55%.

Ok I won't mince numbers but the Govt is still getting a hefty discount.

But why is this point even relevant when your position from the outset is:

If you pay tax and you have children of school age then your kids are entitled (YES entitled) to get the same amount of public education dollar as the next litttle feral's parents sucking at the tit of the public purse.

so you argue that dollar for dollar funding should be equal, and then turn around and tell us that private schools are so wonderful because the current unequal funding is saving the government money. You can't have it both ways.

The point is relevant due to the fact that (thinking laterally) non-Govt schools save (not cost) the Government education budget about $7.9 Billion a year (according to isca)

This $7.9 Billion of taxpayer funds can be utilised elsewhere.

The argument that Gillard is somehow committing treason to the down trodden that you are peddling is ridiculous. Increased funding is inevitable anyway just to keep up with inflation and wages growth.

Basically if the Govt wants to increase education funding it needs to either cut back else where, raise some kind of a school tax or shock horror ask parents to actually pay something towards their children's education......

Personally I'd think about raising the GST to 15%, removing exemptions and spending the extra 5% revenue directly on both health & education.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The point is relevant due to the fact that (thinking laterally) non-Govt schools save (not cost) the Government education budget about $7.9 Billion a year (according to isca)

I can't make much sense of the isca figures and how they come up with the 7.9 figure (the actual savings based on the 45% "discount" comes to about 3.6 billion). The question here though is specifically about your own stated view that dollar for dollar government contribution to every student - private or public - should be the same. So if it makes no difference to the government whether the student goes to a private or public school, how on earth can you say that non-Govt schools save the government money? You make no sense.

The argument that Gillard is somehow committing treason to the down trodden that you are peddling is ridiculous.

not really treason, just being opportunistic because they are still haunted by Latham's "hit-list" blunder. However they have ignored the expert advise (Gonski review), which they otherwise claim to hold in such high regard. Means testing is the most fair system for any reasonably minded person - the principle of which not even ISCA is opposed to.

Perhaps I am being unfair on the government, since we don't know the details of how much of an increase it will be, and whether or not the more under-resourced schools will get more of an increase than the better resourced schools. However for the purpose of this debate, what I am most definitely opposed to is 1. the idea that you can't discriminate based on need and say 'only these schools over here need funding increases, but those schools over there are doing quite well' - based on proper means testing, and 2. All students are entitled to the same amount of public education dollar.

[colliric]

of course you can and you should. Its called means testing. Please familiarise yourself with the Gonski report, because its his idea, not mine.

Your original post that I quoted made no such distinction... you are only making it now so that you save face so that you don't look like a bigot. It wasn't your original idea to begin with...

Once again here are your original words:

Private schools are called private for a reason - its just a simple contradiction in terms to have a "private" institution that is significantly funded by the government. If there are private schools that are so marginal they can't survive without public funding, then as my libera-conservative friends would no doubt point out, they are not meant to be - let the market decide. Parents don't have a "right" to send their kids to whatever private school they want, any more than I have a "right" to go to whatever non-public hospital that my health insurance doesn't cover.

That shows you are in fact in favor of abolishing funding of all private schools... no matter what the economic status of that school is. You are in fact in favour of abolishing a significant amount of teaching JOBS and significantly downsizing the role of the Education Minister. The Federal Goverment sees no benifit in allowing those jobs, and schools, to suffer financial risks, no matter how "Elite" they appear to look.

[Swagman]

The question here though is specifically about your own stated view that dollar for dollar government contribution to every student - private or public - should be the same. So if it makes no difference to the government whether the student goes to a private or public school, how on earth can you say that non-Govt schools save the government money? You make no sense.

Easy, as previously explained by me and in the link provided the Govt (Taxpayers) save a substantial amount $7.9 Billion because private schools are educating 34% of students based upon the current situation.

My argument is simply that it makes no sense you guys having a spack attack (see first 2 posts of this thread) because private schools are getting some more tax-payer funding because as it stands at the moment the kids attending the private schools are getting substantially less tax-payer funding than they are indeed entitled to as the children of tax-payers. They are entitled to $ 4 $ but get nowhere near it...........

[GandalfTheGrey]

Your original post that I quoted made no such distinction... you are only making it now so that you save face so that you don't look like a bigot. It wasn't your original idea to begin with...

I stand by my original and most relevant belief that it is "fucking outrageous" that "Prime Minister Julia Gillard has vowed that every independent school in Australia will see its funding increase no matter how wealthy." Nothing I have said since then has contradicted that.

As for my comment that you keep quoting - firstly, you have taken it out of context. It was a liberal response to one of the most notorious liberal positions: "Each student, not matter if they're in a private of public school should get the same amount of funding." The point about my response to this is that it shows why liberals are being contradictory about this - given their traditional support for the free market. Does it mean I personally support abolishing all funding to all independent schools? I haven't really decided yet to be honest, but yeah I'll admit that going from there to advocating means testing of private schools is a change of position - but so what? I may yet decide that funding for all independent schools is unjustified, but either way it won't affect my rock solid position that wealthy elite schools shouldn't be funded just as a matter of principle. Either all private schools have no funding, or it should be determined by means testing - in both scenarios the elite schools get nothing.

You are in fact in favour of abolishing a significant amount of teaching JOBS

if you are talking about catholic schools, wouldn't it be quite unreasonable for the catholic church not to pick up the slack left by the government? They are supposedly run by the catholic church, why can't the catholic church bloody well fund them? Ditto for whoever else runs the other struggling private schools.

significantly downsizing the role of the Education Minister.

and why would I give a flying fuck about that? Why would you? And don't say jobs - public servants will simply be reshuffled to different departments - it happens all the time.

The Federal Goverment sees no benifit in allowing those jobs, and schools, to suffer financial risks, no matter how "Elite" they appear to look.

no school will suffer financially under a properly administered means testing system. Which brings me back to my previous point about your position. You were so busy looking for something to point score, that you missed (or deliberately dodged) the big contradiction in your own argument - namely that by supporting the continued funding of elite schools that don't need it (which I repeat can be determined by means testing - as per Gonski's reccomendation), you are supporting funds being sucked out of your beloved dilapidated catholic schools who are trully in need.

They are entitled to $ 4 $ but get nowhere near it...........

and there's a very good reason for that - it is unnecessary and immoral. You can spew your liberal nonsense about "entitlement" because they are taxpayers all you want, but as far as I'm concerned, they willingly fore-went that tax contribution the moment they *CHOSE* to send their kids to an elite school. My tax dollars go towards a heap of things I don't participate in, but you don't see me whinging and moaning about it. Also, if you want to talk about contribution, their tax dollars are contributing to a well-educated society which benefits all. If not for that contribution, we'd all most likely pay more tax (not to mention suffer a whole bunch of other social costs) to alleviate a groundswell of poverty, crime, drugs etc. that will inevitably emerge from not having a properly funded education system.

[colliric]

They are supposedly run by the catholic church, why can't the catholic church bloody well fund them?

Each Catholic School is required to, if they cannot fund the School through fees alone, utilise funding almost purely obtained from donations to the parish. If the Parish can't fund it on it's own, there's really no where else to get funding from. The Church is NOT a centralised financial organisation and donations are put towards the purpose the individual donated for. For example a donation directed to the Society Of St Vincent De Paul(or "Vinnies" for short) ISN'T going to be redirected by Church hierachy to the use of the Arch-diocese.... It CAN'T BE because while being "part of the Church", it is in fact an organisation run by "Lay people"(probably with it's headquaters in Rome) and doesn't come under the financial jurisdiction of the local arch-diocese.

You can see the dillema, when a School is struggling, the Church, due to it's thousand year old policies of directing donations to the purpose to which they were specifically donated(which actually physically cannot be changed, it's probably Canon law, etc), can't specifically fund NEW BUILDING PROJECTS on it's own, there's no money to do that. Each school/parish must be able to run off it's own cheese, which makes building anything new or renovations or buying say a whole range of state of the art computers, a difficult prospect without government or charity(even if it's a Catholic charity) assistance.... and other corporate programs like Coles "Sports for Schools" essential to the life of a Catholic Primary School.

For example during any one sunday mass the "thanksgiving collection" is for the upkeep of the specific parish(and school), the "priest's collection" is diverted to the purpose of helping the priest keep his residence, service the church, etc.

Frankly I'm going to say it, suggesting the "Church should fund it" is akin to saying Mcdonalds should take donations made to the Ronald Mcdonald House Charities and treat it as if it's for the use of any Mcdonald's franchise that's having financial problems... In fact ironically they kind of operate in a simular manner, each Franchise must be able to support itself financially or else, like the one in Middle Brighton(yes a Mcdonald's that actually shut it's doors for Good, naturally in probably the Richest suburb of this city), they will be shut and sold(and when it comes to Mcdonalds I thank God for that when it occurs, but a Catholic School that shuts due to lack of funding over many years is not what I, or anyone else in their right mind, want to see).

[GandalfTheGrey]

^ good post, and thanks for the info. I found it very informative.

So what is your opinion about this structure? - do you think its time for the church to update their funding policies?

[colliric]

^ good post, and thanks for the info. I found it very informative.

So what is your opinion about this structure? - do you think its time for the church to update their funding policies?

I don't think they can, due to the nature of the organisation(Religious) the person donating must be confident that their donation will go to the purpose to which it is directed. If they've put it in the "poor box", from what I recall that cash goes to either whatever charitible exercise the church itself is doing, or it's donated onward to Vinnies(etc...) and other "poor" based catholic charities.

Usually from what I recall(my parish doesn't have a school connected) parishes with a school will have a safe-box/details to allow donations to School projects. Some "elite"(as you said) Catholic Grammar/High schools often own their own real estate too....

And if it did change it would only be through a worldwide Council of Bishops making a strongly religious ruling on the matter, and we all know how common they are.... The last one was in the 1960s... and before that sometime in late 19th century... It won't happen anyway as the would obviously be risks in redefining financial relationships between various Catholic institutions. It would be akin to strongly redefining the funding/juristictional roles of Federal, Local and State Governments. Remeber that the Catholic Church kind of invented the idea of a geographical Parish that later evolved into a "Local council/municipility", the diocese/Arch-Diocese(Arch-Bishop Dennis Hart) and the national(Arch-Bishop George Cardinal Pell, as his full correct title is) and then the Global Church(Pope).. each with their own jurisdictions.

Edit: On closer research St Michaels is actually Anglican....

[Swagman]

My tax dollars go towards a heap of things I don't participate in, but you don't see me whinging and moaning about it.

Now hang on there GTG, this thread is really just a massive whinge about private schools getting more Govt funding isn't it......and you're leading it?

1st post being...........

Fucking outrageous. I can't think of anything else to say.

Private schools are just social enterprises GTG. Not for profit organisations, community based and they don't distribute profits to shareholders.

There are squillions of private NFP like enterprises that provide employment & training, welfare, respite care, aged care, disability employment etc etc, some religious but most not and schools are just the tip of the ice burg, but the majority receive part Govt funding..............do you object to them receiving extra funding as well?

All these organisations (including private schools) benefit the tax payer immensely because they deliver a service more efficiently and at less cost to the Govt which would have to provide the service in their absence.

It is therefore not "effin outrageous" for Gillard to give them more assistance.........it's really just fees for providing a service that Govt is duty bound to provide and if the members of these associations 'donote' their hard earned by way of fees etc to make the organisations more efficient & effective that indeed is their choice but they are still entitled to their Govt payments and the Govt would not pay these organisations if it did not benefit in kind..........and that's the basis of my argument.

[Exuro]

Private schools are just social enterprises GTG. Not for profit organisations, community based and they don't distribute profits to shareholders.

There are squillions of private NFP like enterprises that provide employment & training, welfare, respite care, aged care, disability employment etc etc, some religious but most not and schools are just the tip of the ice burg, but the majority receive part Govt funding..............do you object to them receiving extra funding as well?

Those 'squillions' don't discriminate in favour of the wealthiest, most privileged tier of society, unlike some elitist private schools, which hike up their fees and tuition costs to keep people out.

Handing those institutions public funds is a not only waste of money - because they clearly don't need it - but is also an endorsement of class discrimination, which is abhorrent.

[Swagman]

Those 'squillions' don't discriminate in favour of the wealthiest, most privileged tier of society, unlike some elitist private schools, which hike up their fees and tuition costs to keep people out.

Handing those institutions public funds is a not only waste of money - because they clearly don't need it - but is also an endorsement of class discrimination, which is abhorrent.

I've already demonstrated that public funds directed to 'private' schools are not a "waste of money", but that by doing so Govt saves billions of dollars annually in education expenditure and I'm afraid that spruiking your outmoded ideological view of Australian society doesn't change that fact.....

[GandalfTheGrey]

I've already demonstrated that public funds directed to 'private' schools are not a "waste of money", but that by doing so Govt saves billions of dollars annually in education expenditure

no swag, you've demonstrated how *NOT* directing funds towards private schools saves money. Exuro and my point is merely the exact same argument - its a good start that private schools on average only get 45 cents in the public school dollar, and a further reduction would obviously save more money. Its a self defeating argument to say that paying 45% of the public allocation "saves money" - since paying 25% or even 0% would save even more money. Especially when changing that 45% to 0% will make absolutely no difference to some of the schools in question. By that rationale, the 45% is a complete waste to begin with!