[Igor Antunov]

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has vowed that every independent school in Australia will see its funding increase no matter how wealthy.

In an unashamed pitch to the private school sector, Ms Gillard said the government's funding reforms would be "good news" for independent schools.

The announcement, which is a major victory for the powerful private school lobby, goes beyond the government's previous pledge that no school would lose a dollar under funding reforms.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion ... z243MPcuuL

Utterly spineless. Would have been money better spent on the dilapidated public school sector. Another avenue for the middle class tax payers to serve the rich.

[GandalfTheGrey]

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

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Each student, not matter if they're in a private of public school should get the same amount of funding. So if this funding brings in line the per student funding at private schools with public school then I don’t see a problem.
If private school students are now being funded per student more than public schools this is an issue.

Also, not all independent schools are private schools in the strict sense.

[Igor Antunov]

If private school students are now being funded per student more than public schools this is an issue.

They were receiving more per student BEFORE, now they will receive MORE. It's a sad travesty.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

I didn’t see figures in the article, so I’m just holding final judgement for now.
Also, the argument can be made that by funding independent schools per student more, it increases the access for students who would otherwise be in a public school to go to an independent school. Those that are on a cusp of affordability. In doing so, reducing the costs of public schools and putting their limited funding into a smaller base of students.
If the equation adds up, it could work.

[foxdemon]

Each student, not matter if they're in a private of public school should get the same amount of funding. So if this funding brings in line the per student funding at private schools with public school then I don’t see a problem.
If private school students are now being funded per student more than public schools this is an issue.

Also, not all independent schools are private schools in the strict sense.

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.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Each student, not matter if they're in a private of public school should get the same amount of funding.

I can't fathom this argument.

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. 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.

Also is a prestigious school like Kings or Nox going to take their fees down to a level where the "dregs" from say immigrant families in western Sydney can choose to send them there - just because they now have adequate government funding? Of course not. The fees are as much about maintaining a certain class of student as anything else. So much for choice eh Can you at least explain to me the rationale in providing government funding to a school that will charge the most exorbitant fees anyway in order to discriminate against the lower classes?

[Swagman]

Each student, not matter if they're in a private of public school should get the same amount of funding. So if this funding brings in line the per student funding at private schools with public school then I don’t see a problem.
If private school students are now being funded per student more than public schools this is an issue.

Also, not all independent schools are private schools in the strict sense.

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.

The horseshit poor don't have a mortgage on public funds.

Since when has education funding been welfare? Is driving down the road on a publically funded road also welfare?

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

Using your 'logic' if you pay private health insurance you shouldn't have access to public hospitals and if you are part of the "horseshit rich" then you shouldn't have equal access to roads or ANY publically funded assets.....which of course is horseshit.

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. If you then choose to supplement your own kids' education and send them to a better school you spend a bit of your hard earned to do so. At the moment the parents of independent school kids are being ripped off to the tune of around 79c in the public education dollar.

Secondly, if the parents of independent school kids fed up with this rip off decided on mass to send all their kids to the public school system the Govt would suddenly have a massive funding problem as their education budget suddenly had to cope with a 34% increase in student numbers. The 21c in the dollar would seem a paltry sum indeed even to the reddest of politicians.

The fact of the matter is that the independent school sector actually saves the Govt billions of education dollars every year and even Gillard isn't stupid enough not to "fathom" this.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Swagman - defending the rich at all costs, even when it contradicts the most fundamental economic principles he claims to ahere to.

Using your 'logic' if you pay private health insurance you shouldn't have access to public hospitals and if you are part of the "horseshit rich" then you shouldn't have equal access to roads or ANY publically funded assets.....which of course is horseshit.

bad analogy. Basic health care plus some extras are free through the public health system. You pay for health insurance to get a wider range of cover like a private bed, elective surgery and ambulance service. If your analogy was correct, you would have to have the kids who pay for private schools attend the same public schools, but get extra attention, education, resources etc than all the kids who don't pay for private school. Obviously this scenario would be fair (so long as it doesn't interfere with everyone elses educational needs). Parents can and do pay extra for their kids to get extra tuition and attention - nothing wrong with that. But what we are talking about here is parents who choose to pay extra to send their kids to better resourced and better funded schools - through private funding.

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.

The difference is that those "entitled" kids can go to whatever school they want. The only reason they don't get the same level of funding is because they *CHOOSE* to go to an elite private school. No one forced them to make this choice and forfeit that extra bit of funding for their kids, but the compensation they receive from going to an elite school should be bloody obvious. The "ferals" from western Sydney, on the other hand, have only one choice. Now if your "fair" system of equal funding for all students enabled any kid to go to absolutely any school in their state, then you might be on to something. But that is obviously not the case. Poor kids are discriminated by the private schools, and that is by design. Making funding equal won't make an arse of difference to parents choices, and only gives money to schools that so obviously don't need it.

[Swagman]

Swagman - defending the rich at all costs, even when it contradicts the most fundamental economic principles he claims to ahere to.

......being?

[GandalfTheGrey]

...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.

[Bounce]

Except he is likely to support a voucher system that funds each student the same. Allowing for greater 'choice' and greater 'education efficiency'.

Private schools have raised the base cost every year that I was there. Not to keep the 'ferals' out, but rather because of the parents willingness to pay.

I do agree that private schools shouldn't be funded with public money. I wouldn't be averse to the government subsidising truly high achievers to enter these schools when the 'elite' public schools that they have set up don't seem to compete as well. I would prefer certain schools to just be nationalised / built and used exclusively for the best students regardless of economic well being.

[Igor Antunov]

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....

[Notorious B.i.G.]

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

Again, I'd like to note that independent school does = private school in the sense of Kings in Sydney, or Scotch in Melbourne.
Independent schools also include Catholic schools, which do not charge tens of thousands of fees. They offer a low cost education product to low to middle class families and rely heavily on funding from the Church and from the Government.

government funding basically gives the government a stake in those schools... they can legitimately claim to have an input into the running of the schools. .

Government funding to private schools does allow the government to have some sway in independent schools. Often the funding is attached to riders that stipulate to accept government funding, the school must increase scholarship intake (the school should fund the cost) of equity groups. This is important for independent schools such as academic selective schools that are not private schools and do not charge exorbitant fees.

Since when has education funding been welfare?

For once I agree with you Swagman.

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.

I don’t disagree with this with respect to private schools, but these schools are not relying on Government funding to keep their head above water. They are using the funding, as directed by Government, to increase accessibility to the school for equity groups. Instead of school vouchers, we have it done this way. Without Government funding, equity groups would have absolutely no access to private education and the benefits it would bring. This would further entrench wealth/education divide. Without Government funding to independent academic selective schools, this would further entrench wealth/education divide.

Private schooling is a private business to provide private education for affluent families.

Than this argument should apply beyond secondary education and apply to primary and tertiary education. Universities are private businesses, and should provide education only to affluent families that can afford them. There should be no government funding (HELP) to students.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Private schools have raised the base cost every year that I was there. Not to keep the 'ferals' out, but rather because of the parents willingness to pay.

Seems almost certainly the two are one in the same.

Again, I'd like to note that independent school does = private school in the sense of Kings in Sydney, or Scotch in Melbourne.
Independent schools also include Catholic schools, which do not charge tens of thousands of fees. They offer a low cost education product to low to middle class families and rely heavily on funding from the Church and from the Government.

I'm having great difficulty imagining the catholic church not being able to afford the lions share of the cost.

Besides, why should the government provide input for the running of religious schools? Separation of church and state anyone? As a non-catholic, I could have a legitimate concern about my tax dollars going towards the teaching of catholic education. Thats not to say I am against catholic education, but it should be a matter for catholics to organise and pay themselves.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Besides, why should the government provide input for the running of religious schools? Separation of church and state anyone?

This isn’t a separation of church and state argument GtG, don’t be so absurd. You know as well as I do what that separation is in relation to and doesn’t cover government funding to religious related organisations. To use you’re flat out ‘separation of church and state’ argument then no religious organisation should receive any government funding. That includes groups like Mission Australia, the Salvation Army, St Vincent & De Paul Society. All religious organisation that run a number of programs with government funding to help under privileged communities. One program for example is Mission using government funding to reduce truancy among Indigenous children in remote communities. Should the government not provide funding to this program because of your ‘separation of church and state’ argument?

As a non-catholic, I could have a legitimate concern about my tax dollars going towards the teaching of catholic education. Thats not to say I am against catholic education, but it should be a matter for catholics to organise and pay themselves.

A Catholic education?... because children in catholic schools only learn religious text, and not math or science or English or history?
Government funding of these schools allows for children from low-socio economic backgrounds to attend a religious school for those families who are devout religious.

[GandalfTheGrey]

You know as well as I do what that separation is in relation to and doesn’t cover government funding to religious related organisations.

No I don't actually. Admittedly its just something I came up with on the spot - but it does make sense to me. The "separation" should logically go both ways - the church should not interfere with affairs of state (the traditional understanding of the term) - but I don't see why it shouldn't also be that the state should not interfere with religious education. Do we want a scenario like in China where the "official" church is owned by the state - and isn't really a church at all, but a mouthpiece of chinese communist propaganda? I know thats extreme, but the principle applies. If we insist on holding religion as a private matter, then it is inconsistent to then say that the state should be involved in private religious education.

That includes groups like Mission Australia, the Salvation Army, St Vincent & De Paul Society. All religious organisation that run a number of programs with government funding to help under privileged communities. One program for example is Mission using government funding to reduce truancy among Indigenous children in remote communities. Should the government not provide funding to this program because of your ‘separation of church and state’ argument?

the two things are miles apart. There might be an ever so *slight* inconsistency with the state funding religious charity organisations, but that is on a completely different level to actual religious education (indoctrination?). The primary role of charities is that they help people - and in a very direct way, help the state, so it is only logical for the state to cooperate with those charities. The fact that they are religious charity organisations is almost irrelevant - since their primary role is not to propagate religious indoctrination. Of course, as soon as it becomes apparent that the state is actually funding these organisations to propagate religious indoctrination, then that funding should be reviewed. Ideally, there should be strict conditions applied to the funding - to ensure that it is only used for the charity.

A Catholic education?... because children in catholic schools only learn religious text, and not math or science or English or history?

Thats being cute. You cannot separate "education" from "catholic education" - even if in practice most of catholic education involves non-religious education. So then you need to ask yourself, if these parents are primarily interested in non-religious education, then why *choose* to send their kids to a catholic school? The answer is, they are attracted to the "catholic" component of the education - and since this is a private matter of personal religion, the state should not be involved.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

the church should not interfere with affairs of state (the traditional understanding of the term) - but I don't see why it shouldn't also be that the state should not interfere with religious education.

the two things are miles apart.

No they aren’t, you’re just having a bob each way. The church should not interfere with the state. The state should not interfere with the affairs of the church.
Seems to me that you’re interpreting it that the State should not interfere with only one aspect of Church affairs, being religious education, but can interfere in affairs of the church, being charity. That is an inconsistency. The separation should be absolute both ways.

With respect to the state interfering with the education offered by religious school, it is not interference with religious education, but non-religious aspect. School X wants funding, that school must have a literacy and numeracy rate commensurate to school averages. Therefore funding cannot be channelled solely into ‘religious indoctrinate’.

The primary role of charities is that they help people - and in a very direct way, help the state

Education helps people, and in a very direct way it helps the state. So why is state funding of religious educational institutes not acceptable, but charities are?

The fact that they are religious charity organisations is almost irrelevant - since their primary role is not to propagate religious indoctrination.

You have no way to verify that. If a Salvation Army major provides a blanket bought with state fund to a homeless person and says ‘god bless you’ is that no propagating religion? In my example of the Mission program, religious pamphlets and counselling from church trained counsellors is available, how are we to guarantee there is no propagation of religious beliefs. If the state and church are to be truly separate so that the state does not unwillingly fund ‘indoctrination’ (as you so crudely put it)than there should be no funding to church groups of any verity.

Thats being cute. You cannot separate "education" from "catholic education" - even if in practice most of catholic education involves non-religious education.

Equally cute of you to liken education provided by religious institutions as indoctrination. Again, teaching children in religious schools mathematics and English (writing, reading comprehension) to Government deemed standards is not religious indoctrination.

[GandalfTheGrey]

With respect to the state interfering with the education offered by religious school, it is not interference with religious education, but non-religious aspect. School X wants funding, that school must have a literacy and numeracy rate commensurate to school averages. Therefore funding cannot be channelled solely into ‘religious indoctrinate’.

There's really no way to ensure that. As I said before, you can't separate the "education" from "catholic education". If the government funding really was exclusively for the non-religious education, there would be no need for an exclusively *catholic* school would there? It would just be another state-run school - and the catholic religious education would have to be set up somewhere else as a separate institution, on separate premises - funded entirely by the catholic church and/or student fees. But as soon as you start having the state contributing to *catholic education* - then the religious education becomes inseparable to the non-religious education. Go to weekly mass in the school hall? - you're using school resources that are part-funded by the state. Presumably there are some core "catholic" principles and rules that govern the school, which are publicised and enacted using school resources - funded from a pool that includes some government funding. Its a pedantic point I know, but it is still valid.

Education helps people, and in a very direct way it helps the state. So why is state funding of religious educational institutes not acceptable, but charities are?

no one is stopping their kids from attending a public school. State funding for religious charities are acceptable because they are the only groups willing to provide essential care for the most desperate in society. Its not really that much different to the state providing the assistance themselves - only its no doubt more efficient since these charities have the experience and skills in performing this work. If you want to put it in crude economic terms, the charities are helping to relieve a very real burden on the state - whereas, catholic school funding doesn't have any direct returns for the state - given that there is nothing stopping the parents from choosing any number of ordinary state schools. And just so we're clear, we're comparing those who are the most desperate in society - who are literally in danger of starving or freezing to death without the help from these charities - with parents who want the luxury of a "catholic" education, even though the state is willing to provide them with all the educational services that every other kid gets. The difference between the two is so ridiculously far apart.

If a Salvation Army major provides a blanket bought with state fund to a homeless person and says ‘god bless you’ is that no propagating religion?

Of course not. Its a common courtesy, most people wouldn't think twice about it. In any case, there is no cost to it - so in terms of where government funding goes towards, its completely irrelevant. A relevant example would be if the charity is taking government funds and using it to purchase bibles, and pay their staff to stand on street corners distributing them. That would be an inappropriate use of state funds.

In my example of the Mission program, religious pamphlets and counselling from church trained counsellors is available, how are we to guarantee there is no propagation of religious beliefs.

printing off religious pamphlets? - is using state funds to propagate religion. Counselling from church trained consellors? - Is not. I doubt there is any church-trained consellor whose primary concern for their clients would be the salvation of their souls at the expense of helping them fix their worldly problems.

Really, your trying to make this sound so complicated that it is unworkable. It is not that complicated, and it is perfectly workable. Organisations all over the place have to keep strict spending accounts, and provide the government with detailed itemised spending claims - why can't these charities do it? In fact I don't know of any organisation that doesn't keep a record of what they spent. Its just a matter of distinguishing between their practical-charity expenses, and their religious agenda. Hell, why not have the government have a fixed list? It can't be that long - soup kitchens - paid for, councilling services - paid for, printing of religious pamphlets - not covered.

[Godstud]

They really need to stop wasting money on education and take care of that Drop Bear problem you guys have.