Labor drops private school hit list
Related Topics
"d&tm" tfm...@iprimusREMOVEME.com.au
A good sign for labour that they have come to their senses on school funding policy and dropped Lathams policy of envy and hate re private schools. I think it hurt them dearly in the last election. Ive got a good feeling about Beazley this time around. He wants it badly and for all the right reasons.
terry
"Zappy" zap...@ncable.net.au
The policy was good economics but very, very bad politics.
The wealthiest schools like Geelong Grammar should not be getting any public funding.
If parents make a private choice to send their parents to schools like this, they can pay for it.
On the other hand, if they want state schools to lift their game, they can send their kids there and force them to lift their standards.
The policy was not about "envy". State aid to private schools is an historical (and geographical) anomaly. It doesn't apply anywhere else in the world. It was a sop by Menzies to the DLP to buy off the catholic vote. The Federal Government doesn't have constitutional responsibility for education either.
Beazley is a waste of a lot of space. He is nothing but a creature of the factions - particularly the right wing.
The next Labor PM probably isn't even in Parliament yet.
"Denz" nos...@here.com
Why was that a bad policy? Apart from drawing a lot of criticism from a very vocal minority- who actually had no case whatsoever. Latham wanted to divert taxpayer funds from highly resourced private schools which already had m***ive range of facilities- seems only fair. Maybe these private schools should practice a little financial responsibility rather than become dependent on federal money.
If you want to see real mean spirited treatment in education- to the point of negligence, look at how funding from this government to universities as sunk through the floor over the past number of years.
mosherkus ...@hotmail.com
Why should parents of geelong grammar toffs pay taxes to send panel beaters to state schools?
"Zappy" zap...@ncable.net.au
I doubt too many of the people who send their kids to Geelong Grammar are paying much tax matey.
They all have family trusts and comapnies and high priced accountants and lawyers to take care of m,inor detail like paying for the benefit of a civil soceity.
"loco" jj...@ggg.com
That is all really bizarre , it has become a basic concept in western(modern) societies that children are afforded a basic education. The fact, if their parents pay taxes or not (should it) and how much doesn't come in to it . All children are equal to the education system . IF a parent decides to contribute more of THEIR own money to add to that education then why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to.
The bit about sending private school kids to state schools is absurd , if all the private schools closed (30% of students now) the state schools would collapse even if the money allocated to the private schools was given to the state schools. In essence the private system subsidize the state schools to an extent. What is all the more strange is that people harp on about the federal government allocating taxes to children in private schools yet the states spend zero dollars on children in private schools , so what about all that tax etc that states raise from everyone be spent evenly on the children.
Franc Zabkar fzab...@iinternode.on.net
I'd suggest that every school age child be issued with a coupon that could either be redeemed in full at any state school, or for its actual value at any private school, with the balance payable by the parents.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
"Zappy" zap...@ncable.net.au
Excuse me, it's the only thing that does come into it.
All children are equal to the education system . IF a parent No, that's the wrong way to look at it. The Government already provide a school system. If you decide not to use it and instead opt for the private system, you should pay the full cost. The Government pays for public transport, if you don't use the bus, they don't help to pay to put ptrol into your car - and neither they should.
Oh yeah? And what evidence do you have to support that contention. Let's face it, private schools waste a LOT of money. If all that money could be spent raising the standards in Public schools there would still be shitloads left over for other things.
In essence the private system subsidize the state schools to If this is the type of perverted "logic" they teach at private schools, then it is little wonder the debate has not advanced. The private school sector like the private hospital sector are terribly wasteful of limited resources, this is not even controversial, it is simply a fact.
What is all the more strange is that people harp on about the The states are NOT responsible for private schools - the federal Government aren't either but they have taken it on themselves ever since Menzies decided to use his divide and rule tactics on the Labor party by buying off the DLP with state aid to catholic schools.
Do a bit of research before you spout forth with any more bullshit please.
"Zappy" zap...@ncable.net.au
Do you seriously think this was YOUR idea?
Thatcher tried this in the U.K. 20 years ago.
It was a disaster.
daveywavey1 ...@hotmail.com
Putting aside the issues of Cth/State responsibilities, I believe this raises a deeper philosophical issue.
I stated in an earlier post that adults need to be more responsible for their well being and stop looking for government to solve their problems - I did this in the context of discussing the government's IR reforms.
I believe that if we are talking about adults, if one works harder/smarter and/or takes more risk, they should be able to reap the rewards of their efforts. Self-responsibility 101.
However, when discussing schools, the playing field is very different.
We are talking about children here. No one seriously expects children to pay for their own schooling. Which means that in practice children who have wealthier parents are more likely to end up in better, private schools than those that don't.
Which raises the following issue: Why should one child have a better education than another just because they are lucky enough to have wealthier parents?? Unlike the situation with adults, one cannot say "the child should be self responsible enough to pay for their own high quality education".
Most OECD countries have a simple and effective soluation to this: if a private school wishes any government funding they must charge their students zero fees. The effectiveness of this is striking. In the USA (ironically, a country often criticised by Aussies for having huge wealth disparities) only a tiny percentage of children go to private schools. This isn't to say that the USA schooling system is without problems - but that is a different issue.
I challenge anyone to answer the underlying question here: why should one child get a better education that another just because they are lucky enough to have wealthier parents?
"Zappy" zap...@ncable.net.au
Dave you are dead right of course. In Australia you have deadshits like Pauline Turner from Geelong College saying that the school caters to families from all socio economic groups but they still have the second highest fees in the country. The way state aid works is the parents pay the teachers salaries and we, the poor stupid taxpayer, pay for all the extras like the concert halls and the rifle ranges and the olympic swimming pools.
It's a ****ing disgrace.
"loco" jj...@ggg.com
If there were no private schools and all children were educated by chairman mao psions then what if the parents at one P&C decided to raise and raise moneys till they had swimming pools tennis courts etc. etc. , should they then be denied state funding equal per child....
"loco" jj...@ggg.com
So your saying if the parents don't pay taxes their children shouldn't be educated?
Here's where you are astray the state schools are just one facet of schooling , people have the right to educate their children to modern standards any way they see fit as long as the child is educated well and brought to a reasonable standard.
Just because people think that all educating should be done by the state is wrong. All that said these people pay taxes and have children and can account for where the allocated tax money is spent they have a right to be alloacted the share that would have gone to the state school the child never attended and top it up with some of their own money...
The 30% figure is actually low and so what if a private school spends money from parents in a way you deem wasteful IT"S THEIR MONEY. As long as they spend the small amounts from the state per child educating the children .
Well it certainly isn't perverted logic ,why can't you see the private schools for what they are they are, just another school that educates children with the parents adding to the school budget..
Well actually states are responsible for the education of children in the particular state.
That is why they impose (rightly or wrongly ) the state curriculum on the private schools.
If you want to go further back ..Constitutionally the states had all the major taxing powers apart from some tariffs , after the federals took the powers at the start of WW2 and have never given it up they took on the responsibility for allocating the taxes to the states . This in turn gave them the responsibility to spend those taxes per child as was the mandate for imposing the taxes in the first place.
BTW i went to a state school but i firmly believe that if a person wants to add to their childs education then so be it..
On that note consider this scenario two families both with children both working parents working similar hours , if family ones' mum decides to spend some extra time and educate Johny for an extra hour a day and buy him some extra educational material , under your thinking she shouldn't be allowed to do this. In reality that's all private schools are doing is just adding more time and money................
daveywavey1 ...@hotmail.com
This is the problem. The above post, with its reference to Chairman Mao, implies that people who support funding cuts to private schools are a bunch of lefties/communists. The reality is very different. As mentioned in earlier posts, nearly all Western countries do not fund private schools that charge fees. Apart from Australia of course.
This reinfoces my belief that most (though not all) people who post in this group are a bunch of simpletons. All the more reason why the education system needs more public funding. Though with the genetics of some on this group, the best schooling in the world won't help.
"loco" jj...@ggg.com
Yeh whatever , though you didn't address the simple (just for you) scenario..
"H Dickmann" HER...@bigpond.com
Let's start at the beginning.
We all pay tax and from this tax we have free education for children.
Therefore, in theory, the Governments should have enough schools, teachers, etc to cater for every child.
The way we should look at private schools like this: The Government outscores part of its education responsibility to non profit making private institutions. Being responsible for the free education of all children, the government should pay the teachers in private schools at the same pupil to teacher ratio as public schools. The government should pay for office staff, groundsmen, Principals and resource material for all children.
If private schools want anything above this standard in teacher to student ratio, additional facilities above the minimum for state schools etc. etc.
this are the only thing parents of should pay for private education.
In fact, the same does happen to some extend in public schools. Schools in poor suburbs only have the minimum facilities while parents in richer suburbs, through the P&C ***ociations purchase additional equipment.
As it is, private schools can close their doors. The Government can take over and increase taxes to build more schools.
"loco" jj...@ggg.com
No my scenario is just a simplistic version of a private school.
Both families attend state schools with family ones' mum adding her own time and money to the education of her child. It's just a simplified version of what happens at private schools .
Just simply look at it on a per child basis , that is the goverment funds every child to the same amount(not in reality) and in private schools the parents top up with their own money for more education , in reality nothing more than what a good P&C would do...
aus ...@primus.com.au
I think Australia has got it right with school funding. Public school students receive the most funding and private schools receive significantly less funding for which the shortfall is made up by parents. This means middle cl*** parents in Australia who are committed to their childrens education can afford to send them to private schools and have some choice as to where their children go to school. I think there needs to be competition for students and choice for parents to bring out the best that education has to offer.
And the market has worked well providing choice to consumers who want private health care while providing basic health care for those who do not want to or can not afford to spend the extra $2K per year for private health insurance.
"d&tm" tfm...@iprimusREMOVEME.com.au
I'll answer that with another question. why should one child get a better education than another just because they are lucky enough to have parents who value education more than other parents. I taught my children to read before they went to school. I buy them books instead of video games. Get the idea? There is never an equal playing field and to try to create one just brings everyone down.
The fact is that parents of private school kids are putting real money into the education system. If you want to raise the standard of public schooling have a look at the parents who can afford 40 square houses and new cars and expect their kids to be educated for free. Get them to put some money in , dont penalise the ones that already do ( and are usually the same parents who teach their kids and buy them books etc). Oh and by the way I vote left and obviously I want to see safety systems for the less well off who cant afford to pay for education. but the fact is we are one of the riches countries in the world and you cant tell me 70% of the population cant afford to contribute to their own kids education terry
"d&tm" tfm...@iprimusREMOVEME.com.au
Absolute crap . And I can tell you that as a Geelong Grammar parent. I dont have a family trust. I have never even seen an accountant in my life. I do my own taxes as a PAYE taxpayer. Of course there are some super wealthy parents , but many are not. they are just prepared to make the sacrifice..
terry>
"Zappy" zap...@ncable.net.au
Is that what you call "thinking"?
Let me ask you this, I use public transport. Is your "right" to use private transport subsidized by me? Should it be?
The Government provides all kinds of services for which there is no effective competition, why should schools be any different?
Presentl you have any raggle taggle bunch of religious nutcases with their hands out for MY tax dollars when they are pushing all manner of flat earth bullshit theories down the throats of poor unsuspecting students.
This means middle cl*** parents in Australia who are Excuse me but that is exactly the problem. In microeconmics we learn that product differntiation inevitably leads to higher prices for everyone. At present, kids at private schools don't know the full cost of their choice.
This is a perversion of free market economics I think there needs to be competition for students and choice I'd like you to elaborate on what you mean by "the best that education has to offer". Are you saying that kids aren't entitled to that simply because their parents can't pay?
Utter rubbish. Talk to anyone who has full insurance and still ends up with huge out of pocket expenses. The reason this occurs is because the wrong market signals are again sent to the medical fraternity and the suckers who pay shitloads for private cover. There is no one in the buyer's corner to stand between him and the medical practitioner who could be ripping him off blind for all he knows. And you know that in the case of emergnecy treatment private cover is useless.
| To Top |