How private schools get paid
Related Topics
lev_lafaye ...@yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette)
And the winner is: how private schools get paid By Kelly Burke, Education Reporter March 16, 2004 Private schools in some of the wealthiest parts of Sydney are being favoured by both state and Federal Government funding, according to figures compiled for the first time.
The federal and state data, released to the Herald, reveals that school size and the financial need of parents are no guarantee in determining which private schools get the largest share of funding.
Rather, a handful of elite schools appear to reap the benefits from both systems.
The figures show that one in five of the most highly funded private schools are, by the Federal Government's own funding measure, drawing students from the wealthiest sectors of the community.
Pymble Ladies College, Barker College, Loreto Kirribilli, St Aloysius, Monte Sant Angelo Mercy College, Moriah College and St Ignatius Riverview are among the 50 highest-funded schools from about 340 independent schools in the state. They each received annual funding in 2002-03 of between $4.1 million and $4.9 million, of which $1.6 to $2 million came from the NSW Government.
All seven recorded socio-economic status scores of between 25 and 29 points higher than the national average of 100, on an SES scale that ranks the poorest schools at 75 and the wealthiest at 134.
Trinity Grammar School, with an SES score also significantly above the national average, received $5.4 million in funding, $1.6 million of which was provided by the state, and Methodist Ladies College's $4.5 million subsidy included $1.4 million from NSW's coffers. Waverley College received $7.6 million, with $2.3 million coming from the state.
Overall, the NSW Labor Government delivered 18 per cent of its non-government school funding to schools with SES scores higher than 120 out of a possible 135, compared with the Commonwealth's 14 per cent allocation. While many of these schools are also some of the state's largest, with more than 1300 students enrolled, size does not appear to account fully for the high level of government funding from either source.
With a score of 129, Loreto at Kirribilli, with 1022 students, has the highest SES of all schools in the top 50. Its combined state and federal money means each student at Loreto is funded to the tune of $4772.
Yet to north-west, the Hills Grammar School, near Glenhaven, with slightly more students and an SES score 10 points lower, receives $1.9 million less than Loreto. So its students receive funding of $2909 each.
A similar pattern emerges with Brigidine College at St Ives, which has 840 students and an SES score of 123. Brigidine made it into the top 50 list with $4.4 million in combined government funding. But Illawarra Grammar School, with more than 1000 students and an SES 14 points lower, receives $1 million less.
The Federal Government says it uses SES rankings to determine how private schools are funded, with those drawing pupils from low SES areas attracting more per capita funding than those from wealthy areas.
But according to the 2002/2003 data obtained by the Greens through Senate estimates and questions on notice, only 10 of the state's independent schools in the top 50 for combined federal-state funding have SES scores lower than the average benchmark of 100.
One of those is Malek Fahd Islamic School, in Sydney's south-west, which at $10.2 million in combined funding receives the most government money of NSW schools. Built on land bought in the early 1990s with a $12 million gift from the King of Saudi Arabia, Malek Fahd is also one of the state's largest schools, with 1740 students.
Drawing its student base primarily from the suburbs of Bankstown and Greenacre, it is categorised as one of the poorest, with an SES score of just 89.
But Malek Fahd is in the minority among the state's 50 most highly funded schools - because most in this category in fact operate outside this SES model designed to give the poorest schools the largest slice of the pie.
An eight-year phase-in of the SES model, introduced in 2001, means wealthy private schools which stood to lose funding under the new system have been allowed to hold on to their existing funding, plus indexation. And although these schools make up about a third of NSW's independent schools, they account for 70 per cent of schools in the top-50 funding category.
Moreover, the number of schools that will maintain their funding is set to rise dramatically. That is because about 60 per cent of the country's 1700 Catholic systemic schools earned a similar exemption two weeks ago, as part of the Federal Government's $12.6 billion deal to bring the Catholics on board.
The Federal Minister for Education, Brendan Nelson, has defended the maintained-funding deal, as part of his government's promise in 2000 that no private school, no matter how wealthy, would be worse off financially under the new SES model. But Federal Labor believes this part of the overall schools funding package, now worth $31 billion for the next four years, is becoming increasingly unsustainable.
Duncan McInnes, executive officer of the NSW Parents Council, which represents parents of non-government school students, admits the funding-maintained exemption has meant given some independent schools "artificially high" levels of funding since 2001, and will continue to do so until the end of 2008.
"It's an inconsistency within the theory of the scheme," he said. "But it is part of the transition [to the SES model] and some of the more prestigious schools are already phasing in higher fees because they know that, eventually, they will start receiving less." The executive director of the NSW ***ociation of Independent Schools, Terry Chapman, said the vast majority of funding-maintained schools had comparatively low resources. "And they are only receiving the level of funding allocated to them by previous Labor and Coalition governments, as determined under the previous scheme." But his public school equivalent, Sharryn Brownlee from the NSW Federation of Parents and Citizens ***ociation, said: "The Federal Government collects taxes, then spends them on 8 per cent of the student population in elite schools who do not need and should not have subsidies. The needs are so much greater in our public schools." This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/15/1079199148872.html
ralph rst...@no.bigfoot.spm.com
Yup - private schools still receive only half the taxpayer funds that public schools do, yet they remain much more responsive to parents concerns than public schools controlled by unions intent on protecting jobs of even the most mediocre of teachers.
The proof is that even for primary students, parents are making the financial sacrifice to get their children out of the public school system. More dishonest funding statements completely ignoring the State government distribution of our taxes. Of course, what she's really saying is "the needs are so much greater for the AEU" ;-)
"tipper" tipper...@hotmail.com
So if there was a voucher system, parents could choose either private or public, depending which they thought the best.
You Agree?
Or do you think parents should be forced to use sub-optimal education, run by Marxist educators?
If so, why?
Bernardz Bernard_...@REMOVEhotmail.com
Obviously the public education system has much explaining to do as to why it spends so much money and yet produces such lousy results.
--
Morality is like fashion. It changes all the time.
Observations of Bernard - No 54
"Pork" em...@eaddress.com
Yeah so true. Public schools are havens for political leftists to brain wash.
Parents are sick of their children being brain washed with multi-culturalism and other anti-social tripe.
...
lev_lafaye ...@yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette)
Multiculturalism is socially open, monoculturalism is socially closed.
That's axiomatic.
You are obviously ignoring the facts. Private schools are receiving two-thirds of the public education funds and are educating one-third of the students. Apply basic economic game theory to that.
Greig gre...@bigpnd.com
I think you are the one ignoring facts. Private schools get under two-thirds of the PER CAPITA funding compared to public schools.
eunome ...@yahoo.com.au (Eunometic)
Bejeus Tipper, start top posting or at least trimming.
A voucher system has one disadvantage. It brings problems into the more exclusive schools in good areas. Part of the reason for choosing private is to actualy keep your children away from those children and their parents who have all sorts of social, moral, cultural, ethno-linguistic and lets face it genetic dysfunctions such that consume the reources of the school, teachers and disrupt its program.
This can make your healthy and well adjusted child suffer: 1 Bullying.
2 Not get any attention becuase teachers are occupied with the difficult children. This means minor learning difficulties may become amplified.
(this is one reason parents actualy choose private. Not becuase they are snobs but becuase the only 'special needs' children public schools cater too are those suffering from refugee trauma, english problems and delinquency) 3 Reduced progress.
It is likely that given a voucher system that fees will rise to maintain some degree of exclusion of the problem kids while it will be used to get access to good schools that will be brought down.
A so called 'disadvantaged' school in Auburn for instance already has nearly 20% extra teachers but their job is not to reduce cl*** sizes but to be "ESL" english as a second language teachers or to deal with other special needs (possibly arsising from the practive of cousin marriage.) Too bad if your child has a problem with long division or long multiplication. (not taught anymore in public schools).
Don't get me wrong. I used to go to a public school in the Sutherlandshire. The majority of children (2/3rds) now starting first cl*** in public schools that area are from broken homes.
As far as Lev's attitude goes: if you introduced a voucher system he would still want less for advantaged schools.
"Pork" em...@eaddress.com
<>...
Don't be ridiculous. brain-wash, brainwash, brain wash are all correct.
Losers always try to change the topic.
Obviously you have a problem with categorising, which is a fundamental to proper thought and order.
Multiculturalism is racism at the opposite end of the context.
I don't have a problem with white people learning of other world resources, like food types or ways of process. I'm against people that target the natural race types for dilution.
"Pork" em...@eaddress.com
And they do ten times better educating their pupils.
eunome ...@yahoo.com.au (Eunometic)
The State Labour governments are now trying to tie curricula content with funding; thus the government will be able to tie funding to the introduction of certain programes: sex education, and the usual politically correct anti-racism brain washing (anti-racism is one of these factor that must be accounted for) Anti-racism programes are those in which Australians told of how we "invaded" and "slaughtered" aboriginals and fantastic tales of the "not stollen generation".
These lies and others are all to keep our children in a shamed and contrite mood so that the leftists can use these lies as moral leverage for their perverse gaols.
Note leftist dross like Lev terms 'indoctrination' as curricula.
Rob Silva rsi...@ozemail.com.au
You're trolling I presume?
aus ...@primus.com.au (ausstu)
The above comment illustrates the leftist brain washing that goes on in public schools and the teachers unions that want to be unaccountable. I read somewhere that private schools receive 24% of educational funding but have 32% of students.
So what is wrong with middle cl*** people who work hard being given the opportunity to send their children to private schools? Take away funding from private schools and the middle cl*** will be forced to send their children to mediocre public schools at a much greater burden to the taxpayer.
lev_lafaye ...@yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette)
What magnificant research skills you must have - "I read somewhere". I mean, really, how are people supposed to take a comment like that seriously?
The facts are clear to anyone with a modicum of research skills and are the public record.
Two thirds of Federal education funding goes into private schools.
However seventy percent of students are in public schools.
Absolutely nothing whatsoever. However the Federal funding should be equitable on a per capita basis.
Mediocre? We have one of the best public school systems in the world.
The 2001 OECD report showed that Australian students at aged 15 are second among surveyed nations for literacy, second for mathematics, and third for science.
aus ...@primus.com.au (ausstu)
Again this is a complete nonsense and distortion of the truth, obviously you have been brainwashed by the public school system to not think logically. The fact is that total government spending favours the public school system over the private schools system. You need to consider both Federal and state contributions to school to determine total government spending: Here the link Mr Lazy pants that proves what I read was correct.
Seems to me that parents who send their children to private schools are being short changed: http://bulletin.barker.nsw.edu.au/scripts/artman/exec/view.cgi?archiv... So then shouldn't state funding be also equitable on a per capita basis? If it were than private schools would receive a total of 32% of all government funding for schools instead of 24%. Parents who send their children to private schools are the ones who are short changes.
Compare the public school system to the private school system in Australia and you will find there is no comparison.
Greig gre...@bgpnd.com
Both of these statements are correct, however you have deliberately not mentioned state funding. Why should federal funding be "equitable on a per capita basis" when state funding is not?
In fact overall funding favours public school students - they receive 40% more funding per capita than private school students. These facts are clear to anyone with a modicum of research skills and are on the public record.
Peter Lawrence pet...@netlink.com.au
.
.
.
But this isn't the key figure. It's this sort of careful cl***ification that lets the Federal government claim that Australia is a low taxing country.
What counts, of course, is the proportion of ALL government funding that goes that way - not just the FEDERAL part.
No, nonsense. The proportion of ALL funding raised from the public.
Bait and switch. It's comparing with other countries, when the point being made is that "public" (meaning state) schools are mediocre among all Australian schools. Of course, a true comparison has to adjust for cherry picking by the private system, the pupils it rejects who land on the state system, but I suspect this is a small distortion. PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other items on that page for some reasons why.
lev_lafaye ...@yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette)
Actually I was educated at a private school, but don't let this fact get in the way of an ad hominen fictional tale.
I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than a newsletter from the headmaster of a private religious school.
Yes, I think it should. You are quite right. However the states are in the deplorable situation of being dumped with this role (yes, it is constitutional) whilst the federal government is the one which, in any realistic ***esment, holds the purse strings.
Compare to find no comparison?
The evidence is that, public or private, the schools with the highest levels of social capital (and yes, it is invariably private) are the ones with the best academic performance. Those selective public schools (such as MacRobs and Melbourne High) have extremely good academic achievement.
I leave the following for your consideration.
www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/dean/ docs/Melbourne_Institute.pdf
Peter Lawrence pet...@netlink.com.au
The usual standard I hold people to is, that those attacking the status quo bear the entire burden, have to do the proving wrong and so on. In these circumstances it is no rebuttal to say "how can I prove that?" - it just means that you yourself chose an impossible task.
Of course, it is open to you to show that you are actually defending the status quo, in which case you are right in all your comments about him having to show things. But I suspect the status quo is what you are complaining about.
Why? Bearing in mind where the burden of proof lies.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
What is happening here is that it is working out easier for the Federal Government to do these things directly than to twist the States' arms over it (on just this one point). Thus, the observed outcome is what the Federal Government will settle for in aggregate, to be going on with, and the particular State spending was not determined centrally (in this one area of activity).
And it is always open to the States to open other revenue sources and become independent of central funding; over the long term they do have flexibility.
It's always hard to untangle the direction of causality. But what does this have to do with the original ***ertions, that the Federal Government was somehow doing wrong by allocating more of the direct spending to private schools? PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other items on that page for some reasons why.
lev_lafaye ...@yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette)
Really? Do you want to make some suggestions on this? I'd be interested in hearing them.
Not much I'd happily admit. But seeming that the thread went off on a bit of a tangent (quelle surprise) to the relative quality of public versus private education, I thought this to be a interetsing article on the matter.
Regards, Lev
Peter Lawrence pet...@netlink.com.au
You are, to be charitable, misinterpreting. The ORIGINAL proposition was yours. Citing this article does no more than throw doubt on your position and require YOU to advance more substantial matters. It is not itself proof of the opposite, but it does not have to be. Oh, it's not mere repetition - it does show the same view was arrived at independently elsewhere.
The significance of throwing the burden of proof on the proposers of change is objective, as well as appealing to any conservative mindset ("when it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change") or to objective reasons for conservatism as such, which would take too long to demonstrate.
It is that the status quo is always bringing out a natural experiment; absence of evidence against really does indicate soemthing about its workability. On the other hand you cannot say that about hypothetical alternatives put up against it; their proponents are being intellectually dishonest in requiring you to show why and how they don't work, since they haven't been put through testing that might reveal what you don't know to look for. So it is reasonable to take those sceptically and require something solid in their favour, just to make a balanced comparison with the status quo possible.
I mean that over a sufficiently long period states could bring in new locally-oriented revenue extracting systems. The present situation of vertical fiscal imbalance resulted from political patterns, not from economic necessities.
I'm not suggesting that a state income tax (say) would raise more revenue aoverall, since it would cut into what was available at the Federal level.
But it is ruled out by political realities, not economic or even constitutional ones. Since political realities can change over sufficient time, it's realistic on that time scale (though equally it doesn't offer us here and now any way to influence things in that direction).
You should probably paste in an executive summary then. PML.
--
GST+NPT=JOBS I.e., a Goods and Services Tax (or almost any other broad based production tax), with a Negative Payroll Tax, promotes employment.
See http://users.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#AFRLET2 and the other items on that page for some reasons why.
aus ...@primus.com.au (ausstu)
These are the stats, and again I see you providing no source that refutes that claim, because you are unable to find stats that disprove this claim because it is true.
I am a bit wary of left wing academic research. Let's face it university researchers are funded by the government, so of course it is in their best interest to oppose the privatisation of the school system so they can continue to receive government handouts and be unaccountable.
| To Top |