Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
May 23rd 2007, 9:53 am
#1
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
Here's a bit of further fodder for the government vs private schools debate. It should stir up a few comments! 
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...e#contentSwap1
Shane Maloney's original speech to some pupils at Scotch College is at:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...e#contentSwap1
OzTennis
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...e#contentSwap1
Shane Maloney's original speech to some pupils at Scotch College is at:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...e#contentSwap1
OzTennis
May 23rd 2007, 11:09 am
#2
on the Goldie
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: 4226.au
Posts: 12,364
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
interesting reading
May 23rd 2007, 11:11 am
#3
Loving Perth!
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Mindarie, Perth, WA
Posts: 99
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
If everyone in the catchment area for Clarkson High School (Perth) sent their kids to Clarkson (instead of the various private schoolsin the area), the school would not have capacity to take all those kids.
Maybe we should all try it......
Maybe we should all try it......
May 23rd 2007, 11:20 am
#4
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
Yeah, I was wondering after more than 50 views without a response if anyone was out there, thanks for your 2 words.
The thing which staggered me - if the figures are correct - is that it is planned to spend $7.5 bill for 30% of pupils compared to $3.4 bill for 70% of the pupils. I make that $5.15 of private school spending per pupil cf $1.00 of public school spending per pupil.
This of course is federal spending and education is largely a matter for state governments. The figures perhaps tell us that there is a federal 'conservative' government and state 'labour' governments.
Some figures for education spending by state governments on private and public schools would be interesting.
OzTennis
The thing which staggered me - if the figures are correct - is that it is planned to spend $7.5 bill for 30% of pupils compared to $3.4 bill for 70% of the pupils. I make that $5.15 of private school spending per pupil cf $1.00 of public school spending per pupil.
This of course is federal spending and education is largely a matter for state governments. The figures perhaps tell us that there is a federal 'conservative' government and state 'labour' governments.
Some figures for education spending by state governments on private and public schools would be interesting.
OzTennis
May 23rd 2007, 12:01 pm
#5
Gone Senile Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,014
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
Having believed all my life in State education - albeit I want it with Grammer school options and streaming and trade schools
I find a lot people come to Aus and along with the option of buying the better lifestyle comes the large four by four and private education! All status symbols. I do not believe paying for an education gets you a better one.
But I did research as much as possible and did move to a more affluenent area so my children could attend the 'better' state high school. I then moved my daughter (after a year of severe bullying and reacting badly to the situation) to a catholic 'private' albeit a very cheap one so she might benefit from a closer more pastoral caring atmosphere. She needed the guidance that
school was offering and I wanted it for her above any principle I might have had.
My son is doing well and just about to complete his HSC - shame he feels at times in this area that he could of done better if he had gone to Barker (a $20K a year private school) he is not given that impression from us his parents he gets it from the kids that go the school - they and their parents honestly believe that they have provided a better education than he has had! Now that shits me.
I find a lot people come to Aus and along with the option of buying the better lifestyle comes the large four by four and private education! All status symbols. I do not believe paying for an education gets you a better one.
But I did research as much as possible and did move to a more affluenent area so my children could attend the 'better' state high school. I then moved my daughter (after a year of severe bullying and reacting badly to the situation) to a catholic 'private' albeit a very cheap one so she might benefit from a closer more pastoral caring atmosphere. She needed the guidance that
school was offering and I wanted it for her above any principle I might have had.
My son is doing well and just about to complete his HSC - shame he feels at times in this area that he could of done better if he had gone to Barker (a $20K a year private school) he is not given that impression from us his parents he gets it from the kids that go the school - they and their parents honestly believe that they have provided a better education than he has had! Now that shits me.
May 23rd 2007, 12:15 pm
#6
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 3,453
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
I do!
Being a product of the state system and having worked in the private system and the state system (and having kids in the state system currently) I sincerely believe that on the whole, private is better for your kids.
There are exceptions - we all know excellent state schools and crap private schools - but generally you get what you pay for and if it's free, then it usually has - to a greater or lesser degree - the attendant problems of:
1. Slack parents
2. Poor discipline/disruptive kids
3. Lower work ethic
4. A bell to bell education - i.e. very little beyond 9am and 3.30pm.
Being a product of the state system and having worked in the private system and the state system (and having kids in the state system currently) I sincerely believe that on the whole, private is better for your kids.
There are exceptions - we all know excellent state schools and crap private schools - but generally you get what you pay for and if it's free, then it usually has - to a greater or lesser degree - the attendant problems of:
1. Slack parents
2. Poor discipline/disruptive kids
3. Lower work ethic
4. A bell to bell education - i.e. very little beyond 9am and 3.30pm.
May 23rd 2007, 12:51 pm
#7
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
Typical wishy washy, 'we are all the same' socialist journalism.
Australian system as it is, is great. Leave it alone. I think the incoming socialist KRudd/Gillard government might have other ideas though.......
Australian system as it is, is great. Leave it alone. I think the incoming socialist KRudd/Gillard government might have other ideas though.......
May 23rd 2007, 2:02 pm
#8
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
The point of the article is not whether private schools are 'better' or not, it is that those who send their children there should pay MORE than they currently do for the privilege i.e. why should the Federal government spend 5 times more per capita on pupils in the private system than on the pupils in schools provided by the state?
I too am a product of the state system and have worked in both systems. I agree to a certain extent with the two authors in that people should pay MORE for private education and then the money saved could be diverted into the state system - and there would then be less need to send a child to the private system because the public system would have smaller classes, better resources, more extra-curricular activities, better entrants to the profession because of more attractive salaries and so on.
OzTennis
I too am a product of the state system and have worked in both systems. I agree to a certain extent with the two authors in that people should pay MORE for private education and then the money saved could be diverted into the state system - and there would then be less need to send a child to the private system because the public system would have smaller classes, better resources, more extra-curricular activities, better entrants to the profession because of more attractive salaries and so on.
OzTennis
I do!
Being a product of the state system and having worked in the private system and the state system (and having kids in the state system currently) I sincerely believe that on the whole, private is better for your kids.
There are exceptions - we all know excellent state schools and crap private schools - but generally you get what you pay for and if it's free, then it usually has - to a greater or lesser degree - the attendant problems of:
1. Slack parents
2. Poor discipline/disruptive kids
3. Lower work ethic
4. A bell to bell education - i.e. very little beyond 9am and 3.30pm.
Being a product of the state system and having worked in the private system and the state system (and having kids in the state system currently) I sincerely believe that on the whole, private is better for your kids.
There are exceptions - we all know excellent state schools and crap private schools - but generally you get what you pay for and if it's free, then it usually has - to a greater or lesser degree - the attendant problems of:
1. Slack parents
2. Poor discipline/disruptive kids
3. Lower work ethic
4. A bell to bell education - i.e. very little beyond 9am and 3.30pm.
May 23rd 2007, 2:12 pm
#9
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
That's tongue in cheek BTW - argue your case properly. The arguments are not 'we are all the same', they are that life should be a more level playing field.
To use an analogy - why should someone in a 100 metre race start well ahead of the pack because of who their mummy or daddy are? Or, why should the mummy and daddy of the people running the full 100 metres pay a good part of the cost of the children who get the privileged start (as well as their own who have a poorer starting block, cheaper spikes and so on)?
OzTennis
May 23rd 2007, 2:33 pm
#10
Gone Senile Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,014
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
The point of the article is not whether private schools are 'better' or not, it is that those who send their children there should pay MORE than they currently do for the privilege i.e. why should the Federal government spend 5 times more per capita on pupils in the private system than on the pupils in schools provided by the state?
I too am a product of the state system and have worked in both systems. I agree to a certain extent with the two authors in that people should pay MORE for private education and then the money saved could be diverted into the state system - and there would then be less need to send a child to the private system because the public system would have smaller classes, better resources, more extra-curricular activities, better entrants to the profession because of more attractive salaries and so on.
OzTennis
I too am a product of the state system and have worked in both systems. I agree to a certain extent with the two authors in that people should pay MORE for private education and then the money saved could be diverted into the state system - and there would then be less need to send a child to the private system because the public system would have smaller classes, better resources, more extra-curricular activities, better entrants to the profession because of more attractive salaries and so on.
OzTennis
The belief of most parents with children at a private school is that the private education system is 'better' and therefore they do not care what the monetary split is.
And as a parent with children in the Australian system at this point in time....I am getting the best out of it that I can. One private (thank goodness for Catholic school subsidies both federal and church) and one fairly decent state school. I will not be able to make a difference in the time they will be at school but I will vote for any party that will redress the unfairness and properly fund state schools. But that can be a difficlt promise as like the article says there are promises made by the parties but rarely followed through. A lot of votes come from the middle class who need the subsidies that fund their children through the better perceived education!
May 23rd 2007, 2:34 pm
#11
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
Since you are trying to denounce well and extensively argued points of view with emotive, incorrect labelling can I just say Genghis that the Labour government does seem certain to replace the Fascist government.
That's tongue in cheek BTW - argue your case properly. The arguments are not 'we are all the same', they are that life should be a more level playing field.
To use an analogy - why should someone in a 100 metre race start well ahead of the pack because of who their mummy or daddy are? Or, why should the mummy and daddy of the people running the full 100 metres pay a good part of the cost of the children who get the privileged start (as well as their own who have a poorer starting block, cheaper spikes and so on)?
OzTennis
That's tongue in cheek BTW - argue your case properly. The arguments are not 'we are all the same', they are that life should be a more level playing field.
To use an analogy - why should someone in a 100 metre race start well ahead of the pack because of who their mummy or daddy are? Or, why should the mummy and daddy of the people running the full 100 metres pay a good part of the cost of the children who get the privileged start (as well as their own who have a poorer starting block, cheaper spikes and so on)?
OzTennis
System works well for me any plenty of other Australians.
UK has the system that you want and it's a mess. As we know any state school in the UK that is any good is selective, and guess what? most of the kids that go to these schools are middle-class.
Until the state system sorts out discipline, crap parenting, little wankers out of control, left-wing, PC teaching etc, parents will opt for private education. At my son's private school here in WA, parents range from very rich to struggling single parents. Interestingly a lot of the parents are state school teachers. That speaks volumes to me.
Last edited by Amazulu; May 23rd 2007 at 2:38 pm.
May 24th 2007, 2:27 am
#12
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 3,453
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
I too am a product of the state system and have worked in both systems. I agree to a certain extent with the two authors in that people should pay MORE for private education and then the money saved could be diverted into the state system - and there would then be less need to send a child to the private system because the public system would have smaller classes, better resources, more extra-curricular activities, better entrants to the profession because of more attractive salaries and so on.
OzTennis
I believe that the two biggest biggest obstacles to a child's learning is:
1. disruption by other students. This is what demoralises others in the class, demoralises teachers and interupts the flow of teaching and learning.
2. Teacher accountability. (resisted by teaching unions)
Neither of these cost money. But I bet that most parents cite these as key reasons for sending their kids to private schools.
As for whether private parents should receive subsidies for their child's education - a difficult one but yes on balance I think they should. Very rich parents won't have a problem with paying top dollar but what about those on the margins of affluence? They pay taxes AND pay for their child's education thereby relieving the burden on the state sector.
Why shouldn't they receive some tax benefit? The alternative is that they would not be able to send their kids to a private school and hence put even more pressure on the state sector.
May 24th 2007, 2:48 am
#13
Banned
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 16
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
Here's a bit of further fodder for the government vs private schools debate. It should stir up a few comments!
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...e#contentSwap1
Shane Maloney's original speech to some pupils at Scotch College is at:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...e#contentSwap1
OzTennis
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...e#contentSwap1
Shane Maloney's original speech to some pupils at Scotch College is at:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...e#contentSwap1
OzTennis
May 24th 2007, 10:00 am
#14
Has left the building
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,079
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
I'm not so sure that money is the key issue.
I believe that the two biggest biggest obstacles to a child's learning is:
1. disruption by other students. This is what demoralises others in the class, demoralises teachers and interupts the flow of teaching and learning.
2. Teacher accountability. (resisted by teaching unions)
Neither of these cost money. But I bet that most parents cite these as key reasons for sending their kids to private schools.
As for whether private parents should receive subsidies for their child's education - a difficult one but yes on balance I think they should. Very rich parents won't have a problem with paying top dollar but what about those on the margins of affluence? They pay taxes AND pay for their child's education thereby relieving the burden on the state sector.
Why shouldn't they receive some tax benefit? The alternative is that they would not be able to send their kids to a private school and hence put even more pressure on the state sector.
I believe that the two biggest biggest obstacles to a child's learning is:
1. disruption by other students. This is what demoralises others in the class, demoralises teachers and interupts the flow of teaching and learning.
2. Teacher accountability. (resisted by teaching unions)
Neither of these cost money. But I bet that most parents cite these as key reasons for sending their kids to private schools.
As for whether private parents should receive subsidies for their child's education - a difficult one but yes on balance I think they should. Very rich parents won't have a problem with paying top dollar but what about those on the margins of affluence? They pay taxes AND pay for their child's education thereby relieving the burden on the state sector.
Why shouldn't they receive some tax benefit? The alternative is that they would not be able to send their kids to a private school and hence put even more pressure on the state sector.
On top of paying high school fees for our daughters private schooling we also volunteer our time in the school (not just us but all parents on a regular basis - including the dads). Its not for lack of teachers or paid teacher assistants its the parents desire to be involved and the schools attitude to integrate school/community.
I have taken a half day off tommorrow to make cookies and do some finger painting.
Catherine is a shit stirrer nothing more.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinio...601484589.html
Last edited by Geelong Gent; May 24th 2007 at 10:03 am.
May 24th 2007, 2:23 pm
#15
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: Article "If you want private education for your kids, pay for it yourself"
At the risk of repeating myself:
"The point of the article is not whether private schools are 'better' or not, it is that those who send their children there should pay MORE than they currently do for the privilege."
We've had someone pointing out that the Labour Party are Socialists, the writer is a shit stirrer, teachers are left-wing and PC in state schools, children are wankers in state schools, are the product of poor parenting, private schools are 'better', parents of private school children seem to care more and get involved more, I'm Lenin for wanting a more equal START in life blah, blah, blah.
I don't deny that private schools are better resourced, have smaller class sizes, more extra-curricular activities, wider choice of curriculum, fewer discipline issues, get better exam results and so on. Frankly, you'd expect something more for your fees wouldn't you and most of the posts I refer to above seem to be people trying to justify what they are spending is worth it.
The question is whether the taxpayer is paying too much and the parents too little with respect to private schools. Nearly everyone who has posted so far would say NO I'm sure! Those who don't hold the same view aren't necessarily the post WW2 Commies under your bed that Menzies feared.
OzTennis
"The point of the article is not whether private schools are 'better' or not, it is that those who send their children there should pay MORE than they currently do for the privilege."
We've had someone pointing out that the Labour Party are Socialists, the writer is a shit stirrer, teachers are left-wing and PC in state schools, children are wankers in state schools, are the product of poor parenting, private schools are 'better', parents of private school children seem to care more and get involved more, I'm Lenin for wanting a more equal START in life blah, blah, blah.
I don't deny that private schools are better resourced, have smaller class sizes, more extra-curricular activities, wider choice of curriculum, fewer discipline issues, get better exam results and so on. Frankly, you'd expect something more for your fees wouldn't you and most of the posts I refer to above seem to be people trying to justify what they are spending is worth it.
The question is whether the taxpayer is paying too much and the parents too little with respect to private schools. Nearly everyone who has posted so far would say NO I'm sure! Those who don't hold the same view aren't necessarily the post WW2 Commies under your bed that Menzies feared.
OzTennis