Great education policy from labor

[Dippers Donuts]

So schools shouldnt be funded on a $ per pupil basis across the board? Thats the good old labour way: penalise success and applaud mediocrity.

Give according to ability and take according to need? Think I have heard that somewhere else before.

No its perfectly simple jane - the most needy schools get the most support.
The elite schools will still get a level of funding but can quite rightly rely on their other sources of funding the state schools do not have access to.

What part of that do you not understand?

 

[Goldenblue]

No its perfectly simple jane

I never thought it was Jane....mmmmm...multiple personalities...

 

[medusala]

I am voting liberal but this is an excellent idea from Mr Latham. Parents from middle or lower socio economic classes should not be sending their children to private schools. It is allocating way too many limited resources(ie $$$$) to education. What most of these lower/middle class people refuse to see is that privileged rich kids who go to private schools are privileged because they are rich not because they go to a private school. The worst thing a parent can do is to force their children to spend most of their time with people way outside their socio-economic strata.

How dare middle class parents choose what they believe is best for their children. So poor kids shouldnt be allowed to play with rich kids? Should we put up a big fence around Toorak?

The wasted resources you are talking about are paid for by individuals not the govt. Should we ban gambling because that is certainly a waste of resources. Sorry folks, no more Melbourne Cup its a waste of economic resources. Oh and by the way you cant go to the football anymore, waste of scarce economic resources.

 

[medusala]

No its perfectly simple jane - the most needy schools get the most support.
The elite schools will still get a level of funding but can quite rightly rely on their other sources of funding the state schools do not have access to.

What part of that do you not understand?

I understand your socialist perspecitve entirely. It doesnt matter how badly or well schools are run you want them all to be the same rather than just give the same $ amount per student to the schools.

There is an obvious policy solution for your ideology. Make Demetriou the minister for education. Your school needs another $2.5m (again), not a problem. Your academic results are too good, send your top 10 students to the local state school. You have cheated by offerering scholarships to bright students, you cant take any new kids into year 7 next year. Easy.

 

[chilled]

Latham is useless!!!! What he seemingly doesn't understand is that the Victorian State Government gives about $19 million worth of funding to state schools in comparison to the paltry $1 million the private schools receive. So when combined with the money from the federal government, private schools receive about a fifth/sixth of total education funding. Thus, funding is already skewed. Speaking from experience I know just how expensive private schools can be. My parents could only afford to send me to a great private school because of the partial scholarship I earnt. Even with the scholarship my parents have struggled to cope with increasing payments and I can foresee a greater socio-cultural gap developing when private aschools are forced to increase fees. The great schools will become more select while the average schools will stay that way. What I would like to stress is that many private schools students' parents are not rich. Thus, it is political stupidity to force parents to pay more for a good education for their children. The only logical thing to do is increase funding for state schools to help foster their development while maintaining payments to private schools to ensure fees do not rise.
Thanks for your input Mr. Latham. Now go back to the backbench where you belong!

 

[Dippers Donuts]

I understand your socialist perspecitve entirely. It doesnt matter how badly or well schools are run you want them all to be the same rather than just give the same $ amount per student to the schools.

There is an obvious policy solution for your ideology. Make Demetriou the minister for education. Your school needs another $2.5m (again), not a problem. Your academic results are too good, send your top 10 students to the local state school. You have cheated by offerering scholarships to bright students, you cant take any new kids into year 7 next year. Easy.

Nice rhetoric, shallow but nice.

Nup, what I want is ALL schools to at least be given the opportunity to have decent libraries, ovals, classrooms, canteens etc.

Those schools that can afford to have a rifle range, art gallery or archery range should not be using taxpayers money to fund it.

 

[Slax]

If anyone doubts that there is a problem in the public school system then explain to me why out of the top 10% of students finishing year 12 over 90% are from private schools?

The public system is failing so something has to be done to fix it, and at them moment the best way to do that and maintain a balanced budget is to take funds from somewhere else, like say wealthy private schools. I can see no reason why Wesley should receive a grant of $2.9m from the govt. Latham's policy has merit and substance and does a hell of a lot more to fix the system than anything Howard would do.

Before anyone whinges about it please state your boting preference and/or school you attend.

Me, I went to Xavier so I am one of those private school students.

 

[TheBloods]

Nice rhetoric, shallow but nice.

Nup, what I want is ALL schools to at least be given the opportunity to have decent libraries, ovals, classrooms, canteens etc.

Those schools that can afford to have a rifle range, art gallery or archery range should not be using taxpayers money to fund it.

How stupid is the general public? Schools that have these things buy them mainly through donations to the school and through fees - not by using government money. They get far less money from the government so how could they possibly use government money to buy these things if state schools can't!

 

[TheBloods]

If anyone doubts that there is a problem in the public school system then explain to me why out of the top 10% of students finishing year 12 over 90% are from private schools?

The public system is failing so something has to be done to fix it,

And throwing money at the problem will fix it? How about a proper look at how those funds are managed?

and at them moment the best way to do that and maintain a balanced budget is to take funds from somewhere else, like say wealthy private schools. I can see no reason why Wesley should receive a grant of $2.9m from the govt.

Why? Why should they not receive funding when a state school of similar size receives significantly more funding? Why should parents be penalised because they want to add more capital to their children's education?

Latham's policy has merit and substance and does a hell of a lot more to fix the system than anything Howard would do.

Does very little more to 'fix' the system.

Before anyone whinges about it please state your boting preference and/or school you attend.

Me, I went to Xavier so I am one of those private school students.

Ah, Xavier - that would be one of the Catholic private schools and the largest boys school in Melbourne and not being affected by fee cuts!!

 

[butterflykiss]

I understand your socialist perspecitve entirely. It doesnt matter how badly or well schools are run you want them all to be the same rather than just give the same $ amount per student to the schools.

There is an obvious policy solution for your ideology. Make Demetriou the minister for education. Your school needs another $2.5m (again), not a problem. Your academic results are too good, send your top 10 students to the local state school. You have cheated by offerering scholarships to bright students, you cant take any new kids into year 7 next year. Easy.

You are pathetic in trying to justify the continuation of an elitist system propped up with taxpayers money.
The great unwashed wont buy it mate and they are the majority wether you and your toffee nosed ilk like it or not.
How come the bastion of free market views the USA also dosen't fund PRIVATE schools?

 

[DaveW]

How stupid is the general public? Schools that have these things buy them mainly through donations to the school and through fees - not by using government money. They get far less money from the government so how could they possibly use government money to buy these things if state schools can't!

I don't know how you determine what revenue was spent on what facilities. But surely the mere fact that these schools can afford these luxurious extras suggests they're not in any dire need of public funding.

 

[OldMan]

How dare middle class parents choose what they believe is best for their children. So poor kids shouldnt be allowed to play with rich kids? Should we put up a big fence around Toorak?

The wasted resources you are talking about are paid for by individuals not the govt. Should we ban gambling because that is certainly a waste of resources. Sorry folks, no more Melbourne Cup its a waste of economic resources. Oh and by the way you cant go to the football anymore, waste of scarce economic resources.

Private school is only the "best" for middle class children if you only measure short term academic results, which are really meaningless in the bigger picture of a persons life. Socially they are disadvantaged and studies have shown private school students do not do as well at university and are far more likely to drop out. Again I think parents fail to realise rich kids are privileged because they are rich not because they go to a private school.
The wasted resources is in relation to the persons income. So yes people who gamble a very high proportion of their income should be banned if it was practical. I know football is getting expensive but I'm sure it is well within the means of most people without too much sacrifice.
And I write this as a middle class person not someone who lives in Toorak or a snob.

 

[Qsaint]

How stupid is the general public? Schools that have these things buy them mainly through donations to the school and through fees - not by using government money. They get far less money from the government so how could they possibly use government money to buy these things if state schools can't!

I have disagreed and agreed with you on similar threads. But you know as well as me the 'building funds' in some private schools are hardly voluntary and hardly donations (other than in eyes of the taxman )

 

[Qsaint]

Private school is only the "best" for middle class children if you only measure short term academic results, which are really meaningless in the bigger picture of a persons life. Socially they are disadvantaged and studies have shown private school students do not do as well at university and are far more likely to drop out. Again I think parents fail to realise rich kids are privileged because they are rich not because they go to a private school.
The wasted resources is in relation to the persons income. So yes people who gamble a very high proportion of their income should be banned if it was practical. I know football is getting expensive but I'm sure it is well within the means of most people without too much sacrifice.
And I write this as a middle class person not someone who lives in Toorak or a snob.

But when I went to a sandstone uni, and I was very social , I only new a handfull of public scholl students.

 

[medusala]

If anyone doubts that there is a problem in the public school system then explain to me why out of the top 10% of students finishing year 12 over 90% are from private schools?

.

Exactly. Thus if the govt spends $3k less per student and they get better marks surely this is an argument in FAVOUR of continued govt funding of private schools? If you want to look at a reason at why public school performance is so bad then your first stop should be the attitude of the teachers union and their efforts to destroy comparative testing of students/ dumbing down of subjects etc etc.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

How stupid is the general public? Schools that have these things buy them mainly through donations to the school and through fees - not by using government money. They get far less money from the government so how could they possibly use government money to buy these things if state schools can't!

So the logical extension of your (unsubstantiated) statement is the private schools don't need any govt funding. Fine, take all the govt money off the private schools then. Even more for the genuinely needy. Suits me.

The last thing a govt school would use a handout for would be for a rifle range right? Maybe that's why they don't have them?

Give yourself an uppercut.

 

[medusala]

You are pathetic in trying to justify the continuation of an elitist system propped up with taxpayers money.
The great unwashed wont buy it mate and they are the majority wether you and your toffee nosed ilk like it or not.
How come the bastion of free market views the USA also dosen't fund PRIVATE schools?

You lefties criticise everything else from there and now you hold up there education system as the answer?? The answer is that the US govt cant fund religious schools due to the constitution (1st amendment) however vouchers proposals to do so are now being looked at.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-24-our-view_x.htm

As for elitist, its to be encouraged. Instead of having some of the worlds greatest universities like Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Yale you would prefer mediocrity. To people like you it doesnt matter its a matter of achieving the lowest common denominator whether it be education, health or income.

As for costing money, private schools save the govt money. If funding were cut then more children would to into state schools at around $3k+ more a student. The drop in expenditure on private schools would most likely be outweighed by an increase in expenditure on public schools.

Clearly the private school system isnt being propped up with govt money it IS clearly saving the govt money and a large amount at that. Despite spending around the OECD average on schooling (public and private) Australia does above average on international educational standards. Thus we spend less but achieve more. This is clearly helped by having so many students go to private schools. How anyone can argue with spending less to achieve more is beyond me.

Lets not bother having the next Howard Florey come out of Australia because we have great schools and universities lets just have a nation of the poorly educated but equal. You arent a teacher by any chance?

 

[demon_dave]

You lefties criticise everything else from there and now you hold up there education system as the answer?? The answer is that the US govt cant fund religious schools due to the constitution (1st amendment) however vouchers proposals to do so are now being looked at.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-24-our-view_x.htm

As for elitist, its to be encouraged. Instead of having some of the worlds greatest universities like Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Yale you would prefer mediocrity. To people like you it doesnt matter its a matter of achieving the lowest common denominator whether it be education, health or income.

As for costing money, private schools save the govt money. If funding were cut then more children would to into state schools at around $3k+ more a student. The drop in expenditure on private schools would most likely be outweighed by an increase in expenditure on public schools.

Clearly the private school system isnt being propped up with govt money it IS clearly saving the govt money and a large amount at that. Despite spending around the OECD average on schooling (public and private) Australia does above average on international educational standards. Thus we spend less but achieve more. This is clearly helped by having so many students go to private schools. How anyone can argue with spending less to achieve more is beyond me.

Lets not bother having the next Howard Florey come out of Australia because we have great schools and universities lets just have a nation of the poorly educated but equal. You arent a teacher by any chance?

obviously a Scotch boy

 

[medusala]

From the arch right wing rag The Age

Latham may pay a high price for his radical break from bipartisan education policy, writes Gregory Hywood.

Well before he became Labor leader, Mark Latham made the claim that "working class" taxpayers subsidised private school fees. It was a big and fundamentally incorrect call - most low-income earners would barely pay enough tax to meet their own family's education and health needs, let alone cover others'.

As Jennifer Buckingham wrote in her Centre for Independent Studies paper School Funding for All, it is childless couples and families with children in non-government schools who are subsidising the education sector. The latter group, who pay their taxes then fork out for additional school fees, are the big contributors, pushing $4 billion of private money a year into the nation's education system.

 

[dan warna]

The policy is a crock. The so-called 'wealthy' private schools already get the lowest level of funding per student of all schools.

Is Latham a Catholic as he seems to be allocated funding from Presbyterian schools to Catholic schools.

Parents who pay taxes all have a right to a share of those taxes. It is a completely ignorant and misguided view that all people who go to the large private schools must be rich. it has been shown both statistically and anecodotally that the vast majority are normal middle class families with similar levels of income to middle class families at state schools. The latter generally prefer to use their money on recreational and leisure activities rather than supporting their childrens' education, and they should not be subsidised by the government to do so.

As I have shown on numerous occasions it is the private school parents who subsidise the state school ones. They are able to educate their children on only a third of the amount of total government funding relative to state school students. This is a form of public-private partnership and enables the government to support a much larger number of students. Without this private support the education system would collapse.

Comparisons to King's and their gardeners and the like are specious. Most private schools are not like that. Even for the ones that are, these extra benefits are provided by the parents paying for them through fees and donations. Just because they choose to do that why should they receive absolutely nothing from the government on education. They have much right to receive a share of education funding as anyone else.

Comments like 'subsidised luxury' are the biggest load of ignorant tripe I have read. Which part is subsidised? They receive significantly less from government funding compared to state schools. Any luxury they receive is paid for out of the pockets of parents and previous students. There is nothing to stop state schools from doing exactly the same thing - however they choose not to and the parents prefer to spend their money on holidays, cars and TVs.

its only 60 odd schools who have their funding cut, these are ones who use money for issues other than education, such as landscaping, ambience, etc.

MOST independant schools get more money.

justification of handouts?

 

[TheBloods]

So the logical extension of your (unsubstantiated) statement is the private schools don't need any govt funding. Fine, take all the govt money off the private schools then. Even more for the genuinely needy. Suits me.

The last thing a govt school would use a handout for would be for a rifle range right? Maybe that's why they don't have them?

Give yourself an uppercut.

Private schools don't use government funding for 'rifle ranges' or galleries' either.

They fund the running of the school using regular income from government funds and fees.

They also use some of the government funding to support scholarship programmes.

When they decide to build something new, then they resort to the parents and alumni network.

This is not unsubstantiated - you simply need to look at financial reports of private schools.

 

[TheBloods]

I have disagreed and agreed with you on similar threads. But you know as well as me the 'building funds' in some private schools are hardly voluntary and hardly donations (other than in eyes of the taxman )

How are they not voluntary and not donations?

BTW - at least you provide reasoned debate and thought, unlike some people here!!

 

[TheBloods]

its only 60 odd schools who have their funding cut, these are ones who use money for issues other than education, such as landscaping, ambience, etc.

MOST independant schools get more money.

justification of handouts?

Despite what one headmaster at one Sydney school said, most of the schools do not use the government funding for landscaping and ambience.

They are not handouts - they are a small, but legitimate, share of the education budget.

It's the same with health funding - you may elect to go to your own doctor and pay higher fees, rather than go to a bulk billing clinic, however that does not exclude you from access to Medicare and nor should it.

 

[medusala]

"Labor education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said some parents could not afford to send their children to secondary Catholic colleges, a problem the ALP would tackle with a new funding model"

Well if they cant afford to send them to secondary catholic colleges how are they going to afford to send them to Kings, Geelong Grammar, Scotch, Wesley etc?

The ALP has said that Catholic schools will be the big winners and that overall funding for non govt schools will be not be reduced (polly speak - stay the same). He has also protected Jewish schools, regardless of the fact they might charge fees up to $18,000 a year, on the spurious basis that they provide discounts for disadvantaged students (polly speak - they give us cash). from the SMH

Well if funding stays the same, catholic schools get more and jewish schools dont face cuts then join the dots on where the cuts come. The general public cant discriminate against people on the grounds of religion but it seems the ALP can.

 

[1jasonoz]

"Labor education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin said some parents could not afford to send their children to secondary Catholic colleges, a problem the ALP would tackle with a new funding model"

Well if they cant afford to send them to secondary catholic colleges how are they going to afford to send them to Kings, Geelong Grammar, Scotch, Wesley etc? The general public cant discriminate against people on the grounds of religion but it seems the ALP can.

Because the likes of Kings charge parents over $10,000 for their kids, whilst secondary colleges may only charge several thousand. Pretty simple even for you to understand. How are the ALP discriminating?