Great education policy from labor

[Lennyfan]

I gave up on page 5... the rantings from both sides became a little silly

Just some basic thoughts on education and taxes....

The point of taxes to my knowledge is for the state to run services for ALL of its citizins. This is open to ALL, those on higher incomes pay more tax because they CAN, its their duty to the DEMOCRATIC free country we live in. Is that hard to argue against? If it was "I want my tax money to pay for my kids school" then why don't we just do what howard wants and stop taxing people as much and just let them pay for whatever they can afford.

But no, according to polls, australians don't want tax cuts, they want THEIR TAXES spent on services (schools, hopsitals etc.). Therefore lets do a little bit of logic here.

Public schools should get a VERY LARGE proportion of the taxes spent on schools. Those who choose to send their kids to private schools (they went there, they believe their kids will get a better education, they life the facilities, they like the coloured tie.... etc.) can choose this, heck its a open society.

But our taxes go to funding mostly public schools because at the end of the day, isn't that what taxes are for (oh and choice=equality)....

PS - people might not find that they need to send their kids to private schools if the public system is fixed up with more funding and a more effcient system..... SHOCK HORROR!

 

[TheBloods]

Most sensible people are not arguing that private schools should get an equal portion of government funding. Naturally government schools will get a significantly larger portion of total government funding and also a higher portion of per head government funding.

The argument should be about what proportion should private schools receive.

Most sensible people agree that smaller private schools definitely should get some.

Then it becomes a factor that Catholic schools get a bigger allocation than non-Catholic schools.

Some people believe that large private schools should receive no government funding. However, I still think they should get some as they perform a valuable service to the government providing support for the education system, and like healthcare, taxpayers should have some access to the basic elements of government funding.

 

[funkyfreo]

Sorry I've missed today's busy activity.

Anyone who is making this a Catholic v Protestant thing is nuts.

Nuts.

No wonder you have problems with Islam if you can't even handle Catholics!!

 

[medusala]

I gave up on page 5... the rantings from both sides became a little silly

Just some basic thoughts on education and taxes....

But our taxes go to funding mostly public schools because at the end of the day, isn't that what taxes are for (oh and choice=equality)....

PS - people might not find that they need to send their kids to private schools if the public system is fixed up with more funding and a more effcient system..... SHOCK HORROR!

Can you not understand that by sending their kids to private schools (even after taking into account govt funding of those schools) those parents save the govt over $4b a year. It never ceases to amaze me the level of ideological blindness by some people. Never let an economically rational decision be made when a policy based on envy can be made.

Thus if all those parents sent their kids to public schools as you suggest the state school system would completely and utterly collapse overnight. How is this more efficient????

 

[medusala]

A simple fairer system for all.

Nonsense, if the ALP wanted a fair system it would give every child in Australia an identical amount of funding. This doesnt happen now and wont happen in the future. Its more of a case of lets take the money from those who dont vote for us and give it to those who do.

 

[Mr Q]

Nonsense, if the ALP wanted a fair system it would give every child in Australia an identical amount of funding. This doesnt happen now and wont happen in the future. Its more of a case of lets take the money from those who dont vote for us and give it to those who do.

I suggest you look up the previous thread on this topic before continuing.

 

[Mr Q]

Then it becomes a factor that Catholic schools get a bigger allocation than non-Catholic schools.

Are you talking as a total, or on a per-student basis?

Either way, I think you'll find there are more Catholic schools (and students at Catholic schools), and there are more likely to be Catholic schools in lower socio-economic areas than is the case for non-Catholic schools, hence the overall funding is higher. You might also find that the fees on average at Catholic schools are much lower.

Mind you, I was somewhat surprised to find the school I went to for Yr 11/12 wasn't in either of the lists (for decreased or frozen funding), although the two Catholic schools in the PSA in Perth (that's the elite boy's schools) always had considerably lower fees than the non-Catholic schools who are all listed for freezing of their fees.

 

[TheBloods]

Are you talking as a total, or on a per-student basis?

Per student.

 

[Mr Q]

Per student.

In that case, I think you'd find that's because the average socio-economic status of students in Catholic schools is much lower than in non-Catholic schools as a consequence of the number of Catholic schools located in lower socio economic areas.

These schools are the sort of schools that lift the burden somewhat on the public system by providing services parallel to the public system across the board.

 

[TheBloods]

That sounds perfectly logical, however I wonder if it is actually the reason!!

 

[dan warna]

In that case, I think you'd find that's because the average socio-economic status of students in Catholic schools is much lower than in non-Catholic schools as a consequence of the number of Catholic schools located in lower socio economic areas.

These schools are the sort of schools that lift the burden somewhat on the public system by providing services parallel to the public system across the board.

good post

In fact, Brighton Grammar principal was listing other private schools as his competition, NOT the government system, an interesting faux pas? they are competiting for the commercial student NOT the government student.

and how quickly has the 200% increase in funding for SOME schools been absorbed (ave 125%?) WITHOUT a corresponding drop in fees????

I concur with JB from many many threads ago, that struggling rural and country schools, as well as those in lower socio economic areas that provide a service to community with low fees which are independant DESERVE additional funding.

kings gets cut by a couple of hundred grand? may then can cut 3 of their curators and a landscapist?

crikey.

as for bagging the state laborites, the funding is calculated per student, so a drop in funding is correspendant with a drop in enrollments is my understanding, that too seems fair.

 

[medusala]

as for bagging the state laborites, the funding is calculated per student, so a drop in funding is correspendant with a drop in enrollments is my understanding, that too seems fair.

A drop in enrolments according to you is fair. It will also correspond to less funding overall for public schools. Once again you demonstrate what a clueless moron you are. Or are you in favour of less of the education budget going to public schools?

 

[dan warna]

A drop in enrolments according to you is fair. It will also correspond to less funding overall for public schools. Once again you demonstrate what a clueless moron you are. Or are you in favour of less of the education budget going to public schools?

you idiot,

there is an overall increase in state funding for government schools, but to be distributed more evenly between all schools.

as someone who's kids are enrolled to attend a state school that has had its funding marginally cut, of course I am dissapointed, however, I am glad to see, that OVERALL, an equitable system of distribution of funds is taking place.

I do find it interesting that Glen Waverley secondary college has had a dip in enrollments, my understanding is that it is struggling to allow all those who want to get in, to enroll, I will do more research into that one.

over all state labor and federal labor are putting more in state government schools AND federal labor is putting MORE into ALL independant and private schools BAR some 70 odd.

perhaps kings can go without one or two gardeners and a rowing master?

It is the liberals who have been engaging in class warfare, stripping funding for state schools to increase funding for some schools by up to 200% in 4 years, while fees have increased!!!!

 

[Joffaboy]

Fascinating.

I have watched with bewilderment as the apologists for the elitist right wing, dividend bludger, tax evading upper classes excessive govt welfare, have changed their tune from unfair, to class war to sectarian.

These people like the unworthy privileged elite whom they represent, will stp at nothing to maintain their rifle ranges, rowing teams, and tennis lessons from the great unwashed who have the audacity to want to have the money to heat their portables during winter.

You people are truly disgraceful.

I hope Latham wins and cuts all of this welfare from the truly undeserving elite privileged parasites.

True independant schools in the country and in outlying suburbs need and deserve this funding more than the selfish few, living in the lap of luxury.

And I am sick to death of these private school parents arrogance. How dare they think they are the only hard working people in society. All I've heard is that Latham is punishing "hard working" parents with these cuts, the inference is that everyone else doesn't work as hard as them obviously.

Typical elitist snobbery found in most of the rich, or the parents of lower and middle class students attempting to social climb (because of their inferiority complexes) or vacariously live their life through their progeny.

Everyone else either doesn't "work hard" or doesn't "go without"as much as them, or "buy luxury items"instead of educating their children. The attitude of the insecure and the greedy is borne out in these Britannic Madrases, and propogate these skewed and hatefilled attitudes towards others who didn't attend their "old boy" institution.

 

[1jasonoz]

Per student.

Coalition per student allocation 2001 figures;

Catholic schools get $800 per student;

Other independant schools get $1600 per student.

 

[Fevola4God]

Typical elitist snobbery found in most of the rich, or the parents of lower and middle class students attempting to social climb (because of their inferiority complexes) or vacariously live their life through their progeny.

Oh jesus.

So, under your logic, the only reason why lower and middle class parents want to send their children to wealthier independent schools, is not for a better education but to quell their social inferiority complexes?


That's the kind of comment where one is left alone for hours just tormenting on how the HELL anyone could come up with such utter ********. It's the kind of comment that if I thought about it for more than 5 seconds, blood would start gushing from my nose and within minutes I'd be dead from multiple aneurisms in my brain.

Well done.

 

[TheBloods]

Coalition per student allocation 2001 figures;

Catholic schools get $800 per student;

Other independant schools get $1600 per student.

Total government funding per student:

Independent schools $4.5K
Catholic schools $6.7K
State schools $7.5K

Sources: ALP Policy Paper, ABS, Australian Association of Independent Schools, The Age, The Herald Sun

 

[TheBloods]

Fascinating.

I have watched with bewilderment as the apologists for the elitist right wing, dividend bludger, tax evading upper classes excessive govt welfare, have changed their tune from unfair, to class war to sectarian.

These people like the unworthy privileged elite whom they represent, will stp at nothing to maintain their rifle ranges, rowing teams, and tennis lessons from the great unwashed who have the audacity to want to have the money to heat their portables during winter.

You people are truly disgraceful.

I hope Latham wins and cuts all of this welfare from the truly undeserving elite privileged parasites.

True independant schools in the country and in outlying suburbs need and deserve this funding more than the selfish few, living in the lap of luxury.

This is just ridiculous fabrication draw from the dark recesses of your mind...

And I am sick to death of these private school parents arrogance. How dare they think they are the only hard working people in society. All I've heard is that Latham is punishing "hard working" parents with these cuts, the inference is that everyone else doesn't work as hard as them obviously.

That's not the inference at all. However, they are the only hard working people who the government is trying to reduce funding to. Any hard working parents sending their kids to state school are getting increased government funding.

Typical elitist snobbery found in most of the rich, or the parents of lower and middle class students attempting to social climb (because of their inferiority complexes) or vacariously live their life through their progeny.

Now this is just pathetic...

Everyone else either doesn't "work hard" or doesn't "go without"as much as them, or "buy luxury items"instead of educating their children. The attitude of the insecure and the greedy is borne out in these Britannic Madrases, and propogate these skewed and hatefilled attitudes towards others who didn't attend their "old boy" institution.

The point is that some middle class people choose to spend their money on improving the education of their children. Other people choose to spend their money on other things, whether luxury goods or on other things perhaps for their kids. The big difference however is that the ALP is saying the first parents are to be penalised for choosing to spend their money that way while the second parents are rewarded. That hardly seems fair...

You are a very sad and twisted individual, living in a bizarre fantasy land...

 

[Mr Q]

Can some of you guys quoting figures put up the sources (even if they're not ones you can link to)?

 

[medusala]

Fascinating.

I have watched with bewilderment as the apologists for the elitist right wing, dividend bludger, tax evading upper classes excessive govt welfare, have changed their tune from unfair, to class war to sectarian.

As previously stated parents of children at private schools subsidise the public school system to the tune of $4b (source previously mentioned Mr q). Hardly dividend bludging and tax evading. They are also paying for your methadone you moron.

 

[funkyfreo]

As previously stated parents of children at private schools subsidise the public school system to the tune of $4b (source previously mentioned Mr q). Hardly dividend bludging and tax evading. They are also paying for your methadone you moron.

So you basically oppose BOTH Labor and Libs private education funding policys?

 

[medusala]

yes FF I do. Cant see why all non govt students dont get the same $ each per student. This could be set as a % of the current funding of the total school spend and it could stay there thus eliminating arguments in the future. ie spending for each NGS student set at 55% of the $ spend per govt school student. Competition amongst NGS creates pressure for them to achieve better results.

 

[The invisible mullet]

For the information of someone who wanted to turn this into a bigoted discussion Latham is not a Catholic.

Catholic schools (especially primary schools) share a much larger student load from a lower socio-economic mix than other independent schools. Anyone who has spent much time in the Catholic systemic schools would know that they are underfunded.

 

[Mr Q]

yes FF I do. Cant see why all non govt students dont get the same $ each per student. This could be set as a % of the current funding of the total school spend and it could stay there thus eliminating arguments in the future. ie spending for each NGS student set at 55% of the $ spend per govt school student. Competition amongst NGS creates pressure for them to achieve better results.

Here's a question for you. We have four students, all of whom have the same academic abilities.

Student A comes from a rich and privileged background, his parents have millions to spare and paying school fees is not even a noticeable challenge. He is sent to one of Australia's elite schools for his education.

Student B comes from a run of the mill middle class family. Coming from a Catholic family, her parents elect to scrimp and save and send her to a Catholic school and pay an amount in fees rather than send her to the local state school which does not teach their preferred moral stance.

Student C comes from a similar socio economic background, but his parents are not Catholic, in fact do not profess any particular religion. In fact, they are a bit cheapskate, so they send him to the local state high school instead.

Student D has grown up in as close to poverty as is possible in Australia. Her parents didn't have a choice as to where to send her to school, as school fees were a long way behind food and shelter in the almost-unaffordable. She attends the local state school.

Which of these students deserves the best education? Take the parents out of the equation, and get it back to what the education system is about - the students. If you demand equal funding then Student A will get by far the best education, followed by B then C and D. Is this fair? Is this even right that student D will not get even a chance to shine academically because her parents are very poor? Or that student C's quality of education deserves to suffer because his parents are cheapskates?

I don't know where you stand, but if you have any thoughts of Australia as an egalitarian nation, you'd have to accept targetted funding of education to redress an imbalance that would exist if all students were funded equally.

 

[1jasonoz]

I herby announce that i intend to no longer use any public. As such i chose to drive a car instead. As this will reduce the pressure upon the Public transport system, i would like the rest of Australia to provide me thousands in taxpayers assistance, to allow me to purchase a Ferrari.

If you lot will not subsidies me in buying this Ferrari, then it is nothing but envy on your part .

Yes i know there is a perfectly good public system for me to use, but id like a ferrari, and i want you lot to help pay for it.