Great education policy from labor

[Weaver]

Underfunding the public system creates the situation where parents don't feel they can use the public system. This obliges them to use private schools, effectively forcing them to pay thousands of dollars that they might not have otherwise had to.

As oppossed to penalising the middle class, this goes some way to rewarding them by allowing them to choose public and not have their kids suffer.

Subsidising the elite public schools only drives prices up. The top 10% of schools are allways going to charge top-dollar. They will allways charge a premium over the 'lesser' private schools. 'Forcing' people into private drives up these mid-level prices and in turn the elite schools. It makes private education more unaffordable than intended.

Also interesting to see deafing silence from the National Party. The number of rural kids boarding in elite private schools or at elite rural schools would be a very small percentage of the total. More money for public has to help the regional families. Penalties of a coalition perhaps?

 

[ralphmalph]

To all of those people who are against this policy, don't you think its a shame that parents feel they have to make huge sacrifices to send their kids to a private school because they will be better educated.
Doesn't that automatically tell you that Public Schools are under funded, and don't people who can't afford to choose where to send their kids have the right to a education equal to that of parents who can afford to choose.

Afterall it is education that allows people choices and isn't that what your arguement is all about.

i was trying to raise a similar point earlier (see post 46) but it was not picked up by anyone and the whole thing seems to have degenarated into a slanging match. Democracy at its finest.
Re the Catholic vote, there seemed to be a preliminary pitch for it a few months ago when the issue of abortion popped up, seemingly out of nowhere. Is this due to Harradine's retirement? Someone else? Is it purely a Catholic issue?

 

[3rdEchelon]

IMO things should be left as they are and there should be differing classes of education.

 

[TheBloods]

i was trying to raise a similar point earlier (see post 46) but it was not picked up by anyone and the whole thing seems to have degenarated into a slanging match. Democracy at its finest.

Maybe if Joffaboy and others like him stayed out of this thread, then a meaningful debate could be had!

 

[ralphmalph]

Note I said 'greater' proportion, not 'significantly greater.' Naturally you would expect more tax to come from the private system. Even though the modal parents' incomes are not significantly different (slightly higher, as expect, at private schools) the mean average at private schools would be much higher as there would be a greater proportion of higher-income parents and a lesser proportion of low-income parents.

Point taken. To go off on a slight tangent, is there any special reason why some people use the mode instead of the mean? When is it appropriate or valid? I saw Tony Abbott use it the other day and it seemed as though he was only using it because it suited his argument, not because it had greater relevance than the mean.

 

[funkyfreo]

Point taken. To go off on a slight tangent, is there any special reason why some people use the mode instead of the mean? When is it appropriate or valid? I saw Tony Abbott use it the other day and it seemed as though he was only using it because it suited his argument, not because it had greater relevance than the mean.

Pick the school where Kerry Packer's kids went. Well his wealth would grossly distort the MEAN but not really change the mode, which is the most frequently occuring income, rather than the average.

School 1 family incomes: $60k, $65k, $70k, $70k, 1.8 million.
School 2: $60, $65, $70, $70, $90.

Would be harsh to penalise School 1 just because of the extreme earners.

But yes I'd say it is used to bolster an argument in political terms, not based upon statistical correctness.

Quick Edit - or bugger is that the Median??? Ugh where are my high school stats books!!!!!

 

[TheBloods]

Point taken. To go off on a slight tangent, is there any special reason why some people use the mode instead of the mean? When is it appropriate or valid? I saw Tony Abbott use it the other day and it seemed as though he was only using it because it suited his argument, not because it had greater relevance than the mean.

Often just because it suits the argument!

But it does have valid uses, such as in this case.

For example, if you have 9 people who earn $50K and 1 who earns $20K, the mean is $47K. Another group also with 9 people who earn $50K and one who earns $300K, the mean is $75K. The second group appears significantly more wealthy on a mean measure, but on a modal measure they are the same ($50K). In this case, if you want to consider individuals within the group, and not the group as a whole, then the mode makes more sense.

 

[TheBloods]

Quick Edit - or bugger is that the Median??? Ugh where are my high school stats books!!!!!

No - you're right. The median is the midpoint when you place all the data points in order.

 

[DaveW]

Surely using the median makes the most sense.

 

[TheBloods]

Surely using the median makes the most sense.

Yep - the median would be a valid statistic.

 

[ralphmalph]

seems to me the median would have most relevance but without the mean and mode and let's face it, almost all the data and a compulsory stats lesson for the general public, it is hard to get a good idea of the break down of the people in each group, let alone trying to get a decent soundbite out of the issue.

 

[Ted Pellitis]

seems to me the median would have most relevance but without the mean and mode and let's face it, almost all the data and a compulsory stats lesson for the general public, it is hard to get a good idea of the break down of the people in each group, let alone trying to get a decent soundbite out of the issue.

The general public is fine with the word median being bandied about. It's what real estate averages are based on.

Though for calculating purposes might also be wise to look at the skew of the non-gaussian distribution

 

[medusala]

What a load of Liberal crap. The schools that are losing the funds are just the ones that reinforce the the class system and are also pushing mainly a christian dogma and I DONT want MY Taxes paying for any of that.
What happened to the famous "user pays" the Howard pushes?
If people cant afford to send their kids to these exclusive shcools then bad luck there is a perfectly good state system which will only get better if they recieve most of the funds due to them instead of giving to the wealthy schools..

User pays??? Why do the parents of private school kids have to pay for both private and public education??? Why do they also have to pay for private and public health even if they use neither? If they have to pay 100% of their private school fees then they should have a tax rebate for their % of taxes going towars state schools. Alternatively give everyone a $ voucher for schooling entitlement.

If the average funding for a state school student is $8k and the average funding for a private school kid is $5k then if a student goes to a private school they get just as good an education (better by academic result) and the govt saves $3k per student. How could anyone possibly argue against this? The govt saves $3k and the kid gets a better education. Only left wing ideological buffoons. The same people that think billionaires should be able to be bulk billed. Clueless idiots.

 

[funkyfreo]

User pays??? Why do the parents of private school kids have to pay for both private and public education??? Why do they also have to pay for private and public health even if they use neither? If they have to pay 100% of their private school fees then they should have a tax rebate for their % of taxes going towars state schools. Alternatively give everyone a $ voucher for schooling entitlement.

If the average funding for a state school student is $8k and the average funding for a private school kid is $5k then if a student goes to a private school they get just as good an education (better by academic result) and the govt saves $3k per student. How could anyone possibly argue against this? The govt saves $3k and the kid gets a better education. Only left wing ideological buffoons. The same people that think billionaires should be able to be bulk billed. Clueless idiots.

The labor party is not arguing against it that is for sure. They have just INCREASED funding to the vast majority of private schools!

 

[butterflykiss]

User pays??? Why do the parents of private school kids have to pay for both private and public education??? Why do they also have to pay for private and public health even if they use neither? If they have to pay 100% of their private school fees then they should have a tax rebate for their % of taxes going towars state schools. Alternatively give everyone a $ voucher for schooling entitlement.

You people just dont get it do you?
I would like to own a Rolls Royce but I cant and never will so why dosent the government finance it for me just to make me happy.
Same with the poor little rich kids and the two bob millioniares that are struggling to send their kids to PRIVATE schools, if they cant afford to pay the exorbitant fees then bad luck and their kids miss out.Nobody FORCES parents to sent their kids to private schools its called personal choice and I dont want to pay one cent in taxes towards something I dont believe in.Simple really.

 

[medusala]

Bad luck.

Want your kids to perpetuate the upper class high brow old boys network? Pay for it yourselves you rich scumbags.

it didn't go far enough. Take all Govt funding from these rich upper class tax dodging chinless clowns and give it all to the Catholic and other non govt schools.
If it wasn't for the Catholic Education System the whole schooling system would collapse in Australia. This is the area that needs the asistance, not the privileged and try hards who send their children to this Brittanic version of a Madras.

A good start by Latham. If anything would swing my vote to Labor it would be this outstanding education policy, and the refunding of the independant national broadcaster, the ABC.

Sway your vote to Latham? If he couldnt get the vote of a fabian like you he would be in trouble. Why on earth does the Catholic system need so much cash? Cant manage their schools properly? More choir boys need paying off? Are you telling everyone that its clear protestants are richer and much further up the social ladder than catholics? That catholics are being ripped off under the current system? Are Assumption and Xavier struggling to win the football?

Pathetic politics of envy. No need for anyone else to label you as an abject loser with a chip on your shoulder, you are doing a sterling job yourself.

 

[medusala]

You people just dont get it do you?
I would like to own a Rolls Royce but I cant and never will so why dosent the government finance it for me just to make me happy.
Same with the poor little rich kids and the two bob millioniares that are struggling to send their kids to PRIVATE schools, if they cant afford to pay the exorbitant fees then bad luck and their kids miss out.Nobody FORCES parents to sent their kids to private schools its called personal choice and I dont want to pay one cent in taxes towards something I dont believe in.Simple really.

I do get it. There are far too many whingeing no hopers around like you who expect the hard workers in the community to pay penal taxes to support muppets like you. I dont want to pay for sole parents, dole bludgers, the ABC, drug rehab programs, the aboriginal industry, medicare etc Not one damn cent.

If those people send their kids to public rather than private schools then the budget will be worse off by over $3k per student. The govt would then have to cut the education budget. Are you so stupid you cant see this?

You are after all the person who thinks that the Jews control Wall St and all the central banks in the world.

 

[funkyfreo]

Why on the one hand are all the anti private school mob here ranting about how taxes should not go to rich kids, and all the pro private school mob here ranting about how private school families have to pay twice, and should get funding, and care for their kids more by sacrificing, when this is the policy:

SAME MONEY TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS...
MONEY REDIRECTED TO POORER PRIVATE SCHOOLS - A SMALL MINORITY GET LESS - VAST MAJORITY OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS BETTER OFF OR AT LEAST MAINTAIN FUNDING...

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Good policy and good politics from labor.

Emminently sensible, commonsense stuff.

So Kings loses about 400 grand a year?

Pfft, they might have to close the rifle range and the croquet pitch then.

 

[medusala]

Good policy and good politics from labor.

Emminently sensible, commonsense stuff.

So Kings loses about 400 grand a year?

Pfft, they might have to close the rifle range and the croquet pitch then.

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.

 

[funkyfreo]

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 they shouldn't - and neither Liberal or labor would do it because they can't affort to even if they wanted to. No political party has that agenda.

I repeat - VAST MAJORITY OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS BETTER OFF UNDER LABOR PACKAGE
LABOR HAS NOT CUT MONEY FROM PIRVATE EDUCATION

 

[medusala]

No they shouldn't - and neither Liberal or labor would do it because they can't affort to even if they wanted to. No political party has that agenda.

I repeat - VAST MAJORITY OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS BETTER OFF UNDER LABOR PACKAGE
LABOR HAS NOT CUT MONEY FROM PIRVATE EDUCATION

but thats not what Comrade BK and others are arguing. By the vast majority, you mean the non WASP ones.

 

[funkyfreo]

but thats not what Comrade BK and others are arguing. By the vast majority, you mean the non WASP ones.

Read the thread medders - I've already asked how come we have left complaining about any funding, and the right arguing about how this policy will rip the guts out of private schools and it is so unfair on battler who try to do the best for the kids, when 90% of private schools BENEFIT.

You and your WASPs???? I think you will find plenty of WASP schools are no worse off.

 

[OldMan]

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.

 

[Goldenblue]

I dont want to pay for sole parents, dole bludgers, the ABC, drug rehab programs, the aboriginal industry, medicare etc Not one damn cent.

You really are delusional if you think if these things were no longer funded by taxpayers, that you would be paying less tax to the Govt?? It would only go onto higher salaries for them, more comfortable cars and redecorations to Kirribilli or similar. Both parties will make sure of that.

There has been so much privatisation over the years that has supposed to save us tax dollars, but I have not seen those savings passed onto me. Privitisation is a saving for Govt money, not taxpayers. It's a con.