Private Schools

[Chief]

How the Catholic school system takes from the poor to give to the rich

1 John 3:17: If someone has enough money to live well and sees a brother or sister in need but shows no compassion—how can God’s love be in that person?

Wow.

Notes on their own documents spell out how they are diverting money from poorer parents to subsidise the school fees for much richer parents.

 

[Chief]

And heaping disadvantage on top of disadvantage!

 

[Suspense]

Basically admitting that they cannot compete with the value for money of state schools in High SES areas - therefore they subsidise the fees in high SES areas by diverting parent contribution funds from Catholic schools in low SES areas - where the competition is less intense, due to the poor reputation of local state schools in those areas.

The private system relies on local state schools being shit - the shitter the better in fact - it's all part of the marketing plan. If they weren't shit, in a large number of cases, the "parents will walk" (as is often the case in middle to high SES areas).

 

[Chief]

Basically admitting that they cannot compete with the value for money of state schools in High SES areas - therefore they subsidise the fees in high SES areas by diverting parent contribution funds from Catholic schools in low SES areas - where the competition is less intense, due to the poor reputation of local state schools in those areas.

The private system relies on local state schools being sh*t - the shitter the better in fact - it's all part of the marketing plan. If they weren't sh*t, in a large number of cases, the "parents will walk" (as is often the case in middle to high SES areas).

At the same time they deprive the poorer area of money by over-charging, and so delivering worse student outcomes in their own schools!

It’s a feudal system. The poorer in country areas tithe to the aristocracy in the cities.

The best case scenario for the Catholics is to quit the cities where they cannot compete fairly, and pour their efforts into lower performing areas.

Isn’t that what Jesus would have done?

 

[Caesar]

The best case scenario for the Catholics is to quit the cities where they cannot compete fairly, and pour their efforts into lower performing areas.

Realistically they would probably consolidate schools in wealthy areas, jack up the prices and compete with the independents.

The other alternative is that they shift away from primary schools and towards high schools, where the perceived difference in the value offering is greater. Most parents only send their kids to Catholic primary schools to ensure that they get into a Catholic high school.

I was not aware that this was happening but it did not surprise me when it came out. For all the outwards appearance of a single unified entity, the Catholic Church is very much a collection of bishops all fighting for their own turf. It's unsurprising that the wealthy and powerful dioceses screw the poorer ones.

 

[Chief]

It's unsurprising that the wealthy and powerful dioceses screw the poorer ones.

It’s a modern aristocracy. Grasp for power, plot against the weak to keep that power.

The government is right behind this.

 

[Caesar]

It’s a modern aristocracy. Grasp for power, plot against the weak to keep that power.

The government is right behind this.

I understand why the Catholics want to provide a single uniform fee level across the state, and I don’t even necessarily disagree with it on a philosophical level. But you can’t cross-subsidise rich schools with taxpayer funding that was intended to help poor schools.

It seems to me the government is mostly trying to do the right thing (via needs-based funding criteria) but is being subverted by the Church (fiddling with the formula to engineer their own desired funding outcomes)

 

[Chief]

I understand why the Catholics want to provide a single uniform fee level across the state, and I don’t even necessarily disagree with it on a philosophical level. But you can’t cross-subsidise rich schools with taxpayer funding that was intended to help poor schools.

It seems to me the government is mostly trying to do the right thing (via needs-based funding criteria) but is being subverted by the Church (fiddling with the formula to engineer their own desired funding outcomes)

The church is flouting the rules to the detriment of poorer kids in regional areas.

They are taking subsidies and using them in a commercial calculation to maximise the benefit to themselves - both now and using primary schools as feeders to high schools, and to stem the flow of people out of their congregations. It's awful.

The government has the legal authority to withhold funding until the church changes its ways. The government won't do that. Why? My guess is they agree with what the church is doing. They don't give a crap about country school kids either. The Nationals have votes sewn up out there so they can turn the screws pretty hard and not lose votes to the scary communists.

 

[Chief]

I understand why the Catholics want to provide a single uniform fee level across the state

Just to clarify: it's not about a single uniform fee. The church's own documents show that.

 

[Chief]

my post sounded more Pollyanna than it meant too - the bullying is sh*t house and does not seem to have improved at all since I was at CBC Freo forty years ago.

I have no doubt things are better than they were 40 years ago. But they are still pretty ordinary in the schools I know about.

 

[Caesar]

Just to clarify: it's not about a single uniform fee. The church's own documents show that.

What I mean to say is that their uniform goal across the state is to charge a small premium to provide a slightly better educational experience than the public schools in the local area

I don’t necessarily disagree with that philosophically. Each school is there are simply to provide an accessible alternative to local diocesan/parish parents - often the only alternative. They are not really there to provide a parallel public school system, equalising educational performance across the state. That’s the government’s job. If the local government school improves, the Catholic school will have to improve to compete or close.

The problem is when the Catholic schools are happy to take equalisation money without applying it to the objectives it is supposed to be used for

Personally I would take all supplementary funding away from non-government schools. Give them a fixed per-student voucher amount, and let them compete however they like. If they can’t compete, they close.

Supplementary money for poor or disadvantaged areas should be given 100% to the government schools, as they set the baseline.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Here's how our schools are funded — and we promise not to mention Gonski

School funding is a hot topic but do you really understand how our schools get their money? Here are some jargon-free facts to clarify how the system works.

www.abc.net.au

These are for funding and are a few years old, but here they are for what they're worth :

The year these figures were taken from, the entire spend was $53 billion.

Federal Funding $14.9 bilion
State / Territory $38.1 billion

Private Schools $12.8 billion
Public Schools $40.3 billion

Commonwealth Government funding :

63.8% Private
36.3% Public

State / Territory funding :

8.5% Private
91.5% Public

Where the kids go :

Primary :
Public 70%
Catholic 19%
Private 12%

Secondary :
Public 59%
Catholic 23%
Private 18%

Public School, income per student in $.

Commonwealth Funding $1,668
State / Territory Funding $9,200
Private Funding $680
Total $11,548

Catholic School, income per student in $.

Commonwealth Funding $6,229
State / Territory Funding $2,057
Private Funding $2,918
Total $11,204

Private School, income per student in $.

Commonwealth Funding $4,933
State / Territory Funding $1,865
Private Funding $9,437
Total $16,235

I don't know how much these funding percentages have changed if at all since.

Today's total students, 4,006,974

Public 65.6%
Catholic 19.4%
Private 15.0%

If we were to close down Private schools, not Catholic, just the private ones, that's 601,046 extra students for the public system. Currently, those students are being funded to the tune of $6,798 each. Public students are funded $10,868, the difference is $4,070 per student, per year. Governments would need to come up with another $2.5 billion per year and a heap of new schools / infrastructure to teach them in.

Maybe with not paying fees, some parents might sponsor a child / children through the Smith Family. I would, but there's no way known I'd tip in anywhere near the fees that I currently pay for my two girls.

 

[Toump Ass]

I saw it when I was in high school. Kids would get monstered and be told to deal with it themselves. I've seen it with friend's kids. A couple of teachers I know have some really primitive ideas on how to deal with it. One teacher I know - not a friend or teacher at my kids school but I have had to interact with him - even targets overweight kids for ridicule.

Catholic schools are not very Christian in my experience.

My wife is a teacher as are many of my closest friends. Without exception the people I know who are most passionate about education and social equity work in public education.

Bullying was a huge issue in my Catholic school. I was shocked the other week when friends I went to this school with- who are now teachers themselves- mentioned that my school still has a reputation for bullying.

My private education was a waste of money, exacerbated by the type of child I was and the type of school I was at.

I'd like to think my kids will benefit more from travelling overseas every year (with the money saved from a) public school over a private one.

(Might have posted my thoughts on this before, sorry!)

 

[Chief]

$2.5 billion per year and a heap of new schools / infrastructure to teach them in.

Private school infrastructure would not just evaporate. Private school parents money would not just evaporate. Progressive taxation can sort that out. Selective entry schools can even the playing field so all students get a chance at reaching their potential.

The federal government is keeping private schools afloat right now. We're already paying for them.

$2.5b per year when we are spending $92b making dodgy submarines? Easy choice. Make it $5b and train and hire more teachers to reduce class sizes across the board.

 

[Chief]

I'd like to think my kids will benefit more from travelling overseas every year public school over a private one.

And if you have a bad year, you don't have to move your kids from private to public. You just don't go on holiday.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Private school infrastructure would not just evaporate. Private school parents money would not just evaporate. Progressive taxation can sort that out. Selective entry schools can even the playing field so all students get a chance at reaching their potential.

The federal government is keeping private schools afloat right now. We're already paying for them.

$2.5b per year when we are spending $92b making dodgy submarines? Easy choice. Make it $5b and train and hire more teachers to reduce class sizes across the board.

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before, either earlier in this thread or another one on the same topic.

Does the government purchase the private school infrastructure, compulsorily acquire it or do the private schools who are getting shut down, sell their usually prime real estate to the highest bidder?

Private school parent's money for the most part would evaporate, you're kidding yourself if you think it wouldn't, mine would.

 

[Chief]

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before, either earlier in this thread or another one on the same topic.

Does the government purchase the private school infrastructure, compulsorily acquire it or do the private schools who are getting shut down, sell their usually prime real estate to the highest bidder?

Private school parent's money for the most part would evaporate, you're kidding yourself if you think it wouldn't, mine would.

But the money would not disappear from the face of the Earth. Tax it.

The school grounds: compensate the organisations fairly. If it is in a location not needed, flog it off and put the money into new schools in better locations.

There is a lot of value locked up in these places and it simply favours already well off people at the expense of people who need it more. The Catholic church's mission is not to exacerbate the poverty cycle, but that is what it is doing.

 

[Kwality]

Basically admitting that they cannot compete with the value for money of state schools in High SES areas - therefore they subsidise the fees in high SES areas by diverting parent contribution funds from Catholic schools in low SES areas - where the competition is less intense, due to the poor reputation of local state schools in those areas.

The private system relies on local state schools being sh*t - the shitter the better in fact - it's all part of the marketing plan. If they weren't sh*t, in a large number of cases, the "parents will walk" (as is often the case in middle to high SES areas).

Is it a competition or is it simply parental choice that occurs between State & Catholic systems ?
What % of kids are not Catholics, even less Church going?

Surely there is a report slanted to favour either point of view?

 

[Chief]

Is it a competition or is it simply parental choice that occurs between State & Catholic systems ?
What % of kids are not Catholics, even less Church going?

Surely there is a report slanted to favour either point of view?

They are using the Church's own documents. Other people they interviewed were amazed someone in the church wrote down their entire shitty plan to shaft kids in poorer areas.

 

[Kwality]

They are using the Church's own documents. Other people they interviewed were amazed someone in the church wrote down their entire shitty plan to shaft kids in poorer areas.

I was suggesting it is even more basic than that posted. Its not about the money.

Now private schools more generally & in high school, money is a major driver of decisions. You only have to see the higher achieving (academic) public schools.

 

[Chief]

I was suggesting it is even more basic than that posted. Its not about the money.

Now private schools more generally & in high school, money is a major driver of decisions. You only have to see the higher achieving (academic) public schools.

You read the article?

 

[Suspense]

If we were to close down Private schools, not Catholic, just the private ones, that's 601,046 extra students for the public system. Currently, those students are being funded to the tune of $6,798 each. Public students are funded $10,868, the difference is $4,070 per student, per year. Governments would need to come up with another $2.5 billion per year and a heap of new schools / infrastructure to teach them in.

Maybe with not paying fees, some parents might sponsor a child / children through the Smith Family. I would, but there's no way known I'd tip in anywhere near the fees that I currently pay for my two girls.

I'm not ideological opposed to Private or Catholic schools - if parents wish to subsidise the cost of educating their children, and pay for a 'better quality education' - go for it. However, the level of public subsidy should be limited and needs-based - to allow more the available monies to go towards lower SES "BAD SCHOOLS", indigenous areas (remember closing the gap?) to improve those schools (lower class numbers, alternative schools in regional areas etc.) and the challenges they face. This is the only way to overcome issues of ghettoisation and generational poverty.

The fact is this doesn't happen and there is next to no public accountability. Public funding to private schools has increased and the micks are allowed to **** around with the funding rules which are intended to improve the quality of education in low SES areas - to subside the fees paid by the rich.

Counting the cost of the education revolution

If I want to spend public monies as a teacher, I have to make sure I have enough in our department's limited budget, get several quotes to ensure I've sourced the best available price, lodge a P.O. clearly outlining the educational purpose of the purchase, have it signed off by two department heads and the business manager, sign and date on receipt of goods and submit for payment.

However, for those at the top who are responsible for allocating the public funding, there is no such accountability - it's a ****ing free-for-all.

 

[Kwality]

I'm not ideological opposed to Private or Catholic schools - if parents wish to subsidise the cost of educating their children, and pay for a 'better quality education' - go for it. However, the level of public subsidy should be limited and needs-based - to allow more the available monies to go towards lower SES "BAD SCHOOLS", indigenous areas (remember closing the gap?) to improve those schools (lower class numbers, alternative schools in regional areas etc.) and the challenges they face. This is the only way to overcome issues of ghettoisation and generational poverty.

The fact is this doesn't happen and there is next to no public accountability. Public funding to private schools has increased and the micks are allowed to fu** around with the funding rules which are intended to improve the quality of education in low SES areas - to subside the fees paid by the rich.

Counting the cost of the education revolution

If I want to spend public monies as a teacher, I have to make sure I have enough in our department's limited budget, get several quotes to ensure I've sourced the best available price, lodge a P.O. clearly outlining the educational purpose of the purchase, have it signed off by two department heads and the business manager, sign and date on receipt of goods and submit for payment.

However, for those at the top who are responsible for allocating the public funding, there is no such accountability - it's a ******* free-for-all.

Accountability is election day.
Senior public servants do their jobs, dont they. Are they not accountable?

 

[Suspense]

Accountability is election day.
Senior public servants do their jobs, dont they. Are they not accountable?

To the Government of the day.

As for the Governments themselves, you can take that view. And when the next set of PISA results show that our educational outcomes are continuing to fall on global comparisons, as our results are 'dragged down' by student performance in low SES areas - I'll remind you that "Accountability is election day".

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Private school infrastructure would not just evaporate. Private school parents money would not just evaporate. Progressive taxation can sort that out. Selective entry schools can even the playing field so all students get a chance at reaching their potential.

The federal government is keeping private schools afloat right now. We're already paying for them.

$2.5b per year when we are spending $92b making dodgy submarines? Easy choice. Make it $5b and train and hire more teachers to reduce class sizes across the board.

It’s nothing in the grand scheme of things. To have the richest and poorest child on the same playing field would be the greatest achievement imaginable. You could even find schools for the top 1% to make sure there is somewhere for the truly gifted. It’ll never happen though, doesn’t matter what political party you follow their kids, friends kids etc are all going to these private schools.