Public vs Private Schools

[Rusty Brookes]

Rowing is probably the only one I can think of down here. Huge with the private schools, unheard of with the public schools. Perhaps some of the other sports where there's a perception of it being a rich person's game (tennis, golf). Most of the other major sports are equally popular in the public and private system.

I went to a Catholic high school which no longer exists (thankfully, I missed that turd Robert Best by one year) - I was on the ten-pin bowling team. No other school would compete with us so during inter-school sport, we'd catch the bus to Box Hill Bowl and bowl a few frames against each other. We were also allowed to skateboard - we were driven in a minivan to Bulleen Bowl. It almost made up for dodging the dodgy Christian Brothers that hung around the place.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

As soon as Rowing was said, I immediately thought of Barnaby French.

Don't know what school type he was though.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

TaxpYers fund students in private schools approx 8.5k per student per year and government schools cost 13.5 k each....the existence of private schools saves taxpayers a lot of money.

That's one way of looking at it. But it's wrong.

 

[Dadda Dave]

Everyone has a different perpective I guess. My daughters go/went to public school. The eldest at Melbourne uni now scored over 97 atar and the youngest is a straight A student. Put in the work and you get result no matter how much you pay. I guess we were lucky that our local school is pretty good.

I live in a very small town and the public is terrible ..
We had no choice but to move them.

 

[My Tilly]

How were boxers mentally tougher in the past? Do you even think before you speak or do you just constantly blurt out "hurrr durrr things were better back in my day just because and also a current affair said so"

There was no sidetracking technology to fatten you up.
Kids actually stayed outdoors for hours after school had finished and parents could barely get them inside for dinner. It was just the way life was.

Boxers in the past had come from the slumps. Parents had experienced the recession and there were no jobs around. You had to fight in order to survive if you were unprivileged and poor.
The money was considerably worse as well. You had multiple fighting contracts before you even got a go at a 'seasoned fighter'.
Go look at Kimbo Slice for a prime example of today's fighter.
Beat up scrubs and unprofessional fighters but the minute he actually had to contend with a bloke who could cop a hit on the jaw and stay upright, he wasn't what his YouTube videos made him out to be.

You really need to stop glorifying today's athletes.

Wayne Carey and Gary Ablett Senior would be so much more dynamic and brilliant than Dustin Martin or Jeremy Cameron it's embarrassing, and they were two decades long gone already.

 

[ryancash]

It was a joke mate... from almost 3 years ago

Oh ok, I missed it.

 

[My Tilly]

Compare Olympic records or times from the 50s or 60s on average to today and you'll begin to realize how wrong you are. I never said today's kids are "tougher" because that's highly subjective, and only a fool would declare one generation tougher than another... Athletically though it's really no competition, humans are taller stronger and faster, no one with a brain can deny that.

How were boxers mentally tougher in the past? Do you even think before you speak or do you just constantly blurt out "hurrr durrr things were better back in my day just because and also a current affair said so"

nice back peddling you have going here

 

[ryancash]

Summer Heights High, lad

Thanks man. I was sucked in. Actually a very funny quote.

 

[deltablues]

The median wage for a full-time worker in Australia as at July 2018 was $65,577

And that is gross, excluding tax. Even with husband and wife both working, that makes private schools, especially GPS, unviable for the average family in Oz, especially with Oz's high COL* and real estate cost/mortgages. Unless on a scholarship.

Is that a good thing?

Not really, but it has always been so.

And it saves the taxpayer money. Despite those who argue that private schools suck at the taxpayers' teat.

*Re COL, since retired I visit Oz at least twice each year. My Oz supermarket run/gas/petrol/eating out/booze is at least 30% more than in the US. Cars are very expensive. Medical is way cheaper. Real estate is insane.

But like Canada, it is a softer place to live.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

TaxpYers fund students in private schools approx 8.5k per student per year and government schools cost 13.5 k each....the existence of private schools saves taxpayers a lot of money.

In other words if all funding was pulled from private schools then if they don’t lose over 60% of their students then the government would be just as well off. (After the one off costs of building new and bigger schools and probably buying failed public schools)

Personally I’ve completely changed my opinion on this over the last few years and would love to see the government strip all funding to private schooling. I think society would be better off.

 

[Captain chaos]

In other words if all funding was pulled from private schools then if they don’t lose over 60% of their students then the government would be just as well off. (After the one off costs of building new and bigger schools and probably buying failed public schools)

Personally I’ve completely changed my opinion on this over the last few years and would love to see the government strip all funding to private schooling. I think society would be better off.

o
Oh dear... a big “if” ... raise their fees by5/6k and see what happens.

 

[btdg]

So much garbage in this thread, but I guess that reflects this whole topic. Private schools are canny marketers, mostly.

to address one myth to start with, private schools don’t save the taxpayer much at all. Total gov spending per student is approx $13k in public schools and $9k in private. The true difference is less than that - the public school figure has a lot more ‘high needs’ kids who receive extra funding as well as fixed costs and once you factor in economies of scale and the fact that 70% of kids are in public schools already, it’s a minuscule saving in government terms.

The idea that teaching is better in private schools is laughable, too. That’s marketing, nothing more. I say that as someone working in education; with a simple explanation - it isn’t different in any positive way (and is often more conservative and consequently worse).

Private schools are very good at offering things that look or sound good from the outside - flashy facilities, ‘pastoral care’. They have the money to do some things better too - sports, music, etc (although they don’t do those things as well as, say, external sports clubs, even if they do like claiming the credit).

I guess if you want religious education then there’s a tangible benefit. The other big benefit it class. It’s the perception of separation, keeping your kid with the rich kids and away from the rabble. Sometimes, for middle class families, it’s about signalling you have ‘made it’. More tangibly, it’s about having your kid develop social capital, social connections. In our society, that’s worth $70k per year for two kids...

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

o
Oh dear... a big “if” ... raise their fees by5/6k and see what happens.

Yeh you’ll probably lose 6 out of 10 if that which would end up costing the same for the government. Anything less and the government are better off. Some will choose to send their kids to the school that was $20k and is now $28k instead of the school that was $28k and would turn into $36k. The proper rich could still afford the very best private schools.
It’ll also mean possible cost cutting so less football scholarships ect and not paying big money to people running those programs. This wouldn’t actually affect the education they could provide.
Religious organisations would probably tip in more too.

 

[Sttew]

No. Private entities should not be subsidised by government. The government should provide a free public education. People can opt out but if they do don't put your hand out for government funding. It's typical of the corporate neo-liberal philosophy of wanting government to stay out and stop interfering with the market but then putting their hands out for public funds. Scare campaigns about public schools being unable to cope are ridiculous, the government money provided to private schools would be diverted to public schools and provide any additional resources. Any shortfall could be covered by taxing religious institutions, many of whom operate the private schools.

It’s not the entity being funded. It’s effectively the student. If the student leaves the school, the school gets less funding.

Surely every student is entitled to receive government funding? Or are you saying that PAYG parents who pay huge taxes and send their kids to private school should get nothing?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

It’s not the entity being funded. It’s effectively the student. If the student leaves the school, the school gets less funding.

Surely every student is entitled to receive government funding? Or are you saying that PAYG parents who pay huge taxes and send their kids to private school should get nothing?

A student shouldn’t be entitled to have a better education then another just because their parents have money. That’s the point. They should be able to but they sure as hell are entitled imo.

 

[Captain chaos]

Yeh you’ll probably lose 6 out of 10 if that which would end up costing the same for the government. Anything less and the government are better off. Some will choose to send their kids to the school that was $20k and is now $28k instead of the school that was $28k and would turn into $36k. The proper rich could still afford the very best private schools.
It’ll also mean possible cost cutting so less football scholarships ect and not paying big money to people running those programs. This wouldn’t actually affect the education they could provide.
Religious organisations would probably tip in more too.

You forget that even by your delusional formula, if you lose 6 out of 10, you will lose lots of schools who can't function losing 60% of their students and maintain such big facuilitites. I think you grossly underestimate how elastic the demand is for the fees and you are right , it would affect the education they provide but you think people would pay 40% more for that education?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

You forget that even by your delusional formula, if you lose 6 out of 10, you will lose lots of schools who can't function losing 60% of their students and maintain such big facuilitites. I think you grossly underestimate how elastic the demand is for the fees and you are right , it would affect the education they provide but you think people would pay 40% more for that education?

The 60% just comes from the difference between funding for a public vs private student. That means if they lose less then 60% of private school students then it equals out as the same spend for the government or less.

Obviously that’s where it becomes survival of the fittest. Some schools would survive others would die. It wouldn’t be 40% more on fees it would be ~$8,500. It would take a few years for it to sort itself out but once schools start closing because lack of enrolments then other schools will naturally have an increase picking up the kids from those schools who’s parents still want to pay for their education. Would people pay an extra $8,500? some would yeh, some would go to the previously cheaper schools and pay around what they currently already are and others will join the Public system.

 

[quotemokc]

 

[Captain chaos]

The 60% just comes from the difference between funding for a public vs private student. That means if they lose less then 60% of private school students then it equals out as the same spend for the government or less.

Obviously that’s where it becomes survival of the fittest. Some schools would survive others would die. It wouldn’t be 40% more on fees it would be ~$8,500. It would take a few years for it to sort itself out but once schools start closing because lack of enrolments then other schools will naturally have an increase picking up the kids from those schools who’s parents still want to pay for their education. Would people pay an extra $8,500? some would yeh, some would go to the previously cheaper schools and pay around what they currently already are and others will join the Public system.

I know where the 60 comes from...but you came up with that figure. What happens if its %80?

 

[Roaming Lou]

It's hard for public schools to compete when the staff, unions and employers are resorting to this mentality

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

At least three schools are affected so far — Trinity Gardens, Paringa Park Primary and Magill — with parents receiving letters this week saying the Christmas plays have been moved from the evening to 10am so teachers do not have to attend after school.



a 9 to 5 mentality doesn't work in today's day and age.

Who loses? the kids
Why do schools exist? the kids

yet it's all about saving money vs I'm not working after hours



#wonderwhypublicschoolsarepathetic

Its like the car industry, the unions will just keep going on strike and protesting until the taxpayers and parents elect an "ultra-conservative" government that will close all of the under-performing schools that can't afford the teacher wages, and then kids will be out of school and the teachers won't get their raise, instead they will be unemployed. When I went to school recently you could easily see a difference between the older and non-unionised teachers and the lazy/unionised teachers, guess who taught better.
Unions aren't inherently bad, but like all things they require balance and right now the scales are tipped heavily in their favor.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I know where the 60 comes from...but you came up with that figure. What happens if its %80?

Roughly!!!
Assuming a few things and that’s the avg amount of money in earlier post were correct about funding for students ($13.5k vs$8.5k)
There are something like 3.9mil students of which 35% are religious or independent schooled. To make it easier assume it is 4m total students.
If the government took away all private funding and they lost 80% of the students it would cost the government an extra ~$3bil PA to have near 95% of kids in public school. A tiny percentage of total revenue.

Money is the worst excuse to keep private school funding imaginable. It’ll never happen though because politicians role with that crowd.

 

[Bluey Shelton]

Young players showing talent from public schools are given scholarships to go to private schools. Hopefully they don’t pick up the bad habits associated with these elite schools like drug taking and selling, treating other people with disrespect, the opinion that women are there for your sexual satisfaction with or without consent and becoming a first rate tugger.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

If private schools want/need public funding, then the public should have access to all the private facilities.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Long, in-depth article here by Jake Niall, which I haven’t had time to more than skim due to a big day at work, but it seems to address a lot of the questions raised here, so I’ll post it for others’ erudition and delectation.

How private schools have taken over the AFL

Research shows boys who go to a private school are almost four times more likely than those educated in the government system to be on an AFL list. The national draft will reinforce the trend.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Sttew]

Long, in-depth article here by Jake Niall, which I haven’t had time to more than skim due to a big day at work, but it seems to address a lot of the questions raised here, so I’ll post it for others’ erudition and delectation.

How private schools have taken over the AFL

Research shows boys who go to a private school are almost four times more likely than those educated in the government system to be on an AFL list. The national draft will reinforce the trend.

www.theage.com.au

Good article. The two pie charts probably sum up the position. The question is to what extent do sports scholarships account for the disproportionate number of independent school students going on to be drafted?