Abolition? Yes, we are certainly a product of our environment and schooling :o)
Last year, there was more spent on private schools than there were public Universities :o(( Now, private Universities (Notre Dame and a bunch of others) are increasingly getting public funding. Notre Dame is starting up two new campuses in sydney, and is getting a $43 million grant from the Federal government for capital works. They will have a bunch of nursing places… and meanwhile, the sydney university undergraduate nursing places are all being lost.
Private education can have a place, but it is a shocker when public places are lost to private institutions. It’s hard for the public sector to compete when it becomes defunded. There’s no “choice” in that.
kay henry
Originally posted by kay henry:Abolition? Yes, we are certainly a product of our environment and schooling :o) Ouch, that sparks; sarcasm or jealousy Kay, either way not pretty!!! [blush2]
As for “abolition” Kay, I was continuing from Celivia’s remark who said she would like to see private schools made redundant!!! But then, that’s different is it???
Personally (as stated in my post), I have no desire to see them abolished, made redudant, whatever term suits you. I too see there is a place (need) for private schools, I’m just saying MORE money (yes, definitely more) should be re-directed into public schools to help even things out a bit!!!
Celivia said:
All funds set aside for the pampering of private schools could then be redirected into public education.
Hardly!!! It would be nice, but just because funding is no longer required in one area, does not necessarily mean it will be allocated back into a similar one!!! I’m sure our politicians will conjure up some ridiculous justification for spending it some less deserving venture!!!Kay said:
Howard is the first Prime Minister to have only attended public schools in his education-
Not so; he went to (I forget which now) one of the world leading Universities, Oxford or Harvard!!!
seems now though, he has the same feeling as forum members- he just doesn’t like ’em.
Funny, that’s not the impression he gave in a recent ABC interview, but who knows that may well be the case today.Finally, as for the notion of “choice”; I was referring to the child’s choice as opposed to that of the parents!!! Perhaps if more parents allowed their children to choose which school they wanted to attend, things would be different????
Oh well, one can only hope hey???
Jo
Originally posted by Monopoly:Quote:…just because funding is no longer required in one area, does not necessarily mean it will be allocated back into a similar one!!! I’m sure our politicians will conjure up some ridiculous justification for spending it some less deserving venture!!!
Well, the overall amount of students requiring education won’t change after abolition/redundancy of private schools (not sure of the right term for this), so the funds will still be needed for education.
And don’t forget that demands for good public education of ALL parents, instead of just the 70% of parents will have a stronger effect on govt decisions to improve public education. Which govt would be risking cheapskating on frozen educational funds- there would be too many holes in that kind of ice for them to fall through.[fear]
Finally, as for the notion of “choice”; I was referring to the child’s choice as opposed to that of the parents!!! Perhaps if more parents allowed their children to choose which school they wanted to attend, things would be different????
Of course it is important that children have a choice.
But whose children? All children?
Do the children of low income earning parents have this choice as well as children of high income earning parents?Parents have a huge influence on their kid’s choices as well!
If all schools were public schools, and a whole smogasboard of different types of schools were available, then all children would have a choice. It’s not like they are pushed into a school where they don’t want to be. They have many choices.
Schools would have equal value in the eyes of parents, and in a community.
It would be more a choice of their own.Celivia
Originally posted by Celivia:Quote:Well, the overall amount of students requiring education won’t change after abolition/redundancy of private schools (not sure of the right term for this), so the funds will still be needed for education.
I’m not disputing this in the slightest!!!And don’t forget that demands for good public education of ALL parents, instead of just the 70% of parents will have a stronger effect on govt decisions to improve public education. Which govt would be risking cheapskating on frozen educational funds- there would be too many holes in that kind of ice for them to fall through.[fear] One would hope!!!
Of course it is important that children have a choice.
But whose children? All children?
Do the children of low income earning parents have this choice as well as children of high income earning parents? This is a socioeconomic dilema as children of low income families have it hard on many levels. The inbalance is grossly injust, however I am not asking IF they can or cannot; all things being equal (which of course unfortunately, it is not) you will probably find MOST kids don’t care one way or another where they go!!!Parents have a huge influence on their kid’s choices as well!
It goes without saying!!!If all schools were public schools, and a whole smogasboard of different types of schools were available, then all children would have a choice.
Define “different” [blink] ??? Smaller class sizes??? Teachers who were happy to settle for lower paid (public school) wages??? What??? This is a very blanket statement. As a parent, I want to know what “different choices” my kids have???It’s not like they are pushed into a school where they don’t want to be.
Given the choice most kids probably don’t want to be in ANY school most times, but that aside, this is not necessarily correct; MANY children ARE PUSHED/pressured!!!They have many choices.
Schools would have equal value in the eyes of parents, and in a community.
It would be more a choice of their own.
If society changes it’s perceptions, then yes, all this will come to be (fingers crossed hey???)Originally posted by kay henry:Abolition? Yes, we are certainly a product of our environment and schooling :o)
Last year, there was more spent on private schools than there were public Universities :o(( Now, private Universities (Notre Dame and a bunch of others) are increasingly getting public funding. Notre Dame is starting up two new campuses in sydney, and is getting a $43 million grant from the Federal government for capital works. They will have a bunch of nursing places… and meanwhile, the sydney university undergraduate nursing places are all being lost.
Private education can have a place, but it is a shocker when public places are lost to private institutions. It’s hard for the public sector to compete when it becomes defunded. There’s no “choice” in that.
kay henry
Are you comparing non government high schools to public university? If so – fair comparison…NOT.
Or are you comparing actual dollars spent on private unis vs public unis. If so please state source.
just a quick question, monopoly (hi!) you mentioned that:
Although, my children have always been given the option to choose for themselves where they wanted to go!!!At what age did you give them the choice? and were your kids schooled under both private and public systems before they made their decision?
Personally i attened a state primary school and private highschool (scholarship) and couldn’t put a dollar value on the extra learning tools, specialist teachers and resources that i was exposed to as opposed to some of my friends who attended state highschools.
There’s always going to be a debate over how funds are distributed to both sectors of education, yes there should be a far greater persentage allocated to public as that is where the majority of Australian children are schooled. That’s just plain logic.
The real value that i see in a private education (and this is only my personal opinion so don’t shoot me down) is the different mindset of the students who attend.
emcdonald…. different mindset??? er, um, to quote Pauline Hanson “Please explain?”
If all schools were public schools, and a whole smogasboard of different types of schools were available, then all children would have a choice. It’s not like they are pushed into a school where they don’t want to be. They have many choices.
Schools would have equal value in the eyes of parents, and in a community.
It would be more a choice of their own.Celivia
Not quite – most schools are based upon catchment areas so you could theoretically choose based on what school(s) areas you live in.
The simplistic choice of attending wherever you wanted would soon be taken away from you if everyone could choose what school they attended. You may have one school with 25,000 children wishing to attend and another with 5.
Any system has to have checks and balances and it isn’t feasible to have 20 different types of schools in each suburb.
Hi emc,
I have no problem with yours (or anyone else’s) personal view of private schools. However, I do object to people making unfair judgements on same purely based on a narrow-minded view that one is better than the other!!! To me, that is complete nonsense!!! There are pros and cons on both sides of the fence, and I think it is would be great if ALL children could have the opportunity to attend either, but unfortunately, I realise this is not always possible!!!
Both my children attend(ed) public primary schools (my daughter is still at PS) and at the end of Grade 3 (roughly aged 9) we would have a discussion about where they would like to go; we discuss the differences between the two types of institutions, and the final decision is theirs. If they are unclear at the time, they stay put, and we review the situation prior to them commencing secondary school.
Of course, as Anibus said, location is a very important factor which, although they have the choice, I don’t want my kids travelling an hour or more to school and back every day, so there are SOME restrictions, but this is unrelated to the Private vs Public debate!!! Personally, I don’t like to buy into that, because I value BOTH!!!
Cheers,
Jo
i also think both have some value. the problem i have is at the moment the push toward private education and the increased costs seem a overwhelming. its a bit like the property bubble. it would be interesting to know the figures relating to
over the last 10 years
a) disposable income vs private school fees
b) average wage vs private school fees
c) personal debt attributed to private school fees.irrational exhuberance. are we saying that parents care more for there childrens eductation now then they did 10 years ago?? i dont think so!
its out of control and unless we as consumers make some concerted effort to redress what should be every child right to a equally great education, then we must then take responsibilty for being part of the problem. blind faith in any system without questioning it creates problems.
i reckon if interest rates go up you might see a shift back toward public education.
thanks jo, i appreciate your honest feeback (as always)
i agree with aussierogue:i reckon if interest rates go up you might see a shift back toward public education.has it always been this expensive to raise, let alone educate children?
richmond, it’s just my opinion nothing else, but i found that differnt schools develop or ‘ingrain’ different values.
For example some schools attract students with a strong sports, musical, or artistic background. The value i found in the high school i attended was there were alot of other students who had similar interests and values that i shared.
That’s what i mean by mindset.
cheers
e xAnubis,
I am saying the Federal govt spent more money on private schools than on Australia’s 38 public universities. Am i comparing apples to pears? I don’t think so. I think all schoolkids are entitled to go to a University, if that’s what they want to do.
Here’s a quote for ya:
“More than two-thirds of direct Federal Government education funding goes to the one third of students in private schools. In 2004 funding to private schools exceeded funding to public universities.”
That’s from Maree O’Halloran- head of the NSW Teachers’ Federation.
http://www.nswtf.org.au/edu_online/54/pres.html
kay henry
Kay,
Nice twist. Yes proportionally FEDERAL GOVT spending is higher on non government schools. The Fed Govt provides about 12% of total government school funding – as they are run by and the responsibility of STATE GOVT, the state provides 88% of total funding. The state Govt commits no funding to non-government schools.
On top of the $2.5 Billion in Federal funding, governemnt schools receive an additional $19.3 Billion in State funding for a grand total of almost $22 Billion annually.
The number od students attending university is a great deal smaller than the number of kids at school and since funding is based on headcount it stands to reason that the toal $ amount would be smaller don’t you think?
You can check my figures at the Dept of Ed website.
Forgot to add that private school funding from the Fed Govt is based on Socio Economic Status.
Quote “Schools which draw students from areas of predominantly low SES receive Australian Government funding of up to 70% of total public expenditure provided to a student in a State government school. Schools drawing students from the wealthiest areas receive just 13.7% of total public expenditure provided to a student in a State government school.”
So a non-government school can never get more funding than a government school.
Nope Sir, I didn;t twist anything. Originally, I said:
“Last year, there was more spent on private schools than there were public Universities :o((“
…which was actually something I read in the Herald.
Then i quoted Maree O’Halloran, who said:
“In 2004 funding to private schools exceeded funding to public universities.”
…which is what I said. Where’s the twist? I am just referencing the source.
kay henry
Yes but the implication was the non-govt schools receive more funding than govt schools which is untrue and the uni fact is not comparing on a fair basis – it’s like saying that education funding in the USA is more than in Australia, it’s true, but they have a higher population. It’s a play on words
hehe- no Anubis- that wasn’t what I said, or what i suggested. I said “schools” and “Universities”- I have no idea how anyone would mix those two up.
I really can’t help how people read things, but I do know the difference between private schools and public Universities- I just assume everyone does.kay henry
Anibus,
I think this is where the problem lies in your debate with Kay.
From what I have read, you are referring to public vs private schools generally (or at least not exclusively targetting universities) whereas Kay is referring to private schools vs public universities funding. University funding is a different ball game, as it is funded by so many other outside bodies (ie. Corporate organisations).
Me thinks it’s the “universities” that is causing the crossed wires here???
Jo
whos on first??
Oh look it’s little Johnny Howard, the man who “dislikes” private schools, but he himself was an Oxford/Harvard graduate (must look that up)!!!!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
