Private School Funding

[MonsieurHulot]

Both the Labor and Liberal parties are advocating an increase in private schools' funding.
Currently, the 32% of students that attend private schools receive 21% of funding. In my opinion, that is 21% too much (it's meant to be emphatic, forget the flawed math).
Why should private schools receive any government funding? The public school system needs all the money it can get. If parents want to send their kids to a private school, go ahead, but they should not feel entitled to any government money. Public school supporting taxpayers are subsiding the education of the children of people who, in most cases, can afford to pay the fees that private schools charge. This money should instead go towards improving the public school system, in turn improving the education of all children who attend, rich or poor.
So, my question is, do you think private schools should receive government funding?

[Russ]

What happens when fees go up as a consequence of reduced funding and the state school system can't handle the influx of new students?

[MonsieurHulot]

What happens when fees go up as a consequence of reduced funding and the state school system can't handle the influx of new students?

The extra $6.3 billion (21% of 2007 funding¹) if all money went to public schools would cover 600,000 incoming private school students (at $10,500 per secondary child- recommended by Gonski report). In 2009 there were 581,653² non-government students in Australia. Of course not all private school students would leave; freeing up more money for the public system.

1. http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PolicyBriefs_Dowling07.pdf
2. http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/Documents/SchoolStudents.pdf

[Biceps]

Both the Labor and Liberal parties are advocating an increase in private schools' funding.
Currently, the 32% of students that attend private schools receive 21% of funding. In my opinion, that is 21% too much (it's meant to be emphatic, forget the flawed math).
Why should private schools receive any government funding? The public school system needs all the money it can get. If parents want to send their kids to a private school, go ahead, but they should not feel entitled to any government money. Public school supporting taxpayers are subsiding the education of the children of people who, in most cases, can afford to pay the fees that private schools charge. This money should instead go towards improving the public school system, in turn improving the education of all children who attend, rich or poor.
So, my question is, do you think private schools should receive government funding?

The students that go to private schools are also tax payers...
Public schools get enough funds anyway.

[MonsieurHulot]

The students that go to private schools are also tax payers...

Yes, they are. What's your point?

Public schools get enough funds anyway.

This is egregiously untrue. My school doesn't have enough money to fix the leaks in the ceilings. The lights in the upstairs hallway, in the area where VCE classes are, is nearly pitch black during the day because some students broke the lights last year, and the school doesn't have the money to fix them. There are broken windows which have been covered by newspaper for months. Half of the computers in our library don't work, and haven't for a long time. The carpet is old, dusty and is worn through in parts.
I'd like to know where you get your belief that 'public schools get enough funds' from.

[monkeywantsabanana]

I'm not fully informed on this topic but I think private schools should still be entitled to for government funding.

Parents who send their kids to private schools, just like those who send their kids to public schools, pay taxes to the government. This way, the government will be able to pump more money into Education to help create 'future minds' - so to speak. Why should public schools kids be entitled to benefit from the money paid by all taxpayers more than private school kids?

[Biceps]

The students that go to private schools are also tax payers...

Yes, they are. What's your point?

Public schools get enough funds anyway.

This is egregiously untrue. My school doesn't have enough money to fix the leaks in the ceilings. The lights in the upstairs hallway, in the area where VCE classes are, is nearly pitch black during the day because some students broke the lights last year, and the school doesn't have the money to fix them. There are broken windows which have been covered by newspaper for months. Half of the computers in our library don't work, and haven't for a long time. The carpet is old, dusty and is worn through in parts.
I'd like to know where you get your belief that 'public schools get enough funds' from.

I was at a public school in the past and it was running just fine. Probably just your school.
Students that go to private schools pay tax.  They also deserve to receive some of the funding through their education.

[MonsieurHulot]

I'm not fully informed on this topic but I think private schools should still be entitled to for government funding.

Parents who send their kids to private schools, just like those who send their kids to public schools, pay taxes to the government. This way, the government will be able to pump more money into Education to help create 'future minds' - so to speak. Why should public schools kids be entitled to benefit from the money paid by all taxpayers more than private school kids?

The way I see it, the public system should be the benchmark. It should offer children the best possible education. It should be regulated and controlled by the government. This way, the government is accountable for the running of schools.

If a child's parents want to send them to a private school they should be allowed.
However, these schools should not receive government funding. If a child will receive an excellent education at any public school, there would be little need for private schools. The only reason I see for sending a child to one of these private schools is for a religious education.
Taxpayers should not subsidise these unnecessary institutions.

I was at a public school in the past and it was running just fine. Probably just your school.
Students that go to private schools pay tax.  They also deserve to receive some of the funding through their education.

It isn't just my school, in fact mine is one of the better ones in my area.
As for your second point, see my answer to monkeywantsabanana above.

[monkeywantsabanana]

The way I see it, the public system should be the benchmark. It should offer children the best possible education. It should be regulated and controlled by the government. This way, the government is accountable for the running of schools.

If a child's parents want to send them to a private school they should be allowed.
However, these schools should not receive government funding. If a child will receive an excellent education at any public school, there would be little need for private schools. The only reason I see for sending a child to one of these private schools is for a religious education.
Taxpayers should not subsidise these unnecessary institutions.

I think parents will still send their kids to private schools, if they have the ability to, regardless whether or not there is "excellent education at any public school". It is in their mindset that their kids should be placed in an environment where there is access to "better than usual" facilities, not to mention the perceptive teaching staff. Besides, do you think that the government will spend as much money on public schools as private schools do, to get their standards up to the private school level?

And by "unnecessary institutions" do you mean private schools?

[MonsieurHulot]

I think parents will still send their kids to private schools, if they have the ability to, regardless whether or not there is "excellent education at any public school". It is in their mindset that their kids should be placed in an environment where there is access to "better than usual" facilities, not to mention the perceptive teaching staff. Besides, do you think that the government will spend as much money on public schools as private schools do, to get their standards up to the private school level?

And by "unnecessary institutions" do you mean private schools?

They may, and it is their choice. However, there would be no need to, as public schools would offer the best education. I think it's getting a little off topic in regards to my view of an ideal school system, which is my fault. By 'unnecessary institutions' yes, I mean private schools, as they would indeed be obsolete in a society where a school that you don't need to pay any extra for is just as good.

[monkeywantsabanana]

I think parents will still send their kids to private schools, if they have the ability to, regardless whether or not there is "excellent education at any public school". It is in their mindset that their kids should be placed in an environment where there is access to "better than usual" facilities, not to mention the perceptive teaching staff. Besides, do you think that the government will spend as much money on public schools as private schools do, to get their standards up to the private school level?

And by "unnecessary institutions" do you mean private schools?

They may, and it is their choice. However, there would be no need to, as public schools would offer the best education. I think it's getting a little off topic in regards to my view of an ideal school system, which is my fault. By 'unnecessary institutions' yes, I mean private schools, as they would indeed be obsolete in a society where a school that you don't need to pay any extra for is just as good.

I just think that the government won't ever that have that kind of money to fund all schools around the country, at least, not to the highest standards.

[Truck]

One needs only to look at the countries with the best education systems in the world, and the fact that they all have a much greater proportion of public school to private school students then we do. The inequality in top ATAR scores being mostly attributed to private schools is also symptomatic of our society's failure to create public schools at the same level as private schools. The government should be doing everything in it's power to create a public system as good as or better then the private system (and it is definitely possible), and if that means cutting funding to private schools then so be it - although imo private schools do deserve SOME funding, purely because of the fact that the government saves money when parents send their kids to private schools etc etc.

[Russ]

What happens when fees go up as a consequence of reduced funding and the state school system can't handle the influx of new students?

The extra $6.3 billion (21% of 2007 funding¹) if all money went to public schools would cover 600,000 incoming private school students (at $10,500 per secondary child- recommended by Gonski report). In 2009 there were 581,653² non-government students in Australia. Of course not all private school students would leave; freeing up more money for the public system.

1. http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PolicyBriefs_Dowling07.pdf
2. http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/Documents/SchoolStudents.pdf

What, where does the gonski report say we should do that? Is there any evidence that the money, if taken from private schools, will be sufficient to rebuild the infrastructure of the public schools to cope with the influx?
Irrespective of the justification of "all" the money being taken, afaik there's a big practical roadblock stopping this from happening

[Eriny]

The students that go to private schools are also tax payers...

Yes, they are. What's your point?

Public schools get enough funds anyway.

This is egregiously untrue. My school doesn't have enough money to fix the leaks in the ceilings. The lights in the upstairs hallway, in the area where VCE classes are, is nearly pitch black during the day because some students broke the lights last year, and the school doesn't have the money to fix them. There are broken windows which have been covered by newspaper for months. Half of the computers in our library don't work, and haven't for a long time. The carpet is old, dusty and is worn through in parts.
I'd like to know where you get your belief that 'public schools get enough funds' from.

I was at a public school in the past and it was running just fine. Probably just your school.
Students that go to private schools pay tax.  They also deserve to receive some of the funding through their education.

Whoa, okay, great logic there. My schools fine, yours isn't so you must be the anomaly? The problem of a lack of funding is widespread and there is plenty of evidence of it.

I won't argue that private schools should get no money on the basis that there are independent schools that are struggling financially too, and when those schools are servicing people in remote areas they are doing something important and require funding. This is why a needs based system is one I tend to agree with. As such, I don't think the top tier elite schools which buy advertising campaigns, maintain their swimming pools and refurbish their school organ deserve a cent of public funding until every other school in the nation has enough money for classrooms that aren't breaking or leaking, working computers (and I'm not talking a laptop per kid here), heating, art supplies, and other vital resources for meaningful learning to take place. The injustice is staggering and bizarre.

People pay tax for things they don't use all the time. If you don't use public transport services, the government isn't going to chip in for the cost of fuelling your car. If you don't watch the ABC the government isn't going to help pay for your foxtel. If you have private health insurance, the government will give you a small rebate that's now means tested and that's it. If you want to opt out of free services because you care about prestige or you think it's better or whatever, then fine, but it's ridiculously entitled to expect that the state should pay for you to do so.