Private/public school debate [offtopic from UoM General Chat]

[vox nihili]

This really fucking grinds my gears everyone. And the fact that more than 90% of the university comes out of a sector that represents only 30% of the country is just bloody sad.

[jinny1]

This really fucking grinds my gears everyone. And the fact that more than 90% of the university comes out of a sector that represents only 30% of the country is just bloody sad.

Isn't that because a private school costs a lot more to attend than public? Like some costs $25,000+ year to attend so obviously they'll have a lot more cash than your average public school.

[LeviLamp]

This really fucking grinds my gears everyone. And the fact that more than 90% of the university comes out of a sector that represents only 30% of the country is just bloody sad.

Well, the global divide between rich and poor is growing everywhere else, so I'm not very surprised
But it sucks. A lot.

EDIT: I meant in first-world countries (though many undeveloped/developing countries also have these issues, I am aware others are showing a rise from poverty)

[slothpomba]

Funding is a finite resource

And yet we can afford several wars and to give foreign mining companies tax breaks to permanently extract the wealth out of our country, funny that.

particularly when tax rates are already high enough as it is

You are either mistaken (which is fine) or you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts which is down right dirty. Out of all western nations, Australia is one of the lowest taxing nations, its a myth we're a high tax nation. You think its bad here? Try Scandanavia or indeed, almost anywhere in western Europe.

Taxes have only fallen in recent years, but still Australians feel hard done by. Whoever wins office in September won't be able to ignore our dwindling revenues, writes David Hetherington.

Aussie kids in Year 9 are worse readers than the Year 8 kids of a decade ago. There hasn't been a major new road built in Sydney in eight years. The entire intake of the NSW Police Academy was cancelled last September.

Why? In each case, governments will say they simply don't have the money to invest. This is usually just a predictable refrain from incoming governments, but in this case, it's true. This is because our national tax take is at a long-term low, having hit 20.1 per cent in 2010-11. We're currently the fifth lowest taxing country in the 34-member OECD.

Yet dare to suggest to punters that they're lightly taxed and you're in for a rude shock. Australians are feeling increasingly overtaxed and their appetite for more public spending is falling.

Per Capita's annual tax survey, released this week, finds that fully half of all Australians believe they pay too much tax, up from 42 per cent three years ago. Support for higher spending, while still high, has fallen by 12 percentage points in health, 21 points in education and 26 points in social security. A stunning 94 per cent of respondents say they would not pay more tax to fund the education investment called for in the Gonski Review. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4597352.html

Indeed, over the decades income taxes or brackets have been favorably cut many times in such a way they're lower than perhaps a decade ago.

and the budget is still in deficit.

Macroeconomics 101, it's OK for a country to run a manageable deficit, indeed, it may even be desirable in many instances (particularly in times of recession, i.e. recent times, explained in rap form). A nations budget is not like a household budget, the sky is not necessarily falling if there is a manageable level of debt.

There should be room for both, and government can't realistically spend dollar for dollar to create a level playing field.

It depends what makes private schools "better". I doubt its having swimming pools or choirs. I even doubt its the teachers. I believe its the socioeconomic advantage inherent in these schools which provide most of the boost. We can certainly attempt to level this playing field. If you cut out the swimming pools and elite activities, you really can reduce your bottom line, i believe we can take steps towards narrowing the gap significantly (gonski is a good step, more need to come, ultimately, socioeconomic inequality needs to be tackled though).

And the wider implications of socio-economic status is often neglected in the public vs. private debate; i.e. smarter people are often likely to make more money, who are in turn more likely to have smarter children, who – as their parents have more money – are more likely to attend a private school.

Now we're busting out eugenics to justify social inequality? You've given zero data for any of these points and just to what degree they are likely as well. Socioeconomic inequality - poor family enviroments, poor health, poor access to educational materials, struggling finances and other SES factors are the primary driver between the disparity in results between rich and poor schools, not genetics.

Then again we've already had this debate before.. THe Disparity between Private and Public High schools.

[Professor Polonsky]

It depends what makes private schools "better". I doubt its having swimming pools or choirs. I even doubt its the teachers. I believe its the socioeconomic advantage inherent in these schools which provide most of the boost. We can certainly attempt to level this playing field. If you cut out the swimming pools and elite activities, you really can reduce your bottom line, i believe we can take steps towards narrowing the gap significantly (gonski is a good step, more need to come, ultimately, socioeconomic inequality needs to be tackled though).

What do you mean by this?

It's the teachers, it's the smaller class sizes, it's the more academically-minded peers, it's the fact education is highly valued back home, it's the extent of resources available (being bombarded with commercial trial papers), et cetera. What exactly do you mean by "[inherent] socioeconomic advantage"?

Now we're busting out eugenics to justify social inequality? You've given zero data for any of these points and just to what degree they are likely as well. Socioeconomic inequality - poor family enviroments, poor health, poor access to educational materials, struggling finances and other SES factors are the primary driver between the disparity in results between rich and poor schools, not genetics.

I think it's a potential factor, like the ones mentioned above. The proposition that if you're academically-minded (or generally in a white-collar job) (i) you're more likely to be naturally predisposed towards that kind of a job and hence your kids will also likely be; and (ii) that you're more likely to value education (and have the means to pay for it) does not sound implausible to me.

[Ballerina]

I'm sorry. I can't open that article, I only read The Herald Sun.





























This is the fate of our public school students.

[alchemy]

Not exactly on the point here, but I think that we shouldn't generalise that everyone at a private school is rich. In fact, many students at private schools are on scholarships. My younger siblings attend private schools, but never would we dare paying near the full fees. The benefits really do show though. For example, my sister in year 7 knows almost as much Chemistry as I do because she's enrolled in a dozen enrichment programs. She is allowed to do two languages, and at this moment her French speaking ability is far greater than mine (me having studied French from year 3 to 10).   In a public primary school last year, she couldn't give a flying f*** about education... In fact, which one of us did? The greatest benefit now, is that she doesn't have to attend tuition anymore (saving us $$$$). Ultimately, if you're on a scholarship, or even not, the chances are you're actually saving money.

[Professor Polonsky]

Does that make funding infinite?

I'm either mistaken or misrepresenting facts? It's an opinion.

When a larger portion of your wage goes to the government than is dedicated to your housing and services, that (in my opinion) is a high enough tax rate.

Sure, but when you end up like the US (and soon to be China) and your debt level is out of control, losses caught up in interest payments can end up far more detrimental to society than a responsible level of funding is now.

How am I advocating eugenics? I'm just talking about the reality of the cycle. You say yourself "the socioeconomic advantage inherent in these schools which provide most of the boost". I don't necessarily agree with the "most" part, but that's I'm talking about: it's not just the quality of the school that creates the divide, but the parents and the home environment also. I'm not trying to be elitist in this argument, it's just realistic.

And what do you mean by "socioeconomic inequality needs to be tackled"? I don't have time to look into the stats, but I don't see a huge divide in the availability of public services. Centrelink is a inefficient mess but welfare is of a reasonable level. Unemployment is rising but still at a low level. HECS encourages university and TAFE enrolment. Large, urban-sprawl based housing is available for a reasonable price. What more can you do?

I think the sloth was making the point that our funding priorities are seriously fucked up if we have a problem pushing public schools up, yet no problem spending far more money than that on corporate tax breaks of questionable economic wisdom.

Of course, anyone may claim that the tax burden is too high, no matter how low it is. Having said that, it's a very difficult case to make when our tax rates are so low that most developed countries take in far more than what we do.

You see, you don't really get to say "in my opinion" and get away with completely unsubstantiated opinions. All opinions should flow from a factual basis, or "positive statements". There is zero factual background provided for your arbitrary rule regarding household spending and their tax burden.

Actually, the US debt level is quite low when compared to European countries, once you account for each economy's size. They're even running fairly low deficits at the moment - $500 billion or so. See this report.

You might not be trying to come off as elitist, but your last paragraph is just that. I'll let someone else address that pile of shit.

[Professor Polonsky]

Surely you see the difference between the two statements. "My favourite colour is red" is indeed a factually correct one, so long as your favourite colour is indeed red (something that only you can really vouch for). You favouring red is the beginning and the end of the matter.

Meanwhile, "When a larger portion of your wage goes to the government than is dedicated to your housing and services..." is a partially positivist statement. Undeniably, one's preferences (mostly as to economic outcomes) will factor in. Unless that preference is an end as of itself, a right/wrong in and of itself, you're going to have to explain how you got there.

Oh, I'm not claiming my last bit there was persuasive. Unfortunately, I don't have the time required to respond to your last statement. It'll suffice to say that just because there isn't absolute poverty doesn't mean that there isn't an extremely lopsided distribution of income, and that those of lower SES are significantly less likely to achieve educationally, in very large part due to circumstances completely out of their control. To attribute the entirety of the achievement gap to "genetics" is farcical.

[ninwa]

I'm just going to step in to correct this really annoying misconception that Australia is a high taxing jurisdiction. We are one of the lowest, in fact. There's a reason there's currently a push to increase the rate of GST, income tax, or both.

POCKET GUIDE TO THE AUSTRALIAN TAXATION SYSTEM 2012-13

Quote from page 1
Australia’s tax-to-GDP ratio is low by international standards. In 2010 (Australia’s 2010-11 financial year), the latest year for which comparable international data is available, Australia had the fifth lowest tax burden of the OECD countries (Chart 1) and has typically ranked in the bottom third of countries since 1965 (when comparable data was first available). In 2010, Australia’s tax-to-GDP ratio was 25.6 per cent — below the OECD average of 33.8 per cent.


I swear I don't read government documents for fun, this is from studying tax policy at uni

[vox nihili]

So I looked at this and thought "I can't remember making this thread". Thanks for whoever split!

Let's get a few things straight first of all:

• This report concludes that private schools receive a much greater portion (about 50% more) of government funding, that is before fees are taken into account at all.
• It is folly to suggest that private schools are inherently good for the school system because students achieve better results in the private system

Students in the private system get more money from the government (+50%) and then have fees added on top of this, which in many cases will double the amount of funding from the government. The net effect of that of course is that the private school system is much better resourced than the public school system. The result of that? A much better education. This is of course reflected in NAPLAN and VCE results.

With the emotional arguments aside, it's not hard to imagine why this is a bad thing for the education system at large. Essentially, it encourages a gulf between the two systems and means that students who aren't able to afford private education are condemned to an increasingly second rate education. The flow on effects from this are enormous, having a huge impact on those people's lives. Students from the public school system are less likely to go to university and are less likely to go to have high paying jobs. With the current system, this is exacerbated (remembering that this kind of funding is only a relatively recent phenomenon). Clearly, the issue with this is that talent is wasted. Rather than having the best students receiving the best education, it is those who can best afford it who receive the best education. This way, a huge amount of ability is wasted as truly brilliant students are held back by an under resourced system that desperately struggles to create an academic environment.

Considering the emotional arguments, this is completely unfair. Even the most ardent of conservatives could hardly suggest that a student should be condemned to poverty because their parents were poor before them. With these arrangements, that's what we're effectively doing. Obviously, this is not the case for every person. BUT, this kind of gap between public and private has a huge effect on social mobility. It's a completely untenable idea that the quality of a child's education should be determined by whether or not their parents were successful, not whether they were. In fact, to me this seems like a very Liberal argument. That you get what you put in from life. It seems only fair that we foster an environment where you're able to do that. The system at the moment merely helps to entrench the divide between the elite and the poor, and make sure that the same people stay on each side of the divide.

That's my considered sensible approach. In reality, this really pisses me off (as you may have noticed from the original post). Whilst I was at school, I saw classmates put up with the most incredibly awful circumstances and then having to put up with an awful school was just adding insult to injury. These were kids who had to live through being physically abused by their parents, coming to school with their uniform in tatters because they couldn't afford a new one and not being able to do their homework because their mum and her new boyfriend had decided it was high time they have a root on the couch (I really do wish that were a joke, sadly not). These kids should be able to find solace at school and should be able to work hard to change their lives, as they intend to. Instead, they are met with an unworkable school environment that condemns them to experiencing the same poverty they so desperately want to leave behind for the rest of their lives. It beggars belief then that for some reason, the government finds a greater need in taking money away from already desperate public schools and feeding it into a non-government sector that can hardly decide what to do with their new cash. It's pathetic.

[Professor Polonsky]

I swear I don't read government documents for fun, this is from studying tax policy at uni

weirdo

[JellyDonut]

Macroeconomics 101, it's OK for a country to run a manageable deficit,

whether or not a country can or should run a deficit is meaningless without context. given australia is running a two-speed economy, that context becomes murkier. i've got nothing against the idea of running a deficit or with the main contention of that article per se, but her arguments for it is reductionist and flimsy at best. for example, to imply that the only factors constraining pigs nations to debilitating debt were austerity measures is dishonest



im also agnostic about the topic at hand

[Tasmania Jones]

• This report concludes that private schools receive a much greater portion (about 50% more) of government funding, that is before fees are taken into account at all.

35% of students go to private schools, and according to this article http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/private-schools-in-race-to-impress-with-best-facilities-20140419-36xu0.html

Victorian public schools received an average $823 per student in government funding in 2012, Catholic schools $226, and independent schools $286.

[/list]

[vox nihili]

35% of students go to private schools, and according to this article

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/private-schools-in-race-to-impress-with-best-facilities-20140419-36xu0.html
[/list]

My apologies about the 30%.

Those numbers seem bizarre though. Clearly government funding can't be (and isn't) as low as that; no school could run!



Whilst the state numbers are obviously ok, it does strike me as bizarre that the federal government would spend 3x the amount on independent schools than they do on government schools.