Education - public/private.

[Rorschach]

Private schools hard done by, says Abbott
August 21, 2012

OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott has provoked a storm of controversy and contradicted the findings of the Gonski review into school funding by suggesting that state schools receive too large a share of education spending. Here we go, state schools are PUBLIC schools they should receive PUBLIC funding.

Labor and the Coalition yesterday used an independent education forum to talk up their private-school credentials in the lead-up to the federal government's long-awaited overhaul of school funding.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised every independent school in the nation would receive an increase in funding, and defended big private schools as ''a great example''.

Mr Abbott went further, implying that private schools were being treated unjustly by receiving a smaller proportion of funding than state schools. Sorry Tony, but they should. Otherwise how can they claim to be private?

''Overall, the 66 per cent of Australian school students who attend public schools get 79 per cent of government funding. The 34 per cent of Australians who attend independent schools get just 21 per cent of government funding,'' Mr Abbott told the forum.

''So there is no question of injustice to public schools here. If anything, the injustice is the other way.''

This contradicts the review led by businessman David Gonski, which recommended an annual $5 billion increase in funding to all schools, but with an emphasis on increased funding to state schools because they have a higher proportion of disadvantaged students. Funnily enough the Gonski Report backs up much which I have advocated over the years re funding in Education. For mine, it is an irrefutable truth.

The review found that more than 80 per cent of students who could not ''participate in society'' because they were so far behind in reading and mathematics were in state schools: ''The concentration of this problem in government schools is evidence of the need for a greater increase in resources in those schools in particular.''

Australian Education Union president Angelo Gavrielatos said Mr Abbott's comments betrayed an ignorance of the Gonski review and proved he would be the ''private school prime minister''. Ah, perhaps Tony has a bias due to his education experience we all know Alan Jones does. Perhaps his chief advisor Peta Credlin is to blame.

Trevor Cobbold, of the public education lobby group Save Our Schools, said Mr Abbott showed a ''callous disregard'' for the large proportion of disadvantaged students who were not receiving an adequate education.

''It's a disgrace. Low-income students are on average two to three years behind their high-income peers. If we are going to do anything about the massive achievement gaps in this country, government schools need to receive the bulk of any funding increases,'' he said.

But Mr Abbott said the whole Gonski process was in part generated by the idea that the government somehow neglected state schools, and the risk was that funding for private schools might be cut.

Ms Gillard seized on his comments, claiming in Parliament that every state school in the country was ''on the opposition hit-list''.

In the ensuing argument, Mr Abbott was thrown out of Parliament by Deputy Speaker Anna Burke, making him the first opposition leader ejected since John Howard in 1986.

Mr Abbott had been asked to withdraw a remark that was inaudible in the public gallery. ''I withdraw, but it's still an untrue statement,'' he replied.

''You could not help yourself,'' said Ms Burke, telling him to leave for an hour. Yeah well it might have been more beneficial to allow him to stay and to have a debate, but Burke is a bad biased speaker who hate Abbott, not going to ever get a fair hearing from her.

He returned to declare that he had no intention of cutting funding to state schools. His office said any such suggestion was ''just another lie''.

Earlier, Ms Gillard moved at the independent education forum to dispel any lingering notions of class envy from the days of former leader Mark Latham's private school ''hit-list''.

''I've never looked at a big independent school in an established suburb and thought 'That's not fair, ''' she said. ''I look at a big independent school in an established suburb and think ''That's a great example.''' Good attitude. Bring back the OLD Julia

Melbourne University professor Richard Teese said the Prime Minister's speech represented a betrayal of Labor's position on public education. ''It's completely a reversal of its historic position,'' he said. ''It's gradually acclimatised itself to a close position with private schools, despite the inequities that creates.

''There are big lobby groups and they have a lot of political clout and the government is being forced to pay a price for what it sees as fundamental reforms.''

But Independent Schools Victoria chief executive Michelle Green said parents would be happy to hear that both leaders supported them. ''Many of our parents feel they are not very well supported, when they do put their own money into their child's education.'' If you choose private education you should be prepared to pay for it, not expect a handout.

With AAP

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... z249eKbWU2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Personally I think the pie should be split. Firstly a pool set aside for Public Infrastructure and then the rest shared on a per pupil basis regardless of school type.

[Neferti]

For God's sake. Get it Right!

STATE Governments are responsible for Education, Health, Roads, Hospitals, Rates, Electricity, Gas and etcetera.

State (Public) Schools are the responsibility of the STATE. So "free" education.
Private Schools get NO MONEY from the State. Parents pay lots of money to send their children there ... at great expense. Their problem.

When the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT allocates funds to SCHOOLS it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are private schools or State schools. It is per STUDENT.

Private school kids CAN turn out to be absolute idiots. It really does NOT matter what school you went to although it did back when I was young and living in Melbourne.

[Rorschach]

Who got out of the wrong side of bed today?

I did get it right.
So did the article.
Why do you think the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT have an EDUCATION Minister?
What do you think the Gonski Report was about?
There is no such thing as FREE EDUCATION. Oh wait, we agree on that. So why the attitude and where do we disagree?
Perhaps a corrective nap and getting out of the other side might help.

[Rorschach]

When the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT allocates funds to SCHOOLS it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are private schools or State schools. It is per STUDENT

Federal Government Education Funding.

The underlying historic pattern of ongoing funding for schools remains - the Australian Government provides the majority of its funding to non-government schools, and state and territory governments provide the majority of their funding to government schools. overall, the majority of total public expenditure (Australian,state and territory) is allocated to government schools.

In 2009 a new system of school finding was set up.

The majority of Australian Government funding for schools is now provided under the national Schools Specific Purpose Payment (national Schools Spp), which has 2 components - one for government schools and one for non-government schools.

Indigenous Education also has its own targets.
Funding for most NGSchools is based on the SES... Socioeconomic Status system. based on the schools population demographic. Want more funding? Enroll more poor kids.
Federal funding is forwarded through the state and territory governments.
Naplan was set up to enable Federal Government specific targeting of SCHOOLS.

Once again, my opinion, is that private should be private and public, public, with "global" funding for children in both of the systems based purely on their numbers. The more students a school has the more funding it should receive.

[IQS.RLOW]

I pay exactly the same taxes as the next guy with kids

Why should my kids not benefit from my contribution to taxes when it comes to education spend if I decide to send them to private school?

[Rorschach]

Ah the old furphy.
I pay lots of taxes too, but woe is me... I cannot afford myself, of all the services that my taxes pay for.
I'm also not old enough for the aged pension, or disable enough for that pension, I can't get public housing or travel allowances, no meals on wheels for me either... oh dear whatever shall I do?

You chose the system you wanted them to attend.
If you chose private... why should the PUBLIC fund it?
If you want a publicly funded education, why send them to a private school?
I'd love a Ferrari, but I have to be sensible about things and so it is my choice not to own one, I don't expect the PUBLIC to subsidise my choice or aspirations.

BTW under my system they do get funded. I believe Gonski's is very similar.

[IQS.RLOW]

How is it a furphy?

Your examples are more of a furphy in that they compare funds that are not due to you or not available due to your circumstances

One persons kids are equal to another..or should be. Do you think otherwise?
The private system has been shown conclusively to save the taxpayer money

It's not about wanting a Ferrari and asking the public to fund it (talk about Furphies ) its about having the choice to be awarded the same amount due to everyone else and choosing to pay extra for what you believe is better.

[Rorschach]

So far you've failed to refute logically anything I have said.
So I guess it still stands.

Why should PUBLIC funds be available for PRIVATE choices?
That is my point and one that is irrefutable. It is the same as the point you made about being unavailable due to circumstances.

You say you want to pay more for better. Then where is your argument?

[IQS.RLOW]

You've failed to logically state why govt revenue for education per head of child should be restricted based on choice of facility

You might have a point if the choice of full fee institutions was fully tax deductible, but it isn't and you don't.

[Rorschach]

You've failed to logically state why govt revenue for education per head of child should be restricted based on choice of facility

Wasn't my point at all.

You keep ignoring the point of PRIVATE vs PUBLIC.
You can't call PUBLIC funding PRIVATE.

I agree with you, if you want a PRIVATE then YOU should PAY for it. (Not the rest of us). If you want a Ferrari for your kids and everyone else if offered a Golf, then you should pay the difference. I don't see that we've disagreed on this point at all.

Why don't you have a good think about it, like I have, and see if you come to the same conclusions.