Education - public/private.

[Neferti]

I'm sure most of that just went straight over my head Neferti.

Sure it did Beowulf.

[IQS.RLOW]

...the rest shared on a per pupil basis regardless of school type.

Which is pretty much what we have along with the ability for parents to have the choice to pay extra to send their kids to private school

So what was your point again?

[Rorschach]

Sorry, refuse to continue with you on the 'roundabout of denial and crap.

If you didn't understand my point to begin with... which is apparent, I've tried enough with you already.

Flame away... who gives a toss.

[Rorschach]

Oh almost forgot.

So what was your point again?

The same thing it has always been from the very first post

[IQS.RLOW]

If you don't have the ability to explain your point, just say so but in this thread you have simultaneously railed against public money going to private institutions while advocating public money going to private institutions under per head of child.

Despite repeated efforts to get you to clarify you now throw your toys out of the cot and refuse to engage

[Rorschach]

Sorry but I'm sure everybody else can read DT.

[IQS.RLOW]

Sorry but I'm sure everybody else can read DT.

You must be a lefty with the paranoia post accusations

But in any case, neither your first nor subsequent post clarify where you stand on public funds to private institutions other that complaining about it and then advocating it.

Perhaps you should think a little more before posting on a subject that you have conflicting views on in your own mind

[Rorschach]

Meanwhile away from the bizarre and back on topic.

Recipe for education apartheid
August 27, 2012
Kenneth Davidson
Senior columnist at The Age

The achievement gaps between rich and poor exposed by Gonski are nothing less than a national scandal.

IT HAS been truly said: every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. The Gonski report on school funding concluded that restoring equity across the three systems (public, Catholic and independent) would require the spending of some $6 billion a year by 2014 on students from low socio-economic status (SES) households and other disadvantaged students - 80 per cent and more of whom now attend government schools.

The response has been a huge outcry from the non-government school sector and an unedifying scramble by the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader to assure the private sector that their interests would be placed first - even though the achievement gaps between rich and poor exposed by Gonski are nothing less than a national scandal.

Incredibly, Tony Abbott claimed that independent schools were victims of a funding injustice. The implication was that they should get even more funding - despite having nearly 50 per cent of their secondary students from high-socio-economic status families and only 10 per cent from low-SES families. Giving those schools more would reverse Gonski's plan to better fund disadvantaged students.

Education has become what economists call a ''positional good'', in which access to quality education, and therefore life chances, is determined by income. Education's vital role in promoting social and civic solidarity is being trashed as public schools have become residualised.

The middle class and the wealthy resent paying for a public system they consider inferior and won't use.

Politicians on both sides have the mealy-mouthed task of justifying this unpalatable reality. Thus for both sides it is a question of ''quality of teachers and teaching'', and ''values'' rather than ''resources''. This is a dog whistle for attacking government school teachers and their union, who are the main defenders of public schools. The Gonski report reminds us of the ugly truth of what school education in Australia has become.

The government had the report last November - six months before the May budget. Buried in the budget was an allocation of $5.8 million over two years ''to validate and refine elements of the recommendations'' out of an education budget of $60 billion.

Abbott has drawn the crabs in this debate by his injudicious claim that the present funding formula is unfair to independent schools. He has since been forced to back down but neither he nor his education spokesman, Christopher Pyne, have backed away from the opposition position that the Gonski report is an unaffordable failure, and there is no inequity arising out of the present funding system.

At least they are upfront about supporting educational privilege. Julia Gillard's support base means she has to be more circumspect in her hostility to public education.

Gillard has repeatedly declared she is passionate about education. But in 2007, as education minister, she extended the Howard government's unfair funding formula for a further four years. In 2010, as Prime Minister, she extended it again by directing Gonski, irrespective of evidence of private school overfunding, that no school should lose a dollar.

Gillard's craven response to the independent schools lobby last week means that non-government schools will get an additional $1.5 billion a year, according to Trevor Cobbold's authoritative ''Save Our Schools'' website. Most of this increased funding will go to medium and high-SES schools and probably at the expense of Gonski's priority for all the increased funding to go to disadvantaged students, who will benefit most from smaller class sizes and other targeted programs. On average, low-SES 15-year-old students are two to three years behind high-SES students in reading, mathematics and science. The gaps have increased since 2006.

Analysis by the Australian Council for Educational Research has shown no difference between Catholic, independent and government school results when socio-economic background is taken into account.

The My School website also shows that selective government schools based on high-SES populations similar to elite independent schools achieve academic results that are similar or better, even though the private schools have total per capita resources two to three times their government equivalent.

This suggests that government funding for elite schools is pure waste. The lesson derived by influential Coalition supporters is that ''free education'' in government schools for high-SES parents of students is ''middle-class welfare'' that should be curbed by introducing means-tested school fees for high-SES families who choose to send their children to government schools.

But, of course, they want to retain the funding ''entitlements'' of wealthy private schools.

The effect of this policy would be to drive even more of the articulate middle class to take their children out of the public system and increase the political pressure on governments to transfer even more resources into private education at the expense of overall standards. It is a recipe for complete education apartheid.

The Gonski reforms are affordable. Introduced over three to four years, they can be financed out of the normal growth in tax revenues. It is a question of priorities. Do we wish to institutionalise class distinctions based on education or not?

Kenneth Davidson is a senior columnist.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... z24igZ4VVD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if some here have finally worked out the supposed difference between Private and Public yet. Which BTW is not a "class" argument at all.

[Rorschach]

PM to scrap school funds system for generic model
September 2, 2012
Natalie Craig and Farrah Tomazin

THE federal government will delay a multibillion-dollar boost to school funding as it fights to return the budget to surplus.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is expected tomorrow to commit to scrapping the current school funding system and replacing it with a flat, per-student funding rate for all schools, whether public or private. Gee that was part of my policy.

But News Ltd newspapers report today that schools will be forced to wait until 2014 before new money trickles through, and until 2020 before the system is fully implemented.

The long-awaited commitment is in response to the Gonski education review, released in February, which recommended schools receive $8000 for each primary student and $10,500 for each secondary student, with extra money for disadvantaged and disabled students. The Gonski review estimated the extra cost to government of implementing such a system would be about $5 billion.


Existing funding agreements run out at the end of next year and Ms Gillard has said she will not hand over a ''blank cheque'' to the states unless they sign up to her list of demands about improving schools' performance.

Yet while the Prime Minister will agree tomorrow to provide extra ''loading'' for disadvantage, it is not clear whether she will make a financial commitment or put a dollar figure on the base amount of funding per student.

But she has said that one in two students will qualify their schools for extra funding based on the loadings, and that the bulk of the money will go to public schools, which teach the majority of disadvantaged students.

Australian Education Union president Angelo Gavrielatos told The Sunday Age that while the government's new base-figure model was welcome, it was important to make sure that the extra ''loading'' for disadvantage was adequate to address problems in the ailing public sector.

Independent Schools Victoria chief executive Michelle Green urged the government to be clear on what new money was being offered.

''The longer this goes on, the more anxiety that our schools and parents will feel,'' she told The Sunday Age. ''If they're not putting dollars around the announcement … my view would be that it's unfortunate to create expectations without delivering on them. I think it's very hard on parents and hard on schools to budget for the future as well.

''They've said that no school will lose a dollar - but if the rate of indexation does not keep pace with the rising pace of education, then independent schools would certainly start to lose money in real terms.''

Currently, total government spending averages about $12,000 for each public school student and $6000 for private students. But while the federal government provides the bulk of private school funding, state and territory governments provide the bulk of public school funding. But why should government fund private schools especially in regards to the infrastructure? IMO, there should only be per student funding.

A major hurdle for the federal government is getting the states to agree to the new funding plan.

Victorian education minister Martin Dixon has repeatedly warned that the Baillieu government would not agree to any federal deal unless it benefited Victorian schools.

''We're not signing up to anything that disadvantages any student or school, whether they're non-government or state. We've seen nothing to give us any comfort either way, at this stage,'' he said.

Mr Dixon also accused Canberra of failing to properly consult the states over the past few months. ''I feel they have bitten off more than they can chew,'' he said. ''It's a very complex issue, and they can't do it on their own. They've got to do it by working with the states and territories.'' Well a complex issue is one that was made that way, complex can be made simple. And fair.

Mr Dixon declined to comment on how much money the Victorian government would be prepared to contribute.

A fortnight ago, Ms Gillard promised every student would be better off under the new arrangement. But increased funding will be contingent on schools agreeing to meet annual performance benchmarks, and to extra teacher training and assessment.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-to ... z25GqdMe5A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Perhaps Rorschach, you are too banal and lack the knowledge to paraphrase, link to the source and opine.