Why is the government covering up to 80% of private school's SRS (schooling resource standard)? Considering the amount of money that the private sector charges, as well as the exclusivity of it; would it not be in the public interest to divert all that funding to improving your local public schools?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/23/five-…
https://www.education.gov.au/schooling/how-schools-are-funde…
How about they cut the tax exemptions on religions?
And unions and sporting organisations like the AFL
These are all good things tax exemption status should be removed from
Unions have helped with the 40 hour work week and weekends. Religion has just convinced people that there is a sky fairy and they deserve 10% of their pay cheque. Now with that in mind, do we really think unions can be lumped in together with religion?
@nedski: Unions were a help 70 years ago.
Now they are as useful as a multi level marketing scheme, while sailing workers rights down the pisser and then they take cushy jobs as executives with the same companies they just finished negotiating down employee wages with previously.
@infinite: And religious organisations give some of the biggest to actual charity work out of everything getting tax exemptions mentioned
Definitely
bar ESSENTIAL stuff hospitals, infrastructure, education etc
I, for one, am glad I have more options for entertainment than just driving between school and hospital.
@johnno07: Whay does the government do to provide entertainment? It is also not their job to entertain citizens but ensure they have a safe and prosperous life
@Trying2SaveABuck: Are you suggesting we defund art galleries, museums, local/national parks, community sporting centres, and tourism? Our governments are absolutely responsible for a myriad of things related to the entertainment of our population and visitors.
@johnno07: No im saying make certain things optional and let the tax payer decide but ill try clarify by saying National Parks, Sporting Centers and Musums all aim to be benefit the wider community.
Art Galleries i would put this in the optional section (or just defind it all together) Art itself is business and can be lucrative- if your Art is good you will succeed like any other businesses
Not to confuse this with investing in 'the Arts' which could be a focal point to training future artists
As for sporting centers community local sport and shared stadiums im fine with - throwing money at lucrative professional sports (bar for international sports ie Olympics world cup etc) should be made to survive on its own.
Why is our current government throwing a billion at AFL to develop a new stadium and team when they have suitable infrastructure?
Are you suggesting we defund art galleries, museums, …. a myriad of things related to the entertainment of our population
yes
PS… how many of myriad of things are free?
@johnno07: if I'm paying to put the event on why should I pay to go see it? I also have zero interest in art galleries and standing there rubbing my chin saying 'oh yes, I can see where the artist is coming from' and its a blank bit of canvas
@pharkurnell: So you don't use any public infrastructure then? Because there is going to be at least one person who doesn't use it that is paying for it.
From a capitalist perspective, I also hope you don't buy loss leading products, as that would be unfair to everyone buying the full priced ones right?
@pharkurnell: Why are we all paying for services for your kids? You chose to have kids. Not us. Bet you have a Medicare card. Also bet they use public roads to get to schools. Right?
@Trying2SaveABuck
You are confusing taxes with spending. Hospitals, infrastructure and education aren't taxes, they are things that governments (primarily state and territory governments for those examples) spend money on. The money is raised by a range of taxes and other fees, primarily income tax (federal) and GST (state/territory).
We can't make GST or income tax optional if you don't like what the governments spend it on. You do get to vote though, and lobby your local member if you want to see change. You'll likely have more success making rational suggestions that others are also likely to be asking for.
Why not both?
People are often "fine, you cut funding and we will send our kids to the public schools and then they will be overcrowded and you will have to pay more tax. Hur hur."
To which I say "Great". I want the rich and powerful families to have to send their kids public - all of a sudden public education would see greatly improved attention.
Not enough parking for all those BMW/Porsche at public schools.
I bet they would get new carparks in the first 12 months.
What about the Mitsubishi Magnas?
I've known several millionaires who have driven a Magna.
and then they will be overcrowded and you will have to pay more tax
We already are paying more by funding their private schools so this argument is invalid.
The real reason is they don't want their precious little rapists, I mean future politicians, mingling with the "common folk".
We already are paying more by funding their private schools so this argument is invalid.
I don't know how you come to that conclusion
Government funding per student is lower at private schools
If a kid transfers from a private school to a public school the total funding from the government goes up.
Private Schools ALWAYS say they are funded less per student than State schools are. They blatantly ignore the fact that it costs a HUGE amount per student to keep all those small regional State schools operating; and those figures get added in to State school figures per student. This inflates the State school figures unreasonably. IF Private schools were honest, they’d compare funding for LIKE SCHOOLS (State and Private). Of course, that would destroy their case.
@Bren20 source?
AFAIK this is incorrect, the goal of federal government funding is to fund all students equitably on the basis that children from rich households are just as entitled to an education as children from poor households. Feds give private schools more and public schools less (80/20), on the assumption/estimate that states/territories give public schools more and private schools less (80/20). So, on average, each student gets the magic '100' being the Schooling Resource Standard. That's the theory/goal anyway, but in practice most private schools are getting more than 80% due to previous funding arrangements, and most public schools are getting less than 20%. Not sure how close actual state and territory funding is to the 80/20 assumption.
@larndis: I'm happy to be proved otherwise but what you've said is in no way correct. I don't think people would stand for this if it were
Below link shows $15219 gov funding per student in public system vs $10817 to private.
https://saveourschools.com.au/funding/the-facts-about-school…
Now you show me your source?
@Bren20: I'm not sure of the legitimacy of that data, but doesn't chart 5 show that in total, private schools are over funded compared to public schools?
I think $ per student funding figures are unhelpful as they are likely to be skewed by the high cost of delivering education in smaller towns/more remote locations. State governments have a legislative obligation to provide education to almost all of the population, while private schools make a business decision on where to operate, so it's not really a fair comparison.
I don't believe that if a child leaves a private school for the public school across the road, they attract significantly more funding. I think this is what chart 5 is showing; actual funding as a % of a notional agreed funding amount, the Schooling Resource Standard, which includes loadings for remoteness, disability, etc. Essentially the states are not holding up their end of the deal and chipping in 80% of the SRS for public schools.
@larndis: Yes private schools are overfunded based on SRS, but if you follow the thread I am specifically talking about funding per student in response to coffeeinmyveins inaccurate post.
@Bren20: Ok, but if you're not comparing similar students then the statement
If a kid transfers from a private school to a public school the total funding from the government goes up.
may be inaccurate.
Which part of my post was 'in no way correct'?
@larndis: I have presented evidence for my argument. If you want to make a more granular argument I welcome your evidence. While the gap may narrow I doubt it will change to private having higher funding per student.
Your post was not accurate as you were referring to 80/20 splits before mentioning SRS. In the context of the thread it read as if you were referring to total spending per student.
@larndis: I'm not going to play 'let's cherry pick data' with you. do this at random for 10 comparable schools then we can talk
Wow what an extreme view. What led you to develop such an extreme view? Who is the 'their' in your statement?
I want the rich and powerful families to have to send their kids public
Lots of non 'rich and powerful families' send their kids to private schools too.
They will also benefit.
Not if they lose their choice for educating their kids…
@jv: They will have complete choice within the schools available within their area, just as public parents do now. It isn't hard JV.
@mskeggs: We don't have any choice in my area. It is zoned and we don't like the public school here.
Lots of great private schools nearby though.
@jv: Definitely an opportunity for you to seek its improvement. All the students would then benefit.
Definitely an opportunity for you to seek its improvement.
Nah, the education department hire the principal and teachers and we get no choice…
Would rather my kids go to a school with better teachers and facilities, not one decided by a government bureaucracy…
@jv: You elect the government JV. You can certainly seek improvements in your local school - it would be the only sensible financial choice.
@jv: I agree. There are shitty public schools. Hence if they had more funding…. better facilities…. better staff (don't get me started on them)…. better outcome for all?
Private schools will still exist. Maybe they just stick to one Olympic size swimming pool.
Hence if they had more funding…. better facilities…. better staff
Won't necessarily correlate when government is making the decisions.
I'd rather choose the better schools with better facilities and staff…
Saves a lot of time…
@jv: Yup, agreed, you can still do that and choose to go to a private school…. just pay a bit more :)
just pay a bit more
They already pay more for the privates school as well as subsidise the public schools. Funding should be the same amount per student. Public schools already get too much and provide an inferior product.
@jv: Please read my explanation, above, regarding why your understanding of Private vs Public funding is COMPLETELY wrong.
@jv: "They already pay more for the privates school as well as subsidise the public schools. Funding should be the same amount per student. Public schools already get too much and provide an inferior product."
Sir are you high? This is boomer logic right here
@jv: you know the public school is "bad" because people keep sending their kids to the rip off schools right?
@mskeggs: Doesn't always work out. We have a good public primary school, but all the high schools are garbage.
@mskeggs: @mskeggs I had this misconception if there were only public schools the standard would be lifted, that was before I had kids. The area and parents wealth definitely impacts on the schools funding. This is why in city state schools outperform lower socioeconomic areas. Its direct and indirect funding from parents that allows for extra teachers aids, better equipment etc. add to that active parent involvement and that drives improved performance, increased funding via fetes, fundraising activities and the ability to get grants from various organisations.
And therein lies the real reason some schools outperform wealthy people typically gather in the same suburbs and attend the same state schools.
@tomfool: This is not wrong, and even more visible in a place like the USA where local land tax pays for education.
I guess there are many in this thread reading the problem as “how do I get the best education for my kid” so are very defensive of the choice to pay for better resourced education, where I am looking at it from a perspective of “how do we get the best education for children” and the answer doesn’t include spending vastly more on the rich.
When we all share public goods, both the wealthy and the poor have a stake in getting them to be the best they can be. Our public opera facilities, for example, are first class to the point nobody insists on having the “choice” to pay for a private opera facility. I’d like to see schools of such a standard that they are unquestionably fine, so the “choice” would seem as weird as the idea you wanted to go see a private opera.
@mskeggs: Private schools allow parents to tip into the education model money that otherwise wouldn't be in it. For them to do so, there must be a perceived benefit, and it can't be so expensive it is unaffordable (it is bordering this already). Fully public would mean all burden was on taxpayers. Wow. How is that hard to understand? Some people will value putting in even more money than their taxes already pay, some won't.
Most parents are middle income earners, who pay plenty of tax, (not just super rich), at private schools.
how do we get the best education for children”
Get rid of a lot of their parents.
Not sure if you have kids, or have spent much time in different schools, but the attitude of that parents tends to be passed on to the kids. Area with a lot of scum bags tends to have bad schools, as the child's behaviour mimica that of the parents.
@jv: This is a good thing. As shown by the mess we are in, when you give parents choice, wealthier parents will tend to send their kids to schools that charge fees. Birds of a feather flock together et al.
This creates a stratification of schooling in which there are schools for poor, middle and upper class children.
If you take away choice, then everyone has to go public and all the classes mingle together which is better for society as a whole but not necessarily better for individual families.
wealthier parents will tend to send their kids to schools that charge fees. Birds of a feather flock together et al.
just maybe? they want their kids to get a better education than what the public system offers?
Plenty of 'non-wealthy' parents send their kids to private schools too… Life choices…..
@jv: It's currently "better" because all the rich kids go to the fee paying schools. Schools can only do as well as the quality of the feed stock. Public schools currently look bad because all the good feed stock is taken away and put into fee paying schools leaving the crap quality students at public schools.
Take away the option to send kids to private schools and the feed stock at public schools will improve.
Public schools currently look bad because all the good feed stock is taken away and put into fee paying schools leaving the crap quality students at public schools.
@jv: I would like us to be more like Finland, the worlds best. Australia is a global outlier on the number of kids in non-govt schools.
We need to go back to what the rest of the world does since our educational outcomes aren't better than the world yet our system leads to more segregation of classes.
I would like us to be more like Finland,
I wouldn't, I prefer life in Australia.
Why don't you just move to Finland and be happy?
@jv: TBH, I plan to send my kids to a low fee paying high school when the time comes too.
But that's because as I said, the quality of the kids at the local public high shools is poor because all the rich parents take them out after primary school finishes.
Ironically, the local public primary schools do very well on NAPLAN because parents in the area don't generally take their kids private until high school.
If all local parents kept their kids public for high school too, I bet the public high school results would be as good as the public primary results.
TBH, I plan to send my kids to a low fee paying high school when the time comes too.
So you want to have choice, but at the same time deny other parents from choice…
@jv: No. I wish there was no choice so everyone had to send their kids public. Then I would do the same happily knowing the rich kids will be at the local public school.
Since that is not how the system currently works, I will play the same game the other rich parents play. I am not stupid to put myself at a disadvantage.
No. I wish there was no choice so everyone had to send their kids public.
I'd rather my kids have a better education and better facilities…
If you prefer public, then send your kids to public. I'm not going to stop you…
@jv: If you give people the option to "pay to win", then those with the means to do so will take it. I myself will take it as I have the means to do so.
However as I have said, I think it is better for society if the option to pay to win is not there. It's a philosophical difference.
My philosophy is that education is the foundation for life and therefore we should strive to give everyone an equal opportunity there. Pooling all the rich families together where they can contribute privately toward building nice facilities at their private schools means the kids there have more/better opporunity. Pay to win essentially.
However as I have said, I think it is better for society if the option to pay to win is not there.
Then everyone will have to suffer with the lowest common denominator.
The government has already proven they are not competent enough to provide an good education system.
When there is no competition, it will just get worse.
They certainly cannot cater for the individual needs of many children.
@jv: I don't know about that. I think it would make it so that your skillz determines who wins, not who has the biggest wallet.
I mean everyone hates pay to win games right? People say the most skilled should win and most agree you should only be able to buy cosmetics, not stuff that affects gameplay so that your "skillz" determines the winner, not whether you can buy the best in game weapons, armour or cards.
I think it would make it so that your skill
zs determines who wins, not who has the biggest wallet.
That's how that ATAR works, it's based on you 'skills' not wallet….
That's how that ATAR works, it's based on you 'skills' not wallet….
Talk about having a bob each way. On one hand you're saying people should have the choice to pay more for a better education, yet on the other saying funding has nothing do with ATAR scores. If you didn't think paying for better schooling would lead to a better potential ATAR score, why would you pay for it?
On one hand you're saying people should have the choice to pay more for a better education, yet on the other saying funding has nothing do with ATAR scores.
Not what I said at all…
because all the rich parents take them out after primary school finishes.
That is rubbish.
Lots of rich parents send their kids to public schools too…
In our area, I know lots of families with doctors, lawyers who chose the local public high school, even thought they had a choice of several private schools…
hen everyone has to go public which is better for society
LOL… mediocracy does not make a better society…
@jv: There can still exist streaming within public schools to identify and nurture talent.
I stand by my opinion that society is better of when students of all class backgrounds are educated together as opposed to being segregated.
students of all class backgrounds are educated together as opposed to being segregated.
That already happens now in both the public and private schools.
Why shouldn't parents be able to choose the best school for their kids needs?
The government has no idea what is best for each individual.
@jv: You probably forget the toxic nature of all boys school,
whistle behaviour around any female walking pass.. unless that’s something you ignorantly might encourage
You probably forget the toxic nature of all boys school
You probably forget the toxic nature of all public schools
No it only happen prominently in single sex schools
No it doesn't.
Most sexual harassment occurs in mixed sex public schools.
Again?