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…
Since public is under funded compared
Public is not underfunded.
They get more per student than independent schools.
@jv: But bullying and harassment is higher like you said in public which I think probably is, so more funds should be used towards the less privileged, which is probably not your mindset
so more funds should be used towards the less privileged
What do you mean 'less privileged'?
I know many doctors and lawyers who send their kids to the local public school and many hard working parents working multiple jobs to be able to send their kids to private schools.
You are just making up rubbish…
@jv: It’s not rubbish, been reading quite many comments in this thread, I thinks there’s the divide between rich eastern suburbs and less equal western suburbs, with poorer education leading to lower socioeconomics and opportunity
been reading quite many comments in this thread
maybe stop reading random comments in forums from unreliable sources and research some facts…
I thinks there’s the divide between rich eastern suburbs and less equal western suburbs
Lots of independent schools are in the west, so there goes your argument
@jv: jv do you have data that shows that on average, students attending public schools are not more disadvantaged than those attending private schools?
Public schools are shrinking (technically growing, but less than the population growth rate). Private education is growing - particularly low-cost independent schools
This growth in independent schools is due to parent choice. Kids' have it really rough today… billion-dollar apps have been specifically designed to hold their attention spans hostage… social media means they can rarely 'switch off'… they are immersed in a culture that emphasises individuality and freedom of choice (sometimes this comes at the expense of their peers)… they are anxious, lonely and struggle with mental health more than ever before.
Allowing their child to get a good education is one of the most important things a parent sacrifices for - and it's not about 'elite' academics for the majority of families - it's school culture: a safe, caring environment where students have the opportunity to explore and grow.
Sadly, many local state schools have a culture (or a perception of a culture) that, increasingly, many families are abandoning for a local (usually, low-cost) independent school. Clearly, something is WORKING at independent/private schools, so, why would you cut funding? Especially in a teaching supply crisis? What a dangerous idea!
100% - thankfully there are still some people with sense on here, rather than just the majority jumping on the tall poppy syndrome
That's not how it works, and you know it. The education budget is finite, and in a zero sum game, the more money that goes to independent and private schools, the less therefore that can go into public schools.
Don't redistribute funding by taking from those who are doing well, further invest in public education, so students have a (closer to) equal opportunity. Funding might be finite, but it's not fixed.
@The Wololo Wombat: You're now pushing a point that no one is arguing against. Education should get more funding, yes? But so should healthcare, infrastructure, welfare, etc. Doesn't change the fact that the education budget is still going to be a number behind a dollar sign.
Don't redistribute funding by taking from those who are doing well, further invest in public education, so students have a (closer to) equal Don't redistribute funding by taking from those who are doing well, further invest in public education, so students have a (closer to) equal opportunity
What a cop out. Those 'doing well' are going to be just fine. They can still afford tutors, extracurriculars, healthy diets, and a stable home environment; and let's not forget nepotism once it's job-hunting time. Why do they need me to further subsidise their advantages? They made the conscious decision to opt out of the default education option, I shouldn't pay for their choice.
@SydStrand: I disagree here, I think it's excellent that people in this country can choose a school that reflects their values as a family and about 35% of people in this country do. More choice is great and I think all of society benefits. While it's impossible to eliminate disparity, I'd like to ensure state schools are equally funded (per student) as private schools… by increasing state school funding, if this is what's needed. Education is an investment and I believe it should have a higher priority (over other areas) than it currently does as the social dividend is huge.
@The Wololo Wombat: Choice is fine. I'm not arguing against the existence of private schools, I just don't think they should be double dipping. A school that charges $45k+ annual tuition shouldn't scream about not getting $10k from the government. And if those parents complain about their money going to poor kids, maybe they should consider putting their children in a state school if they really wanted value from their tax dollars.
@SydStrand: You should be thanking private school parents. They are saving the government money. You are costing them more and still complaining.
What a cop out. Those 'doing well' are going to be just fine. They can still afford tutors,
Many people that send their kids to independent schools struggle to pay the bills. They make sacrifices, cut down on other bills, don't take holidays, work overtime, take on 2nd or 3rd jobs.
It's not just rich people who send their kids there. Some people just want the choice to give their kids a better education.
You can put more funding into public schools but it won’t help. Remember private schools get student tuition and government funding, this is the amount of money needed to attract proper teachers and proper facilities.
The government just doesn’t allow enough of a budget ever to properly fund public schools.
Private schools are enticed to perform, otherwise parents won’t pay the tuition.
Public schools aren’t pushed to that account.
This is probably just my perspective but the kids sometimes at private schools are sometimes pushed to be more better behaved than what I experienced at public school. Tbh, public schooling was an absolute shit show for me even twenty to thirty years ago. My personal experience though. Just the calibre of the overall cohort, of course, definitely poor behaviour from a minority of private school kids which is often attracts the drool of the media.
There’s a reason why your boss sends their kids to private school. Just saying.
Remember private schools get student tuition
What does that mean? They get teachers, just like public schools.
@jv: As in, the student contribute $15-30k a year, ontop of government funding.
So, do you think it will make a difference, when a school overall gets $5k a student, vs $45k a student, what does that extra $40k per student buy you?
Better teachers.
Better facilities.
@CalmLemons: Furthermore, I would like to see the statistics, on the taxes paid by the parents and how much od those taxes get put back into funding the specific schools their kids go to - hard to get those stats though.
So if you've got 2 parents making $150k each per year, thats $81000 paid in taxes in total, $6000 medicare.
Extrapolating from the amount spend on education as a function of tax paid, about 8.5% of taxes are paid towards education.
Therefore a couple making $300k a year, pay $81000 tax, of which $6885 is paid towards education.
A couple making $100k per year in total pay about $13000 in taxes, of which $1105 is paid towards education.
The couple making $300k a year, pay SIX times more towards the education system.
Lets assume the $300k a year parents send their kids to PRIVATE SCHOOL.
Lets assume the $100k a year parents send their kids to PUBLIC SCHOOL.
The government spend on average $16000 per public school student.
The government gives independent schools about $12000 per student.
So in this case, the Private school parents contribute SIX TIMES MORE from their taxes to education, but get 25% less paid from the government to their childs tuition.
Maths.
This makes a lot of sense. Parent choice is pretty critical. I don't want to have to move houses to get into a different state school catchment, not to mention removing private schools (though lack of funding) would just make more demand for the best public schools.
Also being able to chose a school that has a curriculum that parents agree with shouldn't be overstated. I've done a stint at the dept of edu in qld and that place is potato farm. Wouldn't trust them to run a bath let alone educate your children. Public schools are also much more exposed to what ever the flavour of the month is in politics. Don't really have any interest in my kid having to write apology letters to people she has nothing to do with.
local (usually, low-cost) independent school.
That's all it takes to weed out children of poor parents. Sadly this results in a system where parents that can pay take their children and their resources away from the public system leaving the public system with the children of parents who can't pay and the lack of resources those parents bring to the table.
No amount of funding increase will help public schools if the quality of the kids they have to work with is poor.
No amount of funding increase will help public schools if the quality of the kids they have to work with is poor.
This seems to be more of the issue. Maybe it's time public school parents step up instead of bring the private school parents down.
@ozhunter: So you're suggesting the problem is the disadvantaged parents with zero choice? The ones who themselves had shitty parents, didn't receive a decent education, who are surviving on Centrelink or working dead end jobs with no prospect of promotion? THEY should make the public schools better?
@larndis: Character in relation to the comment I was replying to, but you were first going on about the bad parents followed by mentioning centrelink and parents with dead end jobs.
So you want the funding from private schools or the more disciplined students?
@ozhunter: Yes I was talking about the parents left in the public schooling system when those that can leave, have. This follows the comment you were replying to.
You were suggesting those parents should 'step up'? I didn't follow that or your further replies. How should they 'step up' ?
I don't 'want' anything.
NOOOO!! So many ignorant people on here!!
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?
I went to a private school - we were a relatively POOR quite small catholic private school. We had arguably worse facilities than some nearby public schools, less subject offerings. We had a wide cross section of kids, most not very well off, and they took in a lot of refugees on scholarships who had basically nothing. They told us this story about if they weren't funded we would all have to go to public and it would cost taxpayers MORE and it makes sense. Public Schools get capital grants that exceed what private schools get (land, facilities etc). So, the partial taxpayer funded private school model which receives co-funding from parents saves the government money over fully public.
The OP's argument is nothing but tall poppy syndrome / jealousy embodied in a political opinion.
There is no logical reason why every Australian child shouldn't receive a level of taxpayer funding for their education. If their parents want to pay out more than this to get access to "extras", why should this matter?
Yes sure the 1%ers send their kids to flashy private schools. I send mine to a better private school than I went to, and even with taxpayer funding it costs me an arm and a leg… I have now got to know a lot of parents at the school. Like me, most people who send their kids to the school are not overly wealthy - they are middle income people. They send their kids there for a number of reasons, but many are trying to give their kids better than they had, spending huge amounts of their disposable incomes. As for the expensive cars - most are trying to keep up appearances and 'keep up with the Jones' - there may be some expensive cars in the carpark, but majority would be fully financed for this reason with debt up to their eyeballs. I don't do this, I'm an OzB member to save for things like the school fees because I don't like bad debt.
The other key component of this is, most of those middle income families that are working professional employed jobs like engineers, solicitors, teachers, project managers, accountants are paying MOST of the income taxes that we are arguing about. They don't have the business write offs of the rich 1%ers with their fancy accountants and trust funds, and they don't have the welfare support and low tax brackets of low income earners. So why shouldn't we get something for our taxpayer money towards our kids education?
This isn't about religion, it's about the parents' financial burden which is huge. A co-funded model allows the government to fund all kids' education, and parents to pay huge amounts above this for whatever perceived benefit or extra they want to get for their money by having a choice of school which often includes funds for the Building Fund for facilities that don't receive taxpayer money, extra-cirricular services etc.
Your argument is flawed. So why not also remove any income or asset tests for centrelink payments? Im a taxpayer and i deserve some of my taxpayers dollars back! Because like you said every person(taxpayer) deserves it!
Bugger off. Doesn't matter how nicely you're trying to rationalise and dress up your choice, it's still your choice. Like everyone else, you had the opportunity to put your kid into a state school and you chose against it, I shouldn't be paying for your insecurity.
They told us this story about if they weren't funded we would all have to go to public and it would cost taxpayers MORE and it makes sense.
That's complete bullshit. It's exactly the same argument you hear from certain Americans about single payer healthcare. Somehow if you strip away public funding it somehow costs Average Joe less, despite private institutions effectively double dipping from both consumer and state coffers.
Yes, it is their choice to send their kids to private school 100%.
What entices the parents to make that choice is the major thing though, evidentally public schools are perceived as 'worse off'.
Why, is there that perception?
Perhaps, the government wasn't doing a very good job at running the public schools, which leads parents to send their kids to private schools.
IMO, which will be unpopular, I think paying fees serves as somewhat of a financial barrier to weed out negative behaviour that is rubbed into the kids from parents that exhibit poor behaviour. Is it unpopular to say, some poorly behaved parents may not have the best mindset and can be associated with lower income levels? Of course, there are definitely great public schools with great students and parents.
I went to a private school - we were a relatively POOR quite small catholic private school. We had arguably worse facilities than some nearby public schools, less subject offerings.
I don’t understand why your parents choose to send you to a worse school (in your words) and costed you more ( I assume all private schools cost more than public) when you are - relatively- poor.
One of the challenges with private education is that the best teachers will be attracted to that system after their time in the public system, as pay and conditions are likely to be significantly better than in the public sector. That means that many of the best teachers are pulled away from the public system, which further widens the gap for students in public schools against their peers getting a private education. This isn't a knock on teachers at all- my friends working in public and private schools are all having a hard time and are generally over-worked, so the financial reward needs to be there.
Totally agree with the above that all students should receive support in receiving an education, and ideally it would be equal opportunity and completely subsidised for all. There are a number of studies showing the correlation between a good education and long term success in life, including better health, higher income and higher satisfaction.
Teachers and schools provide education from University trained staff, childcare, a (generally speaking) safe environment with clean facilities and amenities, personal mentoring, sport activities, music lessons, and a place to make friends. Kids spend half of their waking hours there for 12 years, and enable parents to continue contributing to the economy while they work, so you could argue that they're the most generally important service available in our society alongside Healthcare. I'd suggest that more avenues of personal contribution should be available by the public, both financial and volunteering time and support, to help balance the system, rather than channeling all funds through public taxation.
I 100% agree with you. All what you said.
In theory, to be fair, each student, be it private, be it public should get the same amount from government. ( to be precise the school where the student is signed up ).This should be valid for High School, and TAFE.
But it seems it's not "Private schools receive less government funding per student – about $12,000 for Catholic school students and $10,000 for Independent (or other non-government) schools"
In contrast with "According to data from the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, the government provides about $14,000 in funding per public school student."
If parents ( like you ) and like me want to pay for extras the private school can offer then it's our decision.
My counter suggestion would be that school fees are tax deductible.
My counter suggestion would be that school fees are tax deductible.
This is actually a very fair and sensible solution, and easy to implement. Remove funding to private school, but make all school fees tax deductible.
The thing that makes it unfair for private schools to receive government funding is that they end up with more money than public schools. This distorts the market and makes public schools worse because they can't compete with the private schools to retain good teachers (and facilities).
See that this "paying extra" thing is actually problematic in some systems. Imagine if you go to public hospital and can "pay extra" to get better treatment. Or if you go to police and can "pay extra" for your case to be prioritised.
The thing that makes it unfair for private schools to receive government funding is that they end up with more money than public schools.
Because the parents pay extra fees.
See that this "paying extra" thing is actually problematic in some systems.
Not with the schooling system.
Imagine if you go to public hospital and can "pay extra" to get better treatment.
Except you don't go public, you go to a private one.
Or if you go to police and can "pay extra" for your case to be prioritised.
This isn't going public and paying extra. Private schools is paying extra at a separate institution.
Because the parents pay extra fees.
Yes we all know that, so? It still makes it unfair because they are not competing on the same level.
This isn't going public and paying extra. Private schools is paying extra at a separate institution.
It is a separate institution that receives the subsidy from public funding, which would effectively have similar result.
Like subsidising private hospitals, and also private GPs, which is also unfair and needs to be changed.
Why don't we also subsidise private detectives?
because they are not competing on the same level.
They're both meeting the academic requirements
It is a separate institution that receives the subsidy from public funding
A LESSER subsidy. The parents of private school kids also contribute to this public fund, likely more so.
Should just abolish public schools since private schools apparently so much better and it would save the government money since they get less per student.
@leiiv: This is not fair and sensible, tax deductions by far favour the wealthy; so the wealthiest parents would receive a far bigger deduction than the poorest at the same school.
@larndis: The poorest will go to public school, or get a scholarship from private school. There will be no difference for them tax wise. As the private school doesn't get funding anymore, the tuition fee need to increase. With the tax deduction, they can't complain anymore about freedom of choice.
All schools in Australia are currently non-profit, so it is not unreasonable to make school fees tax deductible.
Currently the top tax bracket is $180,000. Do you think there's a family with less than $180,000 can afford $50,000 school fee a year?
@leiiv: So you're suggesting that wealthy parents sending their kids to ultra elite private schools charging 50k a year should get half back in tax? And anyone who can't afford to send their kids there getting nothing (except a free public education)? Why should those parents get $25k per kid of taxpayer subsidy for their 'choice'? How is that fair or sensible?
The problem is that these schools operate as a business, and often with the prestigious ones (fees > $20k per year) they are very profitable. Why should the taxpayer fund schools that are operating for profit, and have vast surplus funds each year?
And do you know where does the profit go? To the best of my knowledge, all schools in Australia have to be a non-profit institution, or at least they have to be in order to receive government funding.
Just like in the Nordic countries…private schools what's that??
As someone who has worked as a teacher in a private school in Sweden, what point are you hoping to make here?
Remove a 2 class system and everyone goes to the same style of schools rich and poor
@MrThing: And everybody drives a Trabant, and everybody lives in a 2 bedroom appartment, and everybody gets food vouchers.
@mrThing Get Real. There are at least 5 class types in Australia.
( Ultra Rich - Rich - middle class - lower class, beggars homeless druggies )
@cameldownunder: What are the numbers that you based the grouping on?
The reality is that there are only 2 classes: 1) The ruling elite and ultra rich, and 2) the rest of us
The difference between rich, middle, lower, and poorest classes are insignificant to the difference between even the rich and ultra rich.
@larndis: Sure it is significant to them personally. What I said is in the bigger picture, the difference between $100 and $10000 assets are a rounding error at the level of above $1M assets.
@cameldownunder: In my experience, Swedish society is much more class-segregated than Australia. They have a whole level below what we have here. Entire suburbs of social housing with intense social issues. I worked in one of these areas. I or close friends witnessed arson, shootings (murder), drugs deals in broad daylight. I grew up in Logan QLD (bad rep) but that's not even close to my experiences in Sweden
@The Wololo Wombat: Of course, the bigger a city the more "diverse" people it hosts.
Since you worked there and experienced first hand, was it Swedes living in those poor suburbs, or was it mostly immigrants ?
@cameldownunder: Immigrants, of course. Almost exclusively. Keep in mind, I lived in a town of 70,000 people. Not big.
Some countries the public school are excellent. And universities are free.
Just in an article yesterday I read that "Chao Who" ( name changed ) parent's spent 240K for their son to finish university in Sydney.
"International Students in Australia by State and Territory: New South Wales 244,193"
Say degree needs 4 years, means each student contributes (240K/4) 60K a year to the economy, that's a staggering 14,651,580K or 16 Billions.
Fees in one of the best UNI in the world ( Switzermand ) The average ETH Zurich Tuition fee for international students is around 1460 EUR.
Number of international Students: There are currently 76,257 international students enrolled in higher education institutions in Switzerland
Responsible parents are pulling kids out of Public Schools because the kids are out of control
No discipline
No learning
Even the teachers are fed up
Its very sad because I was once a big fan of Public Schools
So we need MORE PRIVATE schools for better eductaion and more disciplined school kids !
And the government does NOT "fund" Private schools as they have thier own funding from the fees.
The governemnt is just "contributing" to the cost of running Private Schools.
This keeps the Private school fees within reach of most parents instead of just THE RICH!
Also takes the STRESS AND PRESSURE off The Public schools.
Surely this is a good think folks
I understand your point, but if an essential need like food had prices out of the reach of many, and the only food you could afford for your kids was low grade government supplied , wouldn't you think the priority should be improving inexpensive food, instead of funding the rich food places more?
I think your point is slightly off the mark..
Try Thinking Health Insurance and the government subsidies that make it worthwhile whilst also taking the pressure off Public Hospitals!
Health Insurance and the government subsidies that make it worthwhile
What subsidies might those be?
I've only ever had it due to the cartel-like practice of penalising you in the taxation system for not having the minimum level of completely useless cover.
Somehow said policy seems to usually cost around the same as the minimum MLS in my experience - what a coincidence
@BobLim: Talk to your accountant.
You obviously dont know everything about private health Insurance and possibly paying FULL PRICE!
But the govt Subsidies are definitely there!
@HeWhoKnows: Do you mean the rebates? Still not worth the cost after factoring that in, if not for the MLS of course. Zero intention of actually being able to make any claim on the hospital cover.
If you mean the fact that millions of people who otherwise wouldn't get health insurance take out a policy anyway, entirely to avoid said Medicare Levy Surcharge, then yes the government props up the private health insurance sector. This probably makes cover cheaper for the people who do plan to claim as the overall insured pool risk is much lower than it would be if only the people who wanted a policy had one.
the government does NOT "fund" Private schools as they have thier own funding from the fees.
Lol this is contrary to your own argument. Take taxpayers' money out of private schools and watch the reaction.
It doesnt.
There is a huge difference between FUNDING and providing CONTRIBUTIONS towards the cost of running.
Public schoools are the ones that are FUNDED by the govt.
But your point only reinforces what Im saying and thank you for that !
@HeWhoKnows: No there isn't a difference, funding = contributions
Maybe you perceive it to mean something else but this is the generally accepted meaning
Parents who care less about their kids love this idea.
@mskeggs
The real issue is the separation of funding arrangements between public schools (primarily state funded) and private schools (primarily federally funded). States have no incentive to try to keep kids in public schools; every time a kid moves from public to private, the state saves money and the feds pick up the bill.
Taxes would not need to be increased if public school enrolments increased, as total government funding per student is similar for public and private schools. In your scenario state governments might choose to increase funding to meet the expectations of more well off families, but their ability to raise more revenue is limited; more likely they would need to divert funding from other areas, e.g. health, roads. And probably ask the feds for some of the cash they're suddenly saving on private school funding.
the government gives billions to priv…..oh it's JV, nevermind.
Private schools are privately funded, why should my tax dollars go to another basketball court or another private school bus for them? You're missing the point entirely, but that's your MO.
Private schools are privately funded
No they're not.
Education is funded by the government.
Independent schools charge additional fees to cover tuition and give parents a choice, rather than force them to go to the zoned local school that may be totally unsuitable for their child.
@coffeeinmyveins: You misunderstand how it works - Perhaps it was your public school education :-p
See this and this - hopefully you can see the other side of the coin https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/14993266/redir and https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/14993262/redir
The federal government funds every private school place, a subsidy. They don't find at the same level as the cost a state funds the public kids.
From Google talking about Commonwealth funding:
In 2024, recurrent funding for schools is estimated to total $29.1 billion. This includes $11.2 billion to government schools, $9.8 billion to Catholic schools and $8.0 billion to independent schools.
The federal government funds every private school place,
They also fund public school places…
It's paid for by our taxes…
Private school parents pay tax as well as public school parents.
Yes, that is what was posted in my comment. I am very au fait with taxation.
How many public school share the 29bill pot vs private schools sharing the 8bill pot?
That is the Australian Government (federal) funding only; it doesn't include state and territory funding of public or private schools.
80%? 40%-60% would make more sense?
or none percent
would it not be in the public interest to divert all that funding to improving your local public schools?
only if the parents sending their kids to private schools get tax reductions so they aren't funding public schools…
they shouldn't have to pay twice just to pay for other people's kids to be educated.
Easily fixed, just nationalise the private schools and they can all be fully tax payer funded. No double payment needed
just nationalise the private schools
why?
some people want choice
To eliminate bed wetters complaining they have to pay twice in fees and taxes to educate their kids.
Do keep up JV.
@jv: If all school education is provided by the state, the outcomes are better across the board.
Finland is a fine example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland
Indeed, a country where we are not so insular we cannot learn from others.
Finland have a 20% higher suicide rate than Australia.
Perhaps they are not the best example to learn from …
@jv: Doesn’t that mean they should now using the funds for private to put more towards public? Since public is under funded compared