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…
@jv: The only study I have found looking at impact of school on suicide risk didn't find substantial additional risks based on type of school, except for students attending a religious school who are of a different faith.
I didn't know this, and certainly is thought provoking for people I know sending their kids to faith based schools in the hope they have improved discipline.
Study of Americans: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1…
@mskeggs: You made the claim that they are better educated, and I provided the stats that show they also have higher suicide rates…
Surely if they are smarter than us, they would have solved that problem better than us…
Or maybe, in reality, they are not better educated???
@jv: Have you considered maybe the better education correlates with suicide? I didn't learn about suicide at school. Perhaps it is not the clear evidence you seek?
@Duckie2hh: Your mistake is assuming JV is either willing or able to take in new information when presented with something that doesn't match their world view
@mskeggs: It is a rare example and not the only consideration - Finland has a far less diverse population already, and its main advantage is not solely from nationalisation of private schools (there are some, but they can't charge for tuition), it is from having policies that prioritise education that is highly funded with more training and pay for teachers generally. Our teachers should be some of the most highly respected and paid professionals in the country, an aspirational career like a doctor or lawyer. The answer is more funding for schools and training for teachers, not cutting funding from some to bring them down in line with the public ones. i.e. the public purse can value education more highly without removing the co-funding independent schools option that is embedded in our society.
Yeah they should. Taxpayers without kids are already paying for other people's kids to be educated. That's how tax is supposed to work.
If you want to choose not to use the taxpayer funded options available to you, you can pay for them.
If you want to choose not to use the taxpayer funded options
all secondary education is currently taxpayer funded already…
not sure what your point is…
My point is, they shouldn't be.
Where's my tax deduction for not having kids at all? Why should I have to pay at all to send your kids to school?
You shouldn't…
It should be user pays…
You shouldn't have to pay for other people's kids to go to public school either…
You want the kids to pay for their education? Put 'em to work in the coal mines?
It's pretty clear that there's a benefit to the nation of having educated kids. If we made it parents pay then many kids would go without education, this would be bad for all of us and would create even more of a reliance on immigrant labour to try keep up in the global rat race.
Much like healthcare, if people were dying all over the place it would cost more than making them better and sending them back to work. If you want betterer healthcare, pay for private health.
You could save us all a lot of time and just strap on the sovereign citizen "I should decide what taxes I pay/where it goes" clownsuit right now
"I never authorized all this spending on cancer research and fire engines, I didn't use these services, why should I pay" et bloody cetera
The sweetest irony is when someone like mskeggs actually addresses your concerns (alright sounds like the schools need fixing, time to get the government to do something) it's all "I have better things to do with my time? Why should I have to do something like vote? Can't everyone else just accept my arguments and change the tax systems to match whatever it is I've just said?"
Still, I guess it gets you closer to that 200,000 milestone, so there's that
Too right, I'm sick of paying to educate poor peoples' mistakes…. /s
@freefall101 Perhaps those same children you "paid" to educate will feel the same when you require a pension or some other government subsidised service.
Its called being part of a community and unless you are in the higher earning tax brackets you yourself are likely being subsidised by other peoples tax. Personally I prefer my tax money going to providing higher levels of education that improve society.
I totally agree, this was a tongue in cheek comment.
So why dont also remove all barriers for centrelink and give everyone the same amount of payment assistance then? Im paying tax, i too should deserve some of that sweet centrelink moolah!
The government pays more money for each student in a public school than they do for private schools. If anything they should pay the same per student regardless if they're in private or public.
The private schools are underfunded by the government, leaving the parents to fill the gap. The parents are also likey to be paying more tax as well.
The private schools are underfunded by the government
"In 2023, the Commonwealth is providing at least 20% of each government school’s Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) and 80% of each non-government school’s SRS."
Is it though?
That's probably because the SRS for non-government schools are reduced by a Capacity to Contribute (CTC) making the overall percentage of a non-government school's SRS lower and hence for a set amount the percentage is larger. The question shouldn't be what percentage of the SRS is paid but rather what the nominal amount is. And if the amount is different for each school (excluding any loading) then there is no issue, each student/school should be entitled to the same amount of funding.
Misleading comparisons are often made between school sectors based solely on the amount of Australian Government funding they receive. School funding operates under a shared-responsibility model where the Australian Government is the majority funder of non-government schools, and state and territory governments are the majority funders of government schools. So, the only meaningful way to compare funding between school sectors is to compare combined Commonwealth and state/territory funding.
In 2021, Independent schools received an average of $11,830 per student in total government annual recurrent funding compared to an average of $16,170 for a student in a government school.
Independent schools not only get less government money than government schools, they make a major contribution to the Australian economy
Can you make the argument why ‘independent’ schools should receive any public funding at all?
@Eeples: TLDR - Government funding is paid to support execution of the syllabus. All the fancy shit private schools have is paid for by the fees the parents pay.
@Eeples: The public funding that is provided for every student, regardless of where the education takes place, is for the development and delivery of the Australian Curriculum. In fact, non-government schools receive less public money per student to deliver the same Curriculum, when compared to government schools. The parents make up the difference. Furthermore, parents fund 86% of all construction costs at non-government schools.
Why should they receive any public funding at all? Public funding provides affordable choice, its fair (all parents are taxpayers and therefore deserve some funding towards their children's education), non-government schools educate 35% of students thus sharing the load with the government system that is already at capacity in many areas and taxpayers save for each child that is educated in a non-government school.
Do you feel the government should pay the same funding for private toll road operators as they do for public roads? The drivers on toll roads probably pay more in tax too.
Sounds fair, however I was under the impression that governments made them toll precisely because they didn't want to fund them.
There are plenty of co-funded toll road models which use a mix of funding - it's a great model of risk sharing to make a project feasible.
The general populous pay a portion because the infrastructure is good for overall nation building outcomes (economic activity, tax revenue etc), the user pays some of the costs because they receive a personal benefit from a reduced trip time, transportation of cargo or whatever they need it for.
Neither may be viable without a shared model. It may be too expensive for the government to green-light it without tolls and spread the cost over everyone including those that will never use it.
If you don't see a personal benefit to justify the cost for your circumstances, you can take the slow road and the government will still get you from A to B without the perks you paid for yourself.
For many long-standing toll roads, the government couldn't do without them, it would overload local roads, congest them and make them fail and require significantly more upgrades and expense. Therefore, again, yes, it makes sense for a mix of funding.
You are too fixated on the operators, rather than the mums and dads using them, and benefits of a mix of public general and private user-pays funding.
It's another great analogy that shows offering people a basic service to get them by, and then option to pay extra of their discretionary funds for a premium service is a great model to cater for a range of values… because the government doesn't always know what is best for everyone and how to spend all funds perfectly, because we live in an imperfect world, it is great to share risk and funding to get overall positive outcomes. That's why I don't believe in full free market capitalism or full socialist nationalism, there is great advantages in a centre balance.
In case you haven't noticed by looking around the world instead of cherry picking examples, we live in a country with quite a high standard of living on the world stage. Reading some of the comments on here you would think everything is broken when clearly it is not.
It's not about the fairness. It's about government nudging people to behave certain way.
If private schools are underfunded and as a result school fees at private schools are rising, many parents might choose to send their child to public school instead. It will cost government more but perhaps it's worth it. The money parents save can be invested more meaningfully than dumping it onto private schools that will just build another swimming pool building.
How about we remove the taxes that go to education completely and public school parents can just pay the cost of sending their kids to public schools.
That would be fair…
It would be equitable to tax payers, but not to the students.
Why not the students?
If education is funded disparately it is far from equitable to the students.
@jv: You elect the government JV. You can work to improve the schools for all, so you need not be concerned if your local one is failing with your support I am sure it would flourish.
@mskeggs: You're welcome….
Government doesn't always know what is best for us…
They are only concerned about maintaining their power… That is their priority…
@jv: Cares deeply about choices of schools based on the level of their quality, not interested in improving the quality of any of the schools
Classic jv train of thought, why bother with an engine if you never leave the terminus?
Classic jv train of thought
Yep, choice is important to me…
Not my job to improve the education system… I have other more important things to focus on.
@jv: Okay, someone is clearly logged in to jvs account, we need some mods to look into this
Whoever this is, you're in a lot of trouble
Your mistake was telling us you have more important things to focus on while posting from an account with 110,000+ comments on this website
@jv: Jv's going to be pissed at you when they get their access back - unless you're posting in the double digits on here you're ruining their average/"legacy"
@CrowReally: JV's focus is making an average of one comment every 70 minutes for the last FIFTEEN YEARS. Seems fair to me. Good thing they've been 112,000 thoughtful, considered comments too.
Or how about if your send your kids to private school, you get a tax break :)
That's what public school parents fear the most, to have to put money toward their own child's education.
What about the kids whose parents can't afford to pay at all?
What about the kids whose parents can't afford to pay at all?
They still have the option of public school.
Yep, so that Momma can send his kids to Public School and use those $$$$ for Chanel and LV.
Seriously, why would the student at Public will get more than a student in Private? Both parents are paying taxes (hopefully), worse if the other parent is on DOLE. This is the attitude "let me have kids and blame the Government if they suffer".
While I am sure there are parents in all schools who prioritise luxury spending, why should their kids get a worse education?
why should their kids get a worse education?
So yo admit it is worse then…..
I'm accepting your characterisation that your local school is worse than a costlier private option. Why would you pay fees if you didn't think it was better?
Why would you pay fees if you didn't think it was better?
The public school is not better… No comparison…
But not all private schools are better than Public. Some are really horrible. What I am saying is, pay them EQUAL. No more, no less.
But not all private schools are better than Public. Some are really horrible.
And parents have a choice not to send them there…
With public schools, you are stuck and rarely can you change to another school that is not in your zone…
If you pay them equal then the private schools will be way better because they get to double dip by charging ridiculous fees on top of the subsidy.
I would honestly be okay with the private schools being topped up to the same amount as a public school if they did not receive the same funding via fees, but let's face it, they are getting far more than public schools even without the subsidy.
@ginormousgiraffe: If parents care about their children and want to put more money towards their education, then they shouldn't be penalised for it.
@ozhunter: THIS 100%….
Me and my wife been working hard for our little one as we want to send him to PRIVATE. We both actually work just opposite NEWINGTON College at Stanmore and we really dream sending him there one day, but really can't afford $24k per year lol. Especially we have 2 kids now.
But yeah, parents want the best for their kids.
@ozhunter: This. Every student should be given the same amount of funding. If parents want to pay in addition to that amount, then they can go for it.
@brendanm: I don't understand this argument, I'm a public school boy and in primary/high school there were still resource fees you'd have to pay for your education (it would vary depending on the subjects you chose in high school beyond Year 10, because different subjects have different material costs)
Public schools still have ways of garnering additional funds with fetes and the like. Further, if a parent or group of parents wanted to donate/pool their funds to provide better facilities/resources I'm sure the school would be happy to receive them, just as private schools do. Having two separate systems seems like it encourages inefficiency in the system and leaves more room for some of that money to be lost to causes that don't benefit children's education in the private or public system
Public schools still have ways of garnering additional funds with fetes and the like.
Tell them and the parents to stop complaining about funds then.
Further, if a parent or group of parents wanted to donate/pool their funds to provide better facilities/resources I'm sure the school would be happy to receive them
Except they don't or not enough do. With private schools, every parents pays for it.
@SpainKing: Not sure how any of that really applies to what I wrote to be honest. Having two systems is working just fine at the moment, apart from being stuck going to a crap school if your catchment school is crap.
@ozhunter: Agree they can put as much money as they want towards their children's education, but they should not be milking the taxpayer to supplement their payments.
@ginormousgiraffe: They should be getting as much per student as government schools, and if they wish to put more of their own money for better facilities, then good for them.
We can't divert all of the funding, as that funding is what holds them to following the federal/state stimulus.
Its the government… promises are made to be broken….
The law enforces educational content in order to be accredited. Not a funding carrot.
I am going to assume you mean syllabus. They follow it because it's the law, even for home schoolers.
Definitely not. Schools are funded on a per-child basis anyway. I am in favour of a lot of state run things - like hospitals, power generation and distribution and water. But not schools.
This is politics of envy pure and simple. There are a lot of them lately and quite frankly, pretty classless debate.
What these reports don't tell is that they want zero funding whatsoever (as funding is on per child basis) for those who opts to go to private sector but still want to extract as much tax as possible from those parents who are sending them to it.
When I last left the education life in 1998, funding per children to private sector was $2.5k per child but for every public student, in excess of $5k to 6k. Today, that number is $13k to $16k according to ISA.
So drawing from this conclusion, the unions and most left-wing newspapers want private sector to be funded at $0 but at the same time, want the highest taxes possible (49%) from their parents. Pretty nasty communism right?
What these reports don't tell is that they want zero funding whatsoever (as funding is on per child basis) for those who opts to go to private sector but still want to extract as much tax as possible from those parents who are sending them to it.
hwhy should the taxes of people with no kids go towards education then
I have private health insurance, why does my tax go to public health
i have superannuation and will not be eligible for the pension come retirement as a result, hwhy my taxes go to keeping old people on the pension
Then let's be crystal clear about rather than cowering with (empty) platitudes.
Say it loud that we as Government don't have an interest in your children education if you opt to go to Private Schools so we don't want to invest in your children. If you want to be funded, then go to public school.
John Howard once said the Govt has an interest in investing in your children education and if he couldn't fully fund it, at the very least, he could fund SOME of it. At least he was brave enough to say it why he put money into private education.
Oh I never realised he said that he put money into private education because his donors pressured him to.
You know how tax works right. Surely you understand the very basic concept of a society?
And to counter your ridiculous argument about private health for one you do know that medicare still covers some of your costs when you go to a hospital even a private one.
And as for your super are you sure you will have enough, I mean what about all those government services that you will be using whilst drawing down on your tax free super. Stope thinking like a leech pay your fair dues and be thankful you live in a reasonably equitable society have a means to support yourself.
That kid that gets a good education today might be the Dr or surgeon that saves your life in the future.
I swear that some people want to see the country turn into a 3rd world country. As much as some people don't like "taxpayer" funded services, they are vital in keeping the country from becoming poverty and crime ridden.
So drawing from this conclusion, the unions and most left-wing newspapers want private sector to be funded at $0 but at the same time, want the highest taxes possible (49%) from their parents. Pretty nasty communism right?
yes this is pretty spot on - the people who pay the most get almost nothing out of the system - whilst we have a growing population of people milking it for everything it is worth
kind of sums up this governments entire political strategy appeal to a class war when in actual fact it is those who are wealthy who pay 90 percent of nations tax collected
The private elite schools is how we keep the distribution of narcotics going. Politicians don’t want to close that down
No, make public school parents pay for their own kids education.
What do you suppose we do to children of poor parents? Throw the kid straight into the mines at 6?
They can get some government benefit or be exempt, as per usual, but there are others who can afford it easily.
Throw the kid straight into the mines at 6?
No, but not against throwing some of the pathetic parents in there. Then they can work and help support their child's education.
Oh, I know the answer to this one
"They did, when they paid their taxes"
Make them pay more, simples.
The simplest of ideas from the simplest of minds
So the richer gets richer and poorer gets poorer?
Both get poorer when pay school fees. The rich get poorer quicker lol since they pay more fees.
If anything, you should be thanking private school parents as they are the ones saving the government money. You are the ones costing the government more and still complaining.
According to data from the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, the government provides about $14,000 in funding per public school student.
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
However, private schools charge additional fees on top of that.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-20/are-private-schools-b…
Sheesh, and you still complaining.
The SRS base amount is calculated by multiplying the number of students enrolled at the school for the year by the SRS funding amount for the school for the year. For most non‑government schools, the SRS base amount is reduced by the school’s Capacity to Contribute (CTC).
https://www.education.gov.au/recurrent-funding-schools/schoo…
Hence the numbers reported are due to the lower number of students in private school. ABS 2023 reports that 64% of students are enrolled in public schools compared to 19.7% in private schools.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/l…
Public school students are still getting up to 40% more per student. Sounds like their just being inefficient because they get "free" money.
Now let's say the bottom line is that they need more money. Then why not go after the rich people through something like income tax, instead of ALL private school parents(who are not all rich but are willing to work more for their kids education).
Then why not go after the rich people through something like income tax
you will not last long in politics going after family trusts etc (the sorts that the rich private school parents have, not those of the willing to work more for kids education)
@Gdsamp: Yea was just a quick suggestion. OP rather only penalise parents with private school kids to fund their kids in public schools instead of everyone else (or the worst possible option /s), the actual parents of the kids where the school needs funding.
Stop the assault on "rich" people. They are as Australian as you are and they tend to hire more Australian and be more philantrophic than you will ever be.
Think of Gina Reinheart (Swimming Australia).
As I said above, this debate is quite frankly, classless.
@mskeggs:
You are claiming they are better educated…
So it's not working as expected?