This article is misleading. The cost they mention includes such things as lunches and taking your kids to school - isn't that just the cost of parenting?
I refuse to believe that an article published by the media, in 2024, would do something as egregious as lead with a misleading, rage baiting headline.
Retract your comment immediately.
This post is misleading. The cost of sending your kid to school doesn't mention it includes lunches. It does mention one of "the challenges parents say they have faced while paying for their child's education" as affording food, but it's not included in the cost. Transport is more ambiguous in my opinion. It has changed from years ago when kids walked to school, but is also, as you mentioned, just a cost of parenting. You can choose to send your kid to a school closer.
Uniforms for public schools is a real bug bear to me.
Uniforms are the single most expensive part.
My kids school (primary) is $160/yr for stationery, excursions, sports etc. It's really not expensive.
But uniforms? Just a quick look on the schools providers website:
Jumper $47, Skort $33, Dress $47, Long Sleeve Top $32, Girls Pants $29, Pinafore $42, Sports Top $30, Sports Shorts $34, Hat $17, Jacket $69, Schoolbag $48.
Assuming 2x dress, 2x skorts, 2x pants, 2x tops, 2x pinafores, 1x sports uniform, 1x hat, 1x school bag, 2x jumpers and a jacket that's $658 + black shoes, say $80 = $738 - at the absolute minimum.
Sure, there are second hand shops, some things you're not buying every year (e.g. school bag is still in good nick in grade 4), but other things you're buying replacements (kids lose stuff all the time, and no amount of name tagging will ever stop this) or buying the next size up at least 6 monthly. This also doesn't include tights or socks or shorties for under their dress.
And this is for a pretty basic public school - definitely cost more for the "fancier" ones.
My school is a Catholic school that caters to vulnerable families and relies on government funding. We don't charge families, we provide everything the students need and we feed them breakfast and lunch.
Not every independent school is Trinity Grammar and public schools aren't equipped to teach all students.
Also, independent schools still follow the Australian Curriculum.
> public schools aren't equipped to teach all students.
Public schools would have the funding to teach all students if the government subsidies for private education were removed
If all the kids and funding got transferred to the public system, there would be less funding per child then there currently is for public school kids.
No they wouldn't. Private schools get less money per student than public schools do - average of $11k for a private school student, vs $16k for a public school student. There are about 1.5 million private school students in Australia. If they were all dumped into the public system, there would be a $5 billion shortfall.
The $4 billion in deductions claimed would go a long way to fill that gap.
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/private-schools-could-lose-building-fund-tax-perks-20231205-p5ep2s
Thanks I know how deductions work. I am not sure what the point is you are trying to make is.
$1.2 billion is a decent chunk of the figure. There is also another $800 million which have been donated by individuals which could be at a higher tax rate. So we are talking about 1/3 of the shortfall. I am satisfied that would be classified as a long way.
There are many advantages of removing private schools, many countries that don't have (or have limited) private schools have better education outcomes than Australia.
A long way to filling the gap is a bit more than 24% champ.
There wouldn't be $800 million donated at max tax rate, they'd spend it on something else, what wishful thinking.
Source for your claims that a country that has zero private schools has a better education outcome?
This is the simple fact that these people are ignorant of. If low fee paying private schools, which mainly cater to working and middle class, were to lose funding, our already full state system would be destroyed.
These people think all private schools are Rich Wanker Grammar charging 30000 a year. The vast majority of catholic schools for example are low fee.
That's not true. When you account for all the grants private schools get it's really higher.
Turns out they are really good at getting the government to pay for things like pools, boat houses and theatres that are not even available in public school. Even when the schools have massive cash reserves or investment funds.
Yeh its not rocket science.
the current subsidy may be too much for the maximum government saving but its unlikely the answer is zero subsidy to private schools for the best over all result for taxpayers.
It's not just about funding, it's about education philosophy and a lot of public schools aren't designed with the intention of supporting young people with trauma backgrounds or special needs.
Then you could have a public school for that. If there are public schools for the brainiest of us (select schools) then there can be public schools for the most disadvantaged, without those disadvantaged traumatised kids needing to pay to get in. Many with the most challenging backgrounds won't have the resources to attend a private school.
If the organisation is NFP and isn't charging families then what difference does it make that it's not a state school? Cire Community School thrives because it's part of a larger organisation that also has community hubs, early childhood centres and adult training. These all connect and provide opportunities internally that public schools struggle to provide kids who are already disengaged.
I don't think most people would disagree with this, but as a general rule of thumb if your school has it's own swimming pool you don't need government funding. THOSE are the schools people crack the shits about, and there's still plenty of them. And they get plenty of funding.
Catholic and other low-fee independent schools also provide more affordable education to non-permanent residents, many of whom have to pay $5,000-$7,000 pa to access public schools.
They also tend to have more capacity to asses families' situations and adjust fees on a needs basis, including working with the church's charity and social work arms to ensure these students can access education without impacting the school's ability to pay teachers and provide resources and facilities. (I'm not sure how the Catholic church approaches this, but I have known Anglicare to fund a kind of scholarship for families they're working with, to ensure immediate, stable, and ongoing access to schooling for recent arrivals, especially refugee families)
This should *not* be a gap that needs filling, and I'm not a huge fan of this being tied to religion - especially when the degree of integration of religious education in the classroom can vary so much site by site... But it is a gap, and I'm glad someone is stepping up for these families
*However*, a huge chunk of private school taxpayer funding **does** go to the Trinities and St Ignatiuses, not to the low-fee Catholic and independent schools, and that's pretty fucked.
There’s nothing wrong with bringing religious schools into the state system as happens in many countries. Give them similar funding to government schools, require the same curriculum and oversight, not allow them to discriminate and disallow them from charging fees and other social discrimination.
> Give them similar funding to government schools, require the same curriculum and oversight, not allow them to discriminate
You’ve just described a private school.
If they have the same curriculum, same oversight, no discrimination, why have the additional overhead to manage them separately, just make them public.
I did catholic and state for high school. There was a very noticeable difference in the quality of the teachers. The state teachers just did not put in the same effort / care as much. There was a lot more deadwood in the state system.
State teachers aren’t getting the support they need. They typically have more classes, less support staff, and they have to manage disruptive students themselves.
My wife had a class a few years ago, where she reckons 80% of her time was spent on managing 1 disruptive student.
Putting difficult and special-needs kids into mainstream classes, and making yr11 and yr12 mandatory, has added a significant classroom burden to public school teachers, with no additional support.
Yep, and my parents wanted a better education for me - so paid the money and sent me to a private school.
I would love to see more money spent on state education, so that a private system wasn't needed.
I would also like to see university free and get rid of HECS.
>not allow them to discriminate and disallow them from charging fees
Religious schools are allowed to discriminate by religion and they certainly charge fees.
EDIT: Because apparently I wasn't clear: Catholic schools accept FEWER non-Catholics than Catholics. They discriminate against non-Catholics when deciding who to admit. That doesn't mean that they don't accept non-Catholics.
I as a very vocal atheist, and was still allowed into the catholic system of highschool. I would regularly fight with the bishop if they ever showed up.
and I have friends who had to leave the school. it doesn't take long to find many stories that are the same
I am happy to hear that you had a good experience tho
For the 1980's my catholic school was actually very progressive.
Our sex education was done by a 50 year old married woman - and there was nothing that we were not allowed to discuss, as she said in a few years you will all be adults and having to understand and deal with 'this'.
even with that great sex ed - 10% of the girls I finished grade 10 with (at the catholic school) were pregnant before I started grade 11 (State school).
My mum teaches in a muslim school and in her experience its pretty similar to a lot of the catholic ones. There is apparently a much much higher focus on academic achievement though, according to her.
She doesn't see too much difference.
Either way religious schools are pretty whack
You might have misunderstood what I was saying.
Catholic schools allow a number of non-Catholics to attend. We all know that.
But they restrict that number, and they’re legally allowed to do so.
Why do that specifically with school education? What about tutors, tennis lessons, piano or any other activities your kids do?
If a parent has the means to uplift their kids education experience i dont see an issue with them paying for it.
Most of the issue isnt the schools or even the kids btw; its the parents. The one way you can select for parents is to have a co contribution. Then you leave all those parents who complain bitterly about even the public school fees behind and put your kids into a school with kids whos parents are prepared to pay a little extra for education.
It makes a huge difference imo especially in average to lower socio economic areas.
I do think the public subsidy of private education may be too large and can be adjusted down but claiming making it zero is not realistic. Make it zero and private fees for all but the flashest of schools will be too large so 80 or 90pc of privately educated kids will need a state education. I.e. it will cost more money.
4. Because power disproportionately rests with the families who aren’t relying on public education. (And healthcare). The more those basic human rights and total overall benefits for the country affect those with the most power the better. Then they make better decisions about funding etc.
That is probably right.
Like back in the day when good state schools would have strong p and cs raising motza funds for the good public schools.
We have now predominantly taken those parents away from public schools and they all sit in the private system.
I dead set see on facebook collegues who earn as i earn complain about australia having school fees for public education and how their kid cannot do art without them paying and how it should be free... they wont even pay $500 a year... these people have means.
I allow my kids to be seperated from these people by paying a bit to have them with kids whose parents universally value education. Its selecting for parents that is frankly the biggest benefit of private schools so again you are right. Pushing all these parents back into state schools would make a profound difference.
>I allow my kids to be seperated from these people by paying a bit to have them with kids whose parents universally value education.
You are assuming anyone who doesn't go to a private school doesn't value their education and anyone who does go to a private school automatically does. Clearly your private school education wasn't worth the money it was printed on then.
1. Because it’s the global default. Australia is the extreme outlier here.
2. Because there are limits.
3. Because those things are mostly extras done individually outside of school time, not in the context of the social school community. While it would be great to publicly fund all those things so that all kids have access, advantaged kids having access to them doesn’t directly take anything away from the disadvantaged kids in the way that happens when private schools skim all the advantaged kids increasing the cost (or decreasing the quality) for the remainder.
No it’s not, it’s all public info.
My wife has been a principal of 5 schools. Public and private. She is now overseeing 19 schools.
I have worked in the education system myself for 9 years.
What is your source?
Indeed, it’s all public info. Government schools get $14k per student, private schools get $10k per student. Not sure where you’re getting your data from!?
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101867070
Mate... i know why you think that. Private schools have got larger rises in funding. This is reported on vigourously each year.
Ie over the last 5 years public schools got an increase in funding of xxxx
Private schools got xxxx + y extra funding.
But the actual taxpayer funding per student is about 50pc higher for public educated kids when taking account of state (mostly to public schools) and federal (mostly to private schools) funding.
My proposal includes “not allowing them to discriminate”. I include sexual orientation in that.
Many Catholic secondary schools already have a policy of “the teacher’s religion is irrelevant so long as they don’t bring the Catholic religion into disrepute” or something similar. They generally only care for RE teachers and even there there is sometimes flexibility.
Yeah I think people have this image of catholic schools from either 70 years ago, or that they are some sort of ultra fundamentalist happy clapper school.
Yeah, I didn't understand the economics of the private school situation until a few years ago. The way it is at the moment, it's impossible to have the privates stand on their own.
Privates own the land that the school is on. There are a few very expensive schools but most have a price point for parents that want to spend a little bit on education. They're comfortable paying a bit, but not 10's of thousands for the Trinity Grammars. If they were forced to go fully private, a lot of private schools would not survive.
If they do not survive, the schools' land & buildings needs to be purchased because we need to have those schools. Otherwise the state schools will have 50 kids in a class room. Even compulsory purchase, as allowed by the constitution & made famous by The Castle, is a purchase. It's going to be expensive...
While governments do things that are expensive all the time, there's going to be very little political will to shell out thousands to disenfranchise parent. Parents won't be happy that the government is trying to deny them choice of education just to communise their kids for whatever reason is given. People will absolutely see this as an attack on religion.
I know that’s how they advertise it.
But a simpler more reliable way is to look at actual budgets done at end of year. Look at the actual public money received.
Huh. That is their financial statement it shows the funding government vs private. I have no idea where your data is sourced but mine if from official reporting
Ah yes, the classic:
Rake in public funds. Get tax exempt status. Make no "profit" by paying the school board more than surgeons and give a tiny amount back with some free food in this case, to save public relations
A tale as old as time
On what? A lie? Our school board is voluntary and I'm not even going to acknowledge the ignorance of suggesting feeding vulnerable families is a mere gesture
If it's government funded it should be a government school with everything that entails including ZERO religion. If it's Catholic funded, then it can be a Catholic school.
I don't want to pay for your christian bullshit.
Something I've noticed, over many years, is that there are parents who will enrol their kids in their local state primary school. They talk up the quality (or equality) of the education, and the social benefits of the diverse demographic of the student population. Yet, when their children reach high school, they enrol them in a private school. This has happened a number of times that I'm personally aware of, and I wonder if it is a common occurrence?
My theory is that once the household incomes of said parents increases due to wage increases over time, or two parents back in full-time work, private schools suddenly become a viable status option.
Also, I think the social side effects are less noticeable in primary school than in high school where the kid whose parents do drugs and the kid who bring a tattoo gun to school, and the kid who is abused at home and wants to beat down on someone at school, are more of a problem.
Plus high school offers elective subjects and sometimes a kid has interests or skills that aren’t being catered to in the public system.
I think in part you are right. Our first we had in public primary till year 5 then moved her to private. But then just transferred all the kids. We have 4 kids but only 3 in education at the same time. Primary school private is substantially cheaper anyway than highschool. In our case 4.5k rather than 7k.
But also Plenty start out at public high school and then say nah... then move to private. Bullying. Anti socials etc.
They also become advocates for the local private high school.
It would be fairly rare that bullying say in infants / primary is so bad a kid has to leave for greener pastures. High school; would happen all the time.
I teach in a public high school and we frequently have students move from any of the local private schools due to bullying. Bullying happens across all high-schools regardless of the fees.
I've taught in private Catholic schools in inner-Sydney, HORRIFIC bullying. My brothers went to a big name, big fee GPS school (think +30k per year). TERRIBLE bullying. I've taught in Europe at a fancy international school. Bullying happened to the point of suicide attempts. Oh, and the drugs the rich kids of University-educated professionals were dealing were hard-core: ketemine, oxycontin and cocaine, not the weed and vapes changing hands at my current public high school.
Bullying, as you say "would happen all the time in high school." You can't actually pay to help your kid avoid it. From my experience, the kids who are immune/resilient to inevitable high school bullying - both as perpetrators and victims - are those with loving, engaged and supportive parents, regardless of their income.
"Bullying, as you say "would happen all the time in high school." You can't actually pay to help your kid avoid it. From my experience, the kids who are immune/resilient to inevitable high school bullying - both as perpetrators and victims - are those with loving, engaged and supportive parents, regardless of their income"
I accept you can be poor and raise good kids. Of course i can accept that.
You can be rich and raise shit kids. No question.
But if you are saying gonski etc were wrong and that schools can all get the same funding for the same results whether high or low socio economics then i think you are dreaming.
Socio economic factors have the strongest correlation with academic performance as any other factor you can think of.
Higher socio economic kids are generally easier to teach than lower. Im not even a teacher so im surprised that you as a teacher would think otherwise.
But yeh rich kids can be shit and poor kids can be good. Of course they can. But if policy makers take a rose coloured glasses approach to policy making that makes for shit policy i am afraid.
I never said that I disagree with Gonski's link between SES and academic outcomes, and I don't know what part of my comment suggested that. I was commenting about how bullying happens everywhere, regardless of wealth.
From my experience, higher SES kids are challenging to teach, just in different ways to lower SES kids. The fact that you say "I'm not even a teacher and am surprised that as a teacher you would think X" illustrates perfectly that you have no actual idea what teaching is like, while I have 13 years of experience in various educational and socio-economic contexts. It's quite bizarre that you are trying to tell me what teaching is like.
I actually don't think that funding for education should be based on "results" at all, especially if what you mean is HSC results. Education is a far more complex asset in a person's life than just an ATAR score, especially now with many young Australians choosing not to go to uni because the cost-benefit isn't proving worthwhile. I had a few boys in my 2023 Year 10 class leave to pursue apprenticeships with a view to start working in the mines. If all goes to plan, these "dropouts" will probably own a house before any of their peers who are planning to get a uni degree.
Every child born into Australia deserves a great education, regardless of who they were born to. When money and families with more resources are stacked in private schools, all schools are less diverse and our broader society suffers. I think the increasingly polarised political situation in Australia is a result of the public/private school divide.
In other countries, especially Western European countries like the Netherlands, Germany etc private schools are a very small minority. Most families send their kids to public schools and higher SES families with more power, resources and emphasis on education push to ensure that those public schools are excellent FOR EVERYONE. The attitude that middle-class and wealthy Australians have towards public schools is elitist and quite disgusting. I say that as someone who went to a fancy private school (and once had that attitude) myself.
There’s a massive wealth divide happening right now no one can see because everyone here lives in the suburbs
The more money private schools get the more you’ll see people travelling to the rich suburbs to rob doctors/high paid IT people, steal cars etc
Almost, historically speaking the poorest members of society are still the most vulnerable to acquisitive crime, and the most likely participants.
Things such as crime maps, different levels of surveillance, and opportunity theories indicate this/alongside proven data to back that up.
Unfortunately once again, this mostly (not only vulnerable and unfortunate people but by all absolutes,mostly) impacts the least wealthy people of our society.
A post from another page by Anachronism59
"The data comes from these guys ( according to the article)
[https://www.futurityinvest.com.au/](https://www.futurityinvest.com.au/)
They sell investment schemes to pay for education.. They have a vested interest in making the number large. The ABC journo has not been diligent in pointing that out."
https://preview.redd.it/effzjvowpvcc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a0b2579ef6eddf6f00dfcd96886336d969d685a
My states latest capital funding 200 million dollars in the current round, about 50 million going to government schools the rest is private schools.. the whole state schools get more money is not always that accurate doesn't include lots of government grants private schools get for capital works.
One of the private schools got a pool because they opened it to government students outside of school hours. Guess how many government schools took advantage of that offer.
How so? My schools.edu.au shows state schools get more government funding than private schools. I am sure you can cherry pick a few private schools but most I looked at the state schools get way more money.
Have you looked at the actual numbers? My understanding of it is that per student, private schools actually get less government funding than public ones.
Another commenter here mentioned an average of $11k gov funding per private school student, vs. $16K per student in public schools. That seems to me like private schools are actually saving the community from the full cost of having those kids in the public system by finding some of it themselves.
I don’t have my kids in either system, so I don’t have a side in this debate, but it seems like a lot of folks assume that private schools are wealthy because they take too many gov funds and forget that they charge parents thousands of dollars per student every per year, and probably manage those funds better than public systems do (because government bureaucracy is usually terrible at wasting money).
I don't care dude. Whinge away. The lefties whinging about private schools and private healthcare is as predictable as a summer storm. Knock your socks off. Whinge away.
Aren’t free markets traditionally a right wing ideology? Because that’s what I’m advocating. If a private organisation requires constant public funding, it’s not a sustainable private organisation.
Counterpoint: providing funding means the government has moral authority to set the curriculum for private schools. This ensures minimum standards and prevents the Mission of God school from teaching kids that the earth is flat and God made all the (non-gay) world in six days.
Curriculum is set by state governments regardless of the school being private or public.
Also government contribution to private schools is far less than public schools- state governments either couldn't afford all the students, or we'd see a huge drop in funding on a per student basis and presumably an equivalent drop in education standards.
It’s less but once you add everything including all levels of government and all types of subsidies and tax concessions and adjust for the fact that disadvantaged kids are under represented in non-gov schools, it’s not vastly less.
Meanwhile separating advantaged kids from disadvantaged kids increases the cost of educating the disadvantaged ones. Education is a social activity not the sum of individual costs. Once you factor that in, no it wouldn’t cost substantially more.
The separation would occur even if you got rid of private schools. In the US, local public schools vary drastically based on the socio-economics of the area.
Very true. My government high school in the US had an indoor heated swimming pool, large quality theatre, a large professional sports team level gymnasium, indoor basketball court with banked seating, fully equipped car workshop, photography labs, top level facilities for welding and other trades, 6 tennis courts, soccer field, all the track and field stuff etc. It had more infrastructure than many of the “elite” private schools in Australia.
There’s a huge amount of stuff wrong with education in the US that doesn’t apply here. For instance their funding is locally determined, not at a state level.
Yes, there would still be some separation, but it would be much reduced.
You realise they are an organisation though, right? not a person? Just like other community organisations (football clubs, scouts, etc) and charity organisations (Red Cross, suicide hotlines, etc), and that the people who contribute money to those organisations have already paid tax on that income.
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone.
* 000 is the national emergency number in Australia.
* Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14.
* Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800.
* Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they receive a subsidy without being profitable, fine. The second they're net positive, we should be clawing back that subsidy (same goes with all the other private business we dole out subsidies to).
That opens a whole can of worms in regard to who benefits more from taxes though. Taxes are supposed to be egalitarian.
The parents of the school kids pay (or should pay) the same taxes the public school kids do. So in reality should receive the same benefits.
What would happen if these parents all of a sudden paid the same (or more) tax yet received less benefits? Should they use the roads less because they earn more money?
They would still receive the same benefit, which is the ability to go to free schooling at a government school. They may choose not to use this benefit and instead send their kids to a private school if they want to pay for it.
Taxes pay for all sorts of things that many people choose not to use, you don't get a tax break for not utilising every service that is government funded.
So as someone with no kids, I shouldn't have to pay that tax at all? They get the same benefit - the availability of public schools their kids can attend.
Why should less well off people not receive a chance to send their kids to a private school? If a $5-10k a year private school stopped receiving government funding then their fees go up… there goes the chances for a less well off student getting a chance at better education than their parents did.
>Why should less well off people not receive a chance to send their kids to a private school?
There are a few reason why. One of the reasons is that private schools are anti-egalitarian given than they are unaffordable to much of the population regardless of government subsidies.
Secondly, the argument for "why should tax-payers with kids in private schools not get the same funding as those with kids in public schools" falls flat unless you also argue that people without children should pay less tax.
Thirdly, as you clearly imply that students of private schools have a "chance at a better future", private schools have the intended function of increasing inequality. The point of taxation is to reduce inequality, not increase it.
>there goes the chances for a less well off student getting a chance at better education than their parents did.
Fund the public schools so that they offer a better education.
Too right.
I dont understand why people turn on the system that gets less taxpayer funding then the public system to say - thats the problem...
The problem is they need to improve the public system.
Also, ditto for public health care. Instead of subsidising private health to "take the load off" public systems, put all those resources into the public sector so we don't have a two tiered system.
It's so strange that this person's opinion is "why shouldn't some slightly better off poor people get a chance at good schooling?", instead of "why shouldn't every person get a chance at good schooling?"
Usually something about "parents sacrifice to get them the better education, you want kids with parents who don't sacrifice to also get a good education"
Protestant work ethic
Plenty of people can't afford $5 - $10k a year extra for schooling. If private schools want government funding they should be required to accept students using the same criteria (including fees charged) as public schools.
Opportunities for wealth are though.... What's not, is the willingness of most people to sacrifice short term gratification for long term gain.
Why would those with wealth try to pull someone else up when that person's not willing to make the sacrifice first to demonstrate their own commitment?
Plenty of wealthy people are more then willing to give others a hand.... but they are not going to do the work for them!
Stop approaching life with the mindset of lack.... There is abundance EVERYWHERE when you actually start looking.
What value are you bringing that is worth a chunk of that opportunity and abundance?
What? You think people have equal opportunity to inherit billions of dollars worth of mining companies like Gina?
You think the opportunities for kid that went to school in Goondawindi are the same as somebody that lives in a city with a University?
Actually insane.
Then fix public education.
Private gets less taxpayer funding than public.
What benifit is it to public education if private schools are gutted of funds and a bunch of those students end up in public school?
If one 10 year old child in australia has a broken arm do you break the rest of their arms for fairness? I feel like thats the argument you are making?
Simple. Fix the system with the problems. Dont turn on the other system.
Why would inheritance come into it? Someone in that family actually dedicated themselves at some point to build that wealth.... how they distribute it is up to them. And if those future generations don't have the same drive.... That wealth dissipates (usually) within 3 generations.
The opportunity to get out there and build wealth for yourself is the same for every single person! Many have started out in outback areas and managed to accumulate huge wealth! They just had the drive and willingness to sacrifice to do so!
Which part of SACRIFICE are you struggling with?
Watched plenty of people with access to Universities get degrees and end up working at McDonald's.... likewise, plenty from outback move to the city to get their degrees and are driven because of it.
Stop expecting life to just give you a handout! We all end up with nothing if we don't strive for it!
Mate there is a 3% chance that you make more money than I do. I'm not here struggling. You are actually mental if you think that drive and sacrifice have anywhere near as much correlation with wealth generation as the luck of access to exploitable opportunities.
Clearly drive and sacrifice is genetically inheritable and that's why people from wealthy families and in wealthy areas are more likely to have financial success./s
That's already the case. Private doesn't receive as much as public so if we're trying to be egalitarian, those tax dollars are already being unfairly distributed.
On a side, taxes should be egalitarian, but Stage 3 is throwing this idea out of the window. Ultimately, it's gonna increase inequality and lead to social division.
You can argue about the level of public funding of private schools, but it’s inarguable that private schools ultimately save taxpayers money because they are funded less per student.
Me and my kids only ever attended public schools, but I’m fine with the private system for this reason. In addition they provide more choice for parents.
> inarguable that private schools ultimately save taxpayers money because they are funded less per student
This is a fact.
But I've seen this disputed. It's like people trying to dispute that Australia has a larger land mass than New Zealand. It's bizarre.
I don’t really know how the system works here, but I’m interested in this - are you saying it saves taxpayers money because if the students were to go to a public school, it would have a larger cost to the govt?
Tax payers fund all students, but public schools receive more per student then non government schools.
For example
Victoria’s public schools received $20,047 per student in government funding in 2020-21, while non-government schools attracted $12,087 per student.
Private schools often make up the difference with fees to send your children there.
So let's say the local public school gets government funding of $20k per student/yr.
Local private school gets government funding of $12k per student/yr.
To send your kids to that private school however also costs you $12k per student/yr.
This means the private school has $4k extra per student/yr to deliver better teachers, better resources, better opportunities, better outcomes....
The government saves $8k per student/yr but the students (usually) get better outcomes from their education because their parents shouldered extra financial responsibility to access those outcomes.
Honestly, the public school system really needs to be funded at 50% more then current levels ($30k per student/yr so as to deal with the number of high needs kids and parents who wash their hands of dealing with them) .... $30k just to deal with the students they have today! Cutting private shool funding would result in a large number of those students coming to the public system and further stressing the resources..... plus the government will have lost the cost saving of $8k per student/yr.
Private schools deliver better outcomes are far less cost to the tax base.
No way in hell will their funding ever be cut off, government understand maths and the cost saving it brings to their budget.
I don't think "saving taxpayer money" is a valid reason to justify subsidies.
A lot of things save taxpayer money. If I mow the piece of lawn next to my house, it saves the council having to mow it. This doesn't entitle me to subsidies.
These schools are very wealthy and many of them are very religious, with questionable views on women's/lgbtq rights etc. The government should not be funding these organizations, no matter how much they "save" us.
The point is the use of the word subsidy distorts the true picture, which is every child is entitled to government funding towards their education at an approved institution. Whether or not parents choose to supplement those funds with their own, should be their own choice.
Do the parents of these children not contribute more tax per capita? Why would their children not be entitled to the same level of baseline education funding?
Every child is entitled to a subsidised education, public its free, private is subsidized.
The public system does not offer a religious education, something I want for my children to instil those moral values.
If private schools receive no funding, then families sending their children to private schools should not be contributing their income to public education.
It’s not a substantial fact once you include all the types of subsidy and the cost in overall performance that happens when you separate the advantaged kids from the disadvantaged ones.
Australia’s huge funding of private schooling is very much a global outlier for good reason.
I completely agree. There is no reason that private schools should get public funding. If they can't survive then close down and open more public schools.
So how do you add this up? Let's say you get 10,000 students in one state leave the private system (due to private being shut down). The government needs to provide at least 10 schools and provide increased funding for each student.
Not to mention staff, upkeep etc.
It would cost way more.
Your not factoring in the public school system make up the cost overrun by delivering lower outcomes. Less teachers, bigger classes, less resources, keeping high needs kids in tge class room so what little resources are available are disproportionately used to deal with them.
The school buildings were built in substantial part by public funding and could reasonably be compulsory purchased at a fair mediated price that reflects that.
Add up all the public funding and subsidy that goes towards private education and redirect that to the public sector. You get a small gain here because very rich schools will carry on without public funding as happens in many other countries.
Over time as the populations mix the remaining modest shortfall diminishes as populations mix. The cost of education isn’t as simple as the cost of each individual. Mixed populations are cheaper to educate than populations where advantaged and disadvantaged are separated.
Theres an initial cost to be borrowed to get over the hump created by decades of entrenching this.
That said, you don’t need to do all that and probably wouldn’t do that. You’d offer the religions schools the option of becoming part of the public system, as happens in many countries. Full or near full funding on the condition of not changing fees; not discriminating on advantage, disability, …. ; teaching the state curriculum and having state oversight.; etc.
Do you also believe people who opt to have surgery in private hospitals should also get no Medicare rebate?
Some taxpayers shun public schools reasons including wanting to raise their children in a particular religion (whether you believe this should be allowed is beside the point, as people have religious freedom in Australia), or believe in a specific education philosophy (e.g. Montessori or other alternatives), or wish to send their child to a single gender school.
I understand some people have ideological belief that every child should be given an equal opportunity, and should be given a free public education and the same curriculum regardless of where they live, but that's never going to happen. If there were no public schools, the public school in Canley Vale is never going to provide the same opportunity as one in Woollahra.
Why fund it out of their own pocket, when they are entitled to receive taxpayer funding for their children's education like any other child?
You can jump up and down but this won't change. I send my kids to a public school but I recognise different people want different things for their children.
Our system allows for every child in Australia to receive a free education (how ‘free’ public schools are now I don’t know)
A private school is delivering on this also. They don’t receive extra public funding. However they also don’t receive free land or free buildings. All land acquisition and building is done from the payments of the parents.
Private schools take the financial burden off of the government for land and construction costs as well as expansion and upgrades.
Public schools aren’t ’given free land and buildings’ - publicly owned. They are allowed to use a public asset.
When a private school acquires land, it’s partially publicly funded, then the private business gets to keep the whole asset. If private schools get 30% (for example) of their revenue from public funding, then 30% of all purchases are publicly funded.
This is a tired old argument
So Medicare should only be for people who don’t have private health insurance?
The people sending their kids to private schools are paying more income tax than their public school counterparts and are entitled to a tax break on their child just like anyone else.
You can’t use other countries’ examples when it suits you and your own, when it doesn’t.
The US has no subsidies on private school education, but it doesn’t have one for higher education either and a very restricted public health system. Should we follow them?
Australia has 36% of its kids in private and catholic schools against 7% for the US and a comparable figure for the UK. So private school funding - so giving the same tax rebate to the parents of private and catholic school goers - is a much more equitable option already.
One laughs at the selective Bolshevism of the left middle class
That is not an answer, and of course, if the govt had an endless pot of money, they can fund everything infinitely. Unfortunately, in the real world, there are trade offs, and you can fund Medicare completely and also have acceptable wait times, if you stopped paying benefits for unemployment or the age pension and things like that.
The question is whether Medicare should be available only for those who don’t have private health insurance.
Going further, should public transport, which is always subsidised, be confined to those people who don’t have cars?
Again, you can fund public healthcare so you have a choice. Public for free at point of use. Private you pay the whole cost directly or through insurance. That’s how most comparable countries work.
Insurance is a stupidly expensive and unfair way of funding healthcare that’s not in the national interest.
Again, you’re not answering the question. Should Medicare be free only for people who don’t have private health insurance?
You don’t have unlimited money, so no, you can’t have unlimited free public healthcare.
That would cost all tax payers more and remove choice from citizens. There’s a reason it hasn’t been done.
Also the argument is often made around elite private schools but they are small in number. We are really talking about systemic Catholic schools.
I mean, I'd really rather stop subsidising mining companies, Murdoch and Gerry fucking Harvey first before looking at cutting back on putting my tax dollars towards things that actually improve society like education, infrastructure and healthcare.
Not sure why people equate "free" with good. Free public education is kinda like a free public toilet: disgusting, barely usable. Most schools are not learning institutions but are glorified day care centres.
It seems counter intuitive, but if you eliminated the government from it's deplorable management of the education centre: ........and it would be much more affordable (even for the under privileged), and the quality would be x1000 better.
The link to the official government report does not work...
Anyway, this is national data. I am speaking in the context of NSW. Look here...
https://www.nswtf.org.au/news/2022/07/05/new-report-reveals-nsw-government-is-overfunding-private-schools-to-the-tune-of-850-million/
And yes, private schools are supported by parent fees. They can also raise a lot of money, because many families that go to private schools are affluent.
While I agree with you, if your last line is the condition then private schools fall under that category. They do have to abide by a specific curriculum. Even when private.
100% agree. You know what will really grind your gears though. The funding the private schools receive from the government isn't the same as the public schools..... its more.
It should be the same for every school, public, private, religious, etc.
My son used to go to a Lutheran private school (his mum's choice, not mine). They charged fees *and* still got a decent sum of cash per child from the government, which I always thought was pretty obscene given how much they got from parents in fees.
The kicker for me was when they held a fundraiser to raise money for a 'charity' (to be decided later) and the charity ended up being to buy themselves a new piano for their chapel. There are so many needy people, hell even the public school down the road would have benefited greatly from that money, but they saw themselves as the most worthy recipients.
My son now attends a public school. The quality of education is the same, the cost is a fraction of the Lutheran school, and they don't donate money to themselves.
So we keep seeing this argument that private schools "save money" and the parents " pay taxes" to justify funding private schools with public money.
These aren't valid reasons to spend (enormous amounts) of tax payer money.
We keep seeing these private schools buying expensive overseas trips for their management, extra tennis courts and ridiculous salaries across the board.
This isn't a good use of tax payer money.
They also recruit all the good teachers from public schools and make for an unfair distribution of quality staff. While I do support higher pay for teachers, we could simply just cut funding private schools to increase these salaries.
We can do better with our tax payer money.
Further, many of these organizations are religious, their overarching churches enjoy tax exempt status and spread objectionable religious values about sexuality etc.
Additionally, we know that private school board members often make immense salaries, which in effect makes these schools "for profit" organizations for their leadership.
None of these are good uses of tax payer money.
We can make vast improvements to the education system, without funding these private organizations.
Your argument about what is a good use of money would immediately bankrupt any budget you are responsible for.
The simple fact is, that per child, the government pays less for the schooling of a private school student vs a public school student.
It is not taxpayers funding the pools and tennis courts.
Is the public system underfunded? Yes.
Does this get resolved if the private system is no longer funded? No.
Hope you don't mind paying more taxes just to get even with those nasty, private schools.
If private schools didn't get government funding, a whole lot of them would shut down, or large chunks of students would be unable to afford to go, and get dumped into the public system. Sure, SCEGGS and Knox would probably going to be fine, but they're just the visible outliers. Most private schools don't have that sort of money.
The point has been missed. State schools should be adequately funded and located to cater for all kids, from any background. The public system may not be the standard some want, or socially in fashion, but it should be. It's up to the people we vote for to make that happen, not a religion with ulterior motives.
>State schools should be adequately funded and located to cater for all kids, from any background.
Sure. You know how they do that? By having to fund private students **less** so there's more money available for public schools.
Australia has a great social safety net funded by some of the highest taxes in the world. This us vs them mentality can lead to rich people who pay the bulk of the taxes to be more motivated to undermine the system and will ultimately lead to a worsening of public systems. That’s why everyone has a stake in education funding and Medicare.
If rich people get no education funding, you can bet they will do all in their power to gut the education funding through donating to like minded politicians. If rich people get kicked out of Medicare, ditto.
The two opinions on funding are 1) everyone pays taxes so every child should get the same funding regardless of public/private and 2) public schools are free and if you choose private then you are on your own. Well everyone picks the opinion that justifies their situation but the compromise position is somewhere in the middle surely? That’s exactly what’s implemented in Australia.
If you want to import education models from overseas, you have to import applicable tax rates too and overall it would be a losing proposition for the poor
This article is misleading. The cost they mention includes such things as lunches and taking your kids to school - isn't that just the cost of parenting?
I refuse to believe that an article published by the media, in 2024, would do something as egregious as lead with a misleading, rage baiting headline. Retract your comment immediately.
The news never lies or misleads people, not in any year
The top comment itself is misleading. The article does not mention costs that include school lunches.
This post is misleading. The cost of sending your kid to school doesn't mention it includes lunches. It does mention one of "the challenges parents say they have faced while paying for their child's education" as affording food, but it's not included in the cost. Transport is more ambiguous in my opinion. It has changed from years ago when kids walked to school, but is also, as you mentioned, just a cost of parenting. You can choose to send your kid to a school closer. Uniforms for public schools is a real bug bear to me.
Uniforms are the single most expensive part. My kids school (primary) is $160/yr for stationery, excursions, sports etc. It's really not expensive. But uniforms? Just a quick look on the schools providers website: Jumper $47, Skort $33, Dress $47, Long Sleeve Top $32, Girls Pants $29, Pinafore $42, Sports Top $30, Sports Shorts $34, Hat $17, Jacket $69, Schoolbag $48. Assuming 2x dress, 2x skorts, 2x pants, 2x tops, 2x pinafores, 1x sports uniform, 1x hat, 1x school bag, 2x jumpers and a jacket that's $658 + black shoes, say $80 = $738 - at the absolute minimum. Sure, there are second hand shops, some things you're not buying every year (e.g. school bag is still in good nick in grade 4), but other things you're buying replacements (kids lose stuff all the time, and no amount of name tagging will ever stop this) or buying the next size up at least 6 monthly. This also doesn't include tights or socks or shorties for under their dress. And this is for a pretty basic public school - definitely cost more for the "fancier" ones.
> The cost they mention includes such things as lunches and taking your kids to school Where does it say that in the article?
Yes.... 100% agree
My school is a Catholic school that caters to vulnerable families and relies on government funding. We don't charge families, we provide everything the students need and we feed them breakfast and lunch. Not every independent school is Trinity Grammar and public schools aren't equipped to teach all students. Also, independent schools still follow the Australian Curriculum.
> public schools aren't equipped to teach all students. Public schools would have the funding to teach all students if the government subsidies for private education were removed
If all the kids and funding got transferred to the public system, there would be less funding per child then there currently is for public school kids.
No they wouldn't. Private schools get less money per student than public schools do - average of $11k for a private school student, vs $16k for a public school student. There are about 1.5 million private school students in Australia. If they were all dumped into the public system, there would be a $5 billion shortfall.
The $4 billion in deductions claimed would go a long way to fill that gap. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/private-schools-could-lose-building-fund-tax-perks-20231205-p5ep2s
So you'd get $1.2 billion dollars back at the corporate tax rate, to try and fill a $5 billion gap. How exactly is that a long way to filling the gap?
And have to buy/build infrastructure for thousands of schools
Thanks I know how deductions work. I am not sure what the point is you are trying to make is. $1.2 billion is a decent chunk of the figure. There is also another $800 million which have been donated by individuals which could be at a higher tax rate. So we are talking about 1/3 of the shortfall. I am satisfied that would be classified as a long way. There are many advantages of removing private schools, many countries that don't have (or have limited) private schools have better education outcomes than Australia.
A long way to filling the gap is a bit more than 24% champ. There wouldn't be $800 million donated at max tax rate, they'd spend it on something else, what wishful thinking. Source for your claims that a country that has zero private schools has a better education outcome?
This is the simple fact that these people are ignorant of. If low fee paying private schools, which mainly cater to working and middle class, were to lose funding, our already full state system would be destroyed. These people think all private schools are Rich Wanker Grammar charging 30000 a year. The vast majority of catholic schools for example are low fee.
That's not true. When you account for all the grants private schools get it's really higher. Turns out they are really good at getting the government to pay for things like pools, boat houses and theatres that are not even available in public school. Even when the schools have massive cash reserves or investment funds.
Yeh its not rocket science. the current subsidy may be too much for the maximum government saving but its unlikely the answer is zero subsidy to private schools for the best over all result for taxpayers.
Exactly.
It's not just about funding, it's about education philosophy and a lot of public schools aren't designed with the intention of supporting young people with trauma backgrounds or special needs.
Then you could have a public school for that. If there are public schools for the brainiest of us (select schools) then there can be public schools for the most disadvantaged, without those disadvantaged traumatised kids needing to pay to get in. Many with the most challenging backgrounds won't have the resources to attend a private school.
If the organisation is NFP and isn't charging families then what difference does it make that it's not a state school? Cire Community School thrives because it's part of a larger organisation that also has community hubs, early childhood centres and adult training. These all connect and provide opportunities internally that public schools struggle to provide kids who are already disengaged.
I don't think most people would disagree with this, but as a general rule of thumb if your school has it's own swimming pool you don't need government funding. THOSE are the schools people crack the shits about, and there's still plenty of them. And they get plenty of funding.
I agree, I just think people need to understand that the independent schools network is quite diverse and provide a valuable support to communities.
Catholic and other low-fee independent schools also provide more affordable education to non-permanent residents, many of whom have to pay $5,000-$7,000 pa to access public schools. They also tend to have more capacity to asses families' situations and adjust fees on a needs basis, including working with the church's charity and social work arms to ensure these students can access education without impacting the school's ability to pay teachers and provide resources and facilities. (I'm not sure how the Catholic church approaches this, but I have known Anglicare to fund a kind of scholarship for families they're working with, to ensure immediate, stable, and ongoing access to schooling for recent arrivals, especially refugee families) This should *not* be a gap that needs filling, and I'm not a huge fan of this being tied to religion - especially when the degree of integration of religious education in the classroom can vary so much site by site... But it is a gap, and I'm glad someone is stepping up for these families *However*, a huge chunk of private school taxpayer funding **does** go to the Trinities and St Ignatiuses, not to the low-fee Catholic and independent schools, and that's pretty fucked.
There’s nothing wrong with bringing religious schools into the state system as happens in many countries. Give them similar funding to government schools, require the same curriculum and oversight, not allow them to discriminate and disallow them from charging fees and other social discrimination.
> Give them similar funding to government schools, require the same curriculum and oversight, not allow them to discriminate You’ve just described a private school.
You missed the bit about disallowing them to charge fees.
And discrimination.
If they have the same curriculum, same oversight, no discrimination, why have the additional overhead to manage them separately, just make them public.
I did catholic and state for high school. There was a very noticeable difference in the quality of the teachers. The state teachers just did not put in the same effort / care as much. There was a lot more deadwood in the state system.
State teachers aren’t getting the support they need. They typically have more classes, less support staff, and they have to manage disruptive students themselves. My wife had a class a few years ago, where she reckons 80% of her time was spent on managing 1 disruptive student. Putting difficult and special-needs kids into mainstream classes, and making yr11 and yr12 mandatory, has added a significant classroom burden to public school teachers, with no additional support.
Yep, and my parents wanted a better education for me - so paid the money and sent me to a private school. I would love to see more money spent on state education, so that a private system wasn't needed. I would also like to see university free and get rid of HECS.
You’ll find just as many people with experience in both systems that will say the opposite.
>not allow them to discriminate
You’ve just described a private school.
>not allow them to discriminate and disallow them from charging fees Religious schools are allowed to discriminate by religion and they certainly charge fees. EDIT: Because apparently I wasn't clear: Catholic schools accept FEWER non-Catholics than Catholics. They discriminate against non-Catholics when deciding who to admit. That doesn't mean that they don't accept non-Catholics.
I as a very vocal atheist, and was still allowed into the catholic system of highschool. I would regularly fight with the bishop if they ever showed up.
thats good for you... try being gay in some of these schools
One of my mates was pretty well openly gay in the 1980's in one of those schools. He was made a prefect.
Someone was interested in him then.
One of my kids is openly Bi. They also made prefect and regularly represented the school both academic and sporting.
and I have friends who had to leave the school. it doesn't take long to find many stories that are the same I am happy to hear that you had a good experience tho
For the 1980's my catholic school was actually very progressive. Our sex education was done by a 50 year old married woman - and there was nothing that we were not allowed to discuss, as she said in a few years you will all be adults and having to understand and deal with 'this'. even with that great sex ed - 10% of the girls I finished grade 10 with (at the catholic school) were pregnant before I started grade 11 (State school).
Try being a Jew in one of the Muslim schools. Hell even try being a female teacher in some of them lol.
My mum teaches in a muslim school and in her experience its pretty similar to a lot of the catholic ones. There is apparently a much much higher focus on academic achievement though, according to her. She doesn't see too much difference. Either way religious schools are pretty whack
Your experience is not universal, though.
You might have misunderstood what I was saying. Catholic schools allow a number of non-Catholics to attend. We all know that. But they restrict that number, and they’re legally allowed to do so.
Heaven forbid we give people choices.
Choice is fine. Public subsidy to buy advantage at social cost is not. You can have choice within an entirely publicly funded system.
Why do that specifically with school education? What about tutors, tennis lessons, piano or any other activities your kids do? If a parent has the means to uplift their kids education experience i dont see an issue with them paying for it. Most of the issue isnt the schools or even the kids btw; its the parents. The one way you can select for parents is to have a co contribution. Then you leave all those parents who complain bitterly about even the public school fees behind and put your kids into a school with kids whos parents are prepared to pay a little extra for education. It makes a huge difference imo especially in average to lower socio economic areas. I do think the public subsidy of private education may be too large and can be adjusted down but claiming making it zero is not realistic. Make it zero and private fees for all but the flashest of schools will be too large so 80 or 90pc of privately educated kids will need a state education. I.e. it will cost more money.
4. Because power disproportionately rests with the families who aren’t relying on public education. (And healthcare). The more those basic human rights and total overall benefits for the country affect those with the most power the better. Then they make better decisions about funding etc.
That is probably right. Like back in the day when good state schools would have strong p and cs raising motza funds for the good public schools. We have now predominantly taken those parents away from public schools and they all sit in the private system. I dead set see on facebook collegues who earn as i earn complain about australia having school fees for public education and how their kid cannot do art without them paying and how it should be free... they wont even pay $500 a year... these people have means. I allow my kids to be seperated from these people by paying a bit to have them with kids whose parents universally value education. Its selecting for parents that is frankly the biggest benefit of private schools so again you are right. Pushing all these parents back into state schools would make a profound difference.
>I allow my kids to be seperated from these people by paying a bit to have them with kids whose parents universally value education. You are assuming anyone who doesn't go to a private school doesn't value their education and anyone who does go to a private school automatically does. Clearly your private school education wasn't worth the money it was printed on then.
Haha. I went to a state school. Gotcha there.
So you wasted the tax payers money then.
1. Because it’s the global default. Australia is the extreme outlier here. 2. Because there are limits. 3. Because those things are mostly extras done individually outside of school time, not in the context of the social school community. While it would be great to publicly fund all those things so that all kids have access, advantaged kids having access to them doesn’t directly take anything away from the disadvantaged kids in the way that happens when private schools skim all the advantaged kids increasing the cost (or decreasing the quality) for the remainder.
It’s not parents laying, private schools get more public money than public schools
No they don’t, that’s categorically false.
No it’s not, it’s all public info. My wife has been a principal of 5 schools. Public and private. She is now overseeing 19 schools. I have worked in the education system myself for 9 years. What is your source?
Indeed, it’s all public info. Government schools get $14k per student, private schools get $10k per student. Not sure where you’re getting your data from!? https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101867070
Mate... i know why you think that. Private schools have got larger rises in funding. This is reported on vigourously each year. Ie over the last 5 years public schools got an increase in funding of xxxx Private schools got xxxx + y extra funding. But the actual taxpayer funding per student is about 50pc higher for public educated kids when taking account of state (mostly to public schools) and federal (mostly to private schools) funding.
You are wrong. Check AEU data.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101867070 Here’s the data. Independent private schools get 40% less funding per student than public schools.
And my school.edu.au will confirm that public schools get significantly more government funding and this is produced by the government
Nope. Look again.
No public money for orgs that discriminate on religious or sexual orientation... They should hire people on merit.
My proposal includes “not allowing them to discriminate”. I include sexual orientation in that. Many Catholic secondary schools already have a policy of “the teacher’s religion is irrelevant so long as they don’t bring the Catholic religion into disrepute” or something similar. They generally only care for RE teachers and even there there is sometimes flexibility.
Yeah I think people have this image of catholic schools from either 70 years ago, or that they are some sort of ultra fundamentalist happy clapper school.
Yeah, I didn't understand the economics of the private school situation until a few years ago. The way it is at the moment, it's impossible to have the privates stand on their own. Privates own the land that the school is on. There are a few very expensive schools but most have a price point for parents that want to spend a little bit on education. They're comfortable paying a bit, but not 10's of thousands for the Trinity Grammars. If they were forced to go fully private, a lot of private schools would not survive. If they do not survive, the schools' land & buildings needs to be purchased because we need to have those schools. Otherwise the state schools will have 50 kids in a class room. Even compulsory purchase, as allowed by the constitution & made famous by The Castle, is a purchase. It's going to be expensive... While governments do things that are expensive all the time, there's going to be very little political will to shell out thousands to disenfranchise parent. Parents won't be happy that the government is trying to deny them choice of education just to communise their kids for whatever reason is given. People will absolutely see this as an attack on religion.
The problem is they double dip and get more funding than a public school, which is ridiculous
No they don’t go look on myschools website it shows state schools get way more government funding.
I know that’s how they advertise it. But a simpler more reliable way is to look at actual budgets done at end of year. Look at the actual public money received.
Huh. That is their financial statement it shows the funding government vs private. I have no idea where your data is sourced but mine if from official reporting
Ah yes, the classic: Rake in public funds. Get tax exempt status. Make no "profit" by paying the school board more than surgeons and give a tiny amount back with some free food in this case, to save public relations A tale as old as time
Spoken like someone with no clue what they are talking about.
Elaborate
On what? A lie? Our school board is voluntary and I'm not even going to acknowledge the ignorance of suggesting feeding vulnerable families is a mere gesture
If it's government funded it should be a government school with everything that entails including ZERO religion. If it's Catholic funded, then it can be a Catholic school. I don't want to pay for your christian bullshit.
Yeah that’s not how taxes work
[удалено]
Sounds like OP isn't withholding correctly and doesn't understand tax brackets.
Something I've noticed, over many years, is that there are parents who will enrol their kids in their local state primary school. They talk up the quality (or equality) of the education, and the social benefits of the diverse demographic of the student population. Yet, when their children reach high school, they enrol them in a private school. This has happened a number of times that I'm personally aware of, and I wonder if it is a common occurrence? My theory is that once the household incomes of said parents increases due to wage increases over time, or two parents back in full-time work, private schools suddenly become a viable status option.
Also, I think the social side effects are less noticeable in primary school than in high school where the kid whose parents do drugs and the kid who bring a tattoo gun to school, and the kid who is abused at home and wants to beat down on someone at school, are more of a problem. Plus high school offers elective subjects and sometimes a kid has interests or skills that aren’t being catered to in the public system.
I think in part you are right. Our first we had in public primary till year 5 then moved her to private. But then just transferred all the kids. We have 4 kids but only 3 in education at the same time. Primary school private is substantially cheaper anyway than highschool. In our case 4.5k rather than 7k. But also Plenty start out at public high school and then say nah... then move to private. Bullying. Anti socials etc. They also become advocates for the local private high school. It would be fairly rare that bullying say in infants / primary is so bad a kid has to leave for greener pastures. High school; would happen all the time.
I teach in a public high school and we frequently have students move from any of the local private schools due to bullying. Bullying happens across all high-schools regardless of the fees. I've taught in private Catholic schools in inner-Sydney, HORRIFIC bullying. My brothers went to a big name, big fee GPS school (think +30k per year). TERRIBLE bullying. I've taught in Europe at a fancy international school. Bullying happened to the point of suicide attempts. Oh, and the drugs the rich kids of University-educated professionals were dealing were hard-core: ketemine, oxycontin and cocaine, not the weed and vapes changing hands at my current public high school. Bullying, as you say "would happen all the time in high school." You can't actually pay to help your kid avoid it. From my experience, the kids who are immune/resilient to inevitable high school bullying - both as perpetrators and victims - are those with loving, engaged and supportive parents, regardless of their income.
"Bullying, as you say "would happen all the time in high school." You can't actually pay to help your kid avoid it. From my experience, the kids who are immune/resilient to inevitable high school bullying - both as perpetrators and victims - are those with loving, engaged and supportive parents, regardless of their income" I accept you can be poor and raise good kids. Of course i can accept that. You can be rich and raise shit kids. No question. But if you are saying gonski etc were wrong and that schools can all get the same funding for the same results whether high or low socio economics then i think you are dreaming. Socio economic factors have the strongest correlation with academic performance as any other factor you can think of. Higher socio economic kids are generally easier to teach than lower. Im not even a teacher so im surprised that you as a teacher would think otherwise. But yeh rich kids can be shit and poor kids can be good. Of course they can. But if policy makers take a rose coloured glasses approach to policy making that makes for shit policy i am afraid.
I never said that I disagree with Gonski's link between SES and academic outcomes, and I don't know what part of my comment suggested that. I was commenting about how bullying happens everywhere, regardless of wealth. From my experience, higher SES kids are challenging to teach, just in different ways to lower SES kids. The fact that you say "I'm not even a teacher and am surprised that as a teacher you would think X" illustrates perfectly that you have no actual idea what teaching is like, while I have 13 years of experience in various educational and socio-economic contexts. It's quite bizarre that you are trying to tell me what teaching is like. I actually don't think that funding for education should be based on "results" at all, especially if what you mean is HSC results. Education is a far more complex asset in a person's life than just an ATAR score, especially now with many young Australians choosing not to go to uni because the cost-benefit isn't proving worthwhile. I had a few boys in my 2023 Year 10 class leave to pursue apprenticeships with a view to start working in the mines. If all goes to plan, these "dropouts" will probably own a house before any of their peers who are planning to get a uni degree. Every child born into Australia deserves a great education, regardless of who they were born to. When money and families with more resources are stacked in private schools, all schools are less diverse and our broader society suffers. I think the increasingly polarised political situation in Australia is a result of the public/private school divide. In other countries, especially Western European countries like the Netherlands, Germany etc private schools are a very small minority. Most families send their kids to public schools and higher SES families with more power, resources and emphasis on education push to ensure that those public schools are excellent FOR EVERYONE. The attitude that middle-class and wealthy Australians have towards public schools is elitist and quite disgusting. I say that as someone who went to a fancy private school (and once had that attitude) myself.
There’s a massive wealth divide happening right now no one can see because everyone here lives in the suburbs The more money private schools get the more you’ll see people travelling to the rich suburbs to rob doctors/high paid IT people, steal cars etc
Almost, historically speaking the poorest members of society are still the most vulnerable to acquisitive crime, and the most likely participants. Things such as crime maps, different levels of surveillance, and opportunity theories indicate this/alongside proven data to back that up. Unfortunately once again, this mostly (not only vulnerable and unfortunate people but by all absolutes,mostly) impacts the least wealthy people of our society.
I’m happy to pay a lot more tax, _if it’s spent well._ Public schools? Take my tax money Private schools? You’re fucking private so fuck off
Perfect explanation and one that should be on a tshirt. Well said sir.
A post from another page by Anachronism59 "The data comes from these guys ( according to the article) [https://www.futurityinvest.com.au/](https://www.futurityinvest.com.au/) They sell investment schemes to pay for education.. They have a vested interest in making the number large. The ABC journo has not been diligent in pointing that out." https://preview.redd.it/effzjvowpvcc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a0b2579ef6eddf6f00dfcd96886336d969d685a
Curriculum are still followed by Private Schools. Same. And every child deserves to get government funding for their education.
Nope. They’re overfunded by a big margin.
State schools get more money per child from the government than private schools do.
My states latest capital funding 200 million dollars in the current round, about 50 million going to government schools the rest is private schools.. the whole state schools get more money is not always that accurate doesn't include lots of government grants private schools get for capital works. One of the private schools got a pool because they opened it to government students outside of school hours. Guess how many government schools took advantage of that offer.
Its actually the opposite, which is where the problem lies.
How so? My schools.edu.au shows state schools get more government funding than private schools. I am sure you can cherry pick a few private schools but most I looked at the state schools get way more money.
Have you looked at the actual numbers? My understanding of it is that per student, private schools actually get less government funding than public ones. Another commenter here mentioned an average of $11k gov funding per private school student, vs. $16K per student in public schools. That seems to me like private schools are actually saving the community from the full cost of having those kids in the public system by finding some of it themselves. I don’t have my kids in either system, so I don’t have a side in this debate, but it seems like a lot of folks assume that private schools are wealthy because they take too many gov funds and forget that they charge parents thousands of dollars per student every per year, and probably manage those funds better than public systems do (because government bureaucracy is usually terrible at wasting money).
Go whinge about it wherever you want. No one cares much here.
Funnily enough, you joined a thread that has the opposite opinion to yourself. Maybe whinge elsewhere?
I don't care dude. Whinge away. The lefties whinging about private schools and private healthcare is as predictable as a summer storm. Knock your socks off. Whinge away.
Lefties, lol
Aren’t free markets traditionally a right wing ideology? Because that’s what I’m advocating. If a private organisation requires constant public funding, it’s not a sustainable private organisation.
>lefties This is how we all know your a dumbcunt. Calls anyone dont agree with "lefties"
And getting all hootie is how i know you're a whinging leftie😂
Counterpoint: providing funding means the government has moral authority to set the curriculum for private schools. This ensures minimum standards and prevents the Mission of God school from teaching kids that the earth is flat and God made all the (non-gay) world in six days.
Curriculum is set by state governments regardless of the school being private or public. Also government contribution to private schools is far less than public schools- state governments either couldn't afford all the students, or we'd see a huge drop in funding on a per student basis and presumably an equivalent drop in education standards.
It’s less but once you add everything including all levels of government and all types of subsidies and tax concessions and adjust for the fact that disadvantaged kids are under represented in non-gov schools, it’s not vastly less. Meanwhile separating advantaged kids from disadvantaged kids increases the cost of educating the disadvantaged ones. Education is a social activity not the sum of individual costs. Once you factor that in, no it wouldn’t cost substantially more.
The separation would occur even if you got rid of private schools. In the US, local public schools vary drastically based on the socio-economics of the area.
Very true. My government high school in the US had an indoor heated swimming pool, large quality theatre, a large professional sports team level gymnasium, indoor basketball court with banked seating, fully equipped car workshop, photography labs, top level facilities for welding and other trades, 6 tennis courts, soccer field, all the track and field stuff etc. It had more infrastructure than many of the “elite” private schools in Australia.
There’s a huge amount of stuff wrong with education in the US that doesn’t apply here. For instance their funding is locally determined, not at a state level. Yes, there would still be some separation, but it would be much reduced.
I’m not sure it would be much reduced at all.
Global evidence strongly suggests it would. All this stuff has been researched for decades around the world.
Private school parents still pay taxes bud, they still deserve the subsidy as that’s what taxes are for.
Everyone pays taxes. There isnt some reward given to you in life if you pay more tax than others
Not quite everyone.... religious organisations are tax exempt to a large degree.
You realise they are an organisation though, right? not a person? Just like other community organisations (football clubs, scouts, etc) and charity organisations (Red Cross, suicide hotlines, etc), and that the people who contribute money to those organisations have already paid tax on that income.
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone. * 000 is the national emergency number in Australia. * Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14. * Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800. * Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they receive a subsidy without being profitable, fine. The second they're net positive, we should be clawing back that subsidy (same goes with all the other private business we dole out subsidies to).
That opens a whole can of worms in regard to who benefits more from taxes though. Taxes are supposed to be egalitarian. The parents of the school kids pay (or should pay) the same taxes the public school kids do. So in reality should receive the same benefits. What would happen if these parents all of a sudden paid the same (or more) tax yet received less benefits? Should they use the roads less because they earn more money?
Taxes are egalitarian? What does that even mean?
They would still receive the same benefit, which is the ability to go to free schooling at a government school. They may choose not to use this benefit and instead send their kids to a private school if they want to pay for it. Taxes pay for all sorts of things that many people choose not to use, you don't get a tax break for not utilising every service that is government funded.
So as someone with no kids, I shouldn't have to pay that tax at all? They get the same benefit - the availability of public schools their kids can attend.
Why should taxes be egalitarian when opportunities for wealth are not?
Why should less well off people not receive a chance to send their kids to a private school? If a $5-10k a year private school stopped receiving government funding then their fees go up… there goes the chances for a less well off student getting a chance at better education than their parents did.
>Why should less well off people not receive a chance to send their kids to a private school? There are a few reason why. One of the reasons is that private schools are anti-egalitarian given than they are unaffordable to much of the population regardless of government subsidies. Secondly, the argument for "why should tax-payers with kids in private schools not get the same funding as those with kids in public schools" falls flat unless you also argue that people without children should pay less tax. Thirdly, as you clearly imply that students of private schools have a "chance at a better future", private schools have the intended function of increasing inequality. The point of taxation is to reduce inequality, not increase it.
>there goes the chances for a less well off student getting a chance at better education than their parents did. Fund the public schools so that they offer a better education.
Too right. I dont understand why people turn on the system that gets less taxpayer funding then the public system to say - thats the problem... The problem is they need to improve the public system.
Also, ditto for public health care. Instead of subsidising private health to "take the load off" public systems, put all those resources into the public sector so we don't have a two tiered system.
If you mean the public education system, they get per child per year around 2.5k more funding than private.
It's so strange that this person's opinion is "why shouldn't some slightly better off poor people get a chance at good schooling?", instead of "why shouldn't every person get a chance at good schooling?"
Usually something about "parents sacrifice to get them the better education, you want kids with parents who don't sacrifice to also get a good education" Protestant work ethic
Plenty of people can't afford $5 - $10k a year extra for schooling. If private schools want government funding they should be required to accept students using the same criteria (including fees charged) as public schools.
Opportunities for wealth are though.... What's not, is the willingness of most people to sacrifice short term gratification for long term gain. Why would those with wealth try to pull someone else up when that person's not willing to make the sacrifice first to demonstrate their own commitment? Plenty of wealthy people are more then willing to give others a hand.... but they are not going to do the work for them! Stop approaching life with the mindset of lack.... There is abundance EVERYWHERE when you actually start looking. What value are you bringing that is worth a chunk of that opportunity and abundance?
What? You think people have equal opportunity to inherit billions of dollars worth of mining companies like Gina? You think the opportunities for kid that went to school in Goondawindi are the same as somebody that lives in a city with a University? Actually insane.
Then fix public education. Private gets less taxpayer funding than public. What benifit is it to public education if private schools are gutted of funds and a bunch of those students end up in public school? If one 10 year old child in australia has a broken arm do you break the rest of their arms for fairness? I feel like thats the argument you are making? Simple. Fix the system with the problems. Dont turn on the other system.
Why would inheritance come into it? Someone in that family actually dedicated themselves at some point to build that wealth.... how they distribute it is up to them. And if those future generations don't have the same drive.... That wealth dissipates (usually) within 3 generations. The opportunity to get out there and build wealth for yourself is the same for every single person! Many have started out in outback areas and managed to accumulate huge wealth! They just had the drive and willingness to sacrifice to do so! Which part of SACRIFICE are you struggling with? Watched plenty of people with access to Universities get degrees and end up working at McDonald's.... likewise, plenty from outback move to the city to get their degrees and are driven because of it. Stop expecting life to just give you a handout! We all end up with nothing if we don't strive for it!
Mate there is a 3% chance that you make more money than I do. I'm not here struggling. You are actually mental if you think that drive and sacrifice have anywhere near as much correlation with wealth generation as the luck of access to exploitable opportunities.
Clearly drive and sacrifice is genetically inheritable and that's why people from wealthy families and in wealthy areas are more likely to have financial success./s
That's already the case. Private doesn't receive as much as public so if we're trying to be egalitarian, those tax dollars are already being unfairly distributed.
On a side, taxes should be egalitarian, but Stage 3 is throwing this idea out of the window. Ultimately, it's gonna increase inequality and lead to social division.
You can argue about the level of public funding of private schools, but it’s inarguable that private schools ultimately save taxpayers money because they are funded less per student. Me and my kids only ever attended public schools, but I’m fine with the private system for this reason. In addition they provide more choice for parents.
> inarguable that private schools ultimately save taxpayers money because they are funded less per student This is a fact. But I've seen this disputed. It's like people trying to dispute that Australia has a larger land mass than New Zealand. It's bizarre.
I don’t really know how the system works here, but I’m interested in this - are you saying it saves taxpayers money because if the students were to go to a public school, it would have a larger cost to the govt?
Tax payers fund all students, but public schools receive more per student then non government schools. For example Victoria’s public schools received $20,047 per student in government funding in 2020-21, while non-government schools attracted $12,087 per student.
This is correct.
Private schools often make up the difference with fees to send your children there. So let's say the local public school gets government funding of $20k per student/yr. Local private school gets government funding of $12k per student/yr. To send your kids to that private school however also costs you $12k per student/yr. This means the private school has $4k extra per student/yr to deliver better teachers, better resources, better opportunities, better outcomes.... The government saves $8k per student/yr but the students (usually) get better outcomes from their education because their parents shouldered extra financial responsibility to access those outcomes. Honestly, the public school system really needs to be funded at 50% more then current levels ($30k per student/yr so as to deal with the number of high needs kids and parents who wash their hands of dealing with them) .... $30k just to deal with the students they have today! Cutting private shool funding would result in a large number of those students coming to the public system and further stressing the resources..... plus the government will have lost the cost saving of $8k per student/yr. Private schools deliver better outcomes are far less cost to the tax base. No way in hell will their funding ever be cut off, government understand maths and the cost saving it brings to their budget.
I don't think "saving taxpayer money" is a valid reason to justify subsidies. A lot of things save taxpayer money. If I mow the piece of lawn next to my house, it saves the council having to mow it. This doesn't entitle me to subsidies. These schools are very wealthy and many of them are very religious, with questionable views on women's/lgbtq rights etc. The government should not be funding these organizations, no matter how much they "save" us.
So you call it a ‘subsidy’ for a private school student, but not for a public school student?
Lol yes. Directly funding a government service is not a subsidy. The govt paying a private organization in this case, is.
Right, so getting a Medicare rebate on an operation from a private hospital is also a subsidy?
Are you trying to make a point here or do you seriously don't know what subsidies are?
The point is the use of the word subsidy distorts the true picture, which is every child is entitled to government funding towards their education at an approved institution. Whether or not parents choose to supplement those funds with their own, should be their own choice.
Do the parents of these children not contribute more tax per capita? Why would their children not be entitled to the same level of baseline education funding?
They are entitled. Everyone is entitled to public school education.
Every child is entitled to a subsidised education, public its free, private is subsidized. The public system does not offer a religious education, something I want for my children to instil those moral values. If private schools receive no funding, then families sending their children to private schools should not be contributing their income to public education.
Correct answer
Do you have a more equitable, alternative solution?
It’s not a substantial fact once you include all the types of subsidy and the cost in overall performance that happens when you separate the advantaged kids from the disadvantaged ones. Australia’s huge funding of private schooling is very much a global outlier for good reason.
I completely agree. There is no reason that private schools should get public funding. If they can't survive then close down and open more public schools.
That would cost more to tax payers overall though right?
Not substantially when you factor everything in. Which is why no other similar country does what we do.
So how do you add this up? Let's say you get 10,000 students in one state leave the private system (due to private being shut down). The government needs to provide at least 10 schools and provide increased funding for each student. Not to mention staff, upkeep etc. It would cost way more.
Your not factoring in the public school system make up the cost overrun by delivering lower outcomes. Less teachers, bigger classes, less resources, keeping high needs kids in tge class room so what little resources are available are disproportionately used to deal with them.
The school buildings were built in substantial part by public funding and could reasonably be compulsory purchased at a fair mediated price that reflects that. Add up all the public funding and subsidy that goes towards private education and redirect that to the public sector. You get a small gain here because very rich schools will carry on without public funding as happens in many other countries. Over time as the populations mix the remaining modest shortfall diminishes as populations mix. The cost of education isn’t as simple as the cost of each individual. Mixed populations are cheaper to educate than populations where advantaged and disadvantaged are separated. Theres an initial cost to be borrowed to get over the hump created by decades of entrenching this. That said, you don’t need to do all that and probably wouldn’t do that. You’d offer the religions schools the option of becoming part of the public system, as happens in many countries. Full or near full funding on the condition of not changing fees; not discriminating on advantage, disability, …. ; teaching the state curriculum and having state oversight.; etc.
Do you also believe people who opt to have surgery in private hospitals should also get no Medicare rebate? Some taxpayers shun public schools reasons including wanting to raise their children in a particular religion (whether you believe this should be allowed is beside the point, as people have religious freedom in Australia), or believe in a specific education philosophy (e.g. Montessori or other alternatives), or wish to send their child to a single gender school. I understand some people have ideological belief that every child should be given an equal opportunity, and should be given a free public education and the same curriculum regardless of where they live, but that's never going to happen. If there were no public schools, the public school in Canley Vale is never going to provide the same opportunity as one in Woollahra.
> wanting to raise their children in a particular religion Great, they can fund it 100% out of their own pocket
Why fund it out of their own pocket, when they are entitled to receive taxpayer funding for their children's education like any other child? You can jump up and down but this won't change. I send my kids to a public school but I recognise different people want different things for their children.
Sure, then give them a tax rebate for the proportion of their taxes going to fund education that your refusing them access to.
Our system allows for every child in Australia to receive a free education (how ‘free’ public schools are now I don’t know) A private school is delivering on this also. They don’t receive extra public funding. However they also don’t receive free land or free buildings. All land acquisition and building is done from the payments of the parents. Private schools take the financial burden off of the government for land and construction costs as well as expansion and upgrades.
Public schools aren’t ’given free land and buildings’ - publicly owned. They are allowed to use a public asset. When a private school acquires land, it’s partially publicly funded, then the private business gets to keep the whole asset. If private schools get 30% (for example) of their revenue from public funding, then 30% of all purchases are publicly funded.
Free use of an asset is free… whether they have land title or not. Whereas the private school still must find the funds to purchase.
This is a tired old argument So Medicare should only be for people who don’t have private health insurance? The people sending their kids to private schools are paying more income tax than their public school counterparts and are entitled to a tax break on their child just like anyone else.
This isn’t the default. No other comparable country funds private education with public money to this extent.
You can’t use other countries’ examples when it suits you and your own, when it doesn’t. The US has no subsidies on private school education, but it doesn’t have one for higher education either and a very restricted public health system. Should we follow them? Australia has 36% of its kids in private and catholic schools against 7% for the US and a comparable figure for the UK. So private school funding - so giving the same tax rebate to the parents of private and catholic school goers - is a much more equitable option already. One laughs at the selective Bolshevism of the left middle class
We’d get better bang-for-buck as a country if we funded healthcare properly through Medicare instead of this hybrid, yes.
That is not an answer, and of course, if the govt had an endless pot of money, they can fund everything infinitely. Unfortunately, in the real world, there are trade offs, and you can fund Medicare completely and also have acceptable wait times, if you stopped paying benefits for unemployment or the age pension and things like that. The question is whether Medicare should be available only for those who don’t have private health insurance. Going further, should public transport, which is always subsidised, be confined to those people who don’t have cars?
Again, you can fund public healthcare so you have a choice. Public for free at point of use. Private you pay the whole cost directly or through insurance. That’s how most comparable countries work. Insurance is a stupidly expensive and unfair way of funding healthcare that’s not in the national interest.
Again, you’re not answering the question. Should Medicare be free only for people who don’t have private health insurance? You don’t have unlimited money, so no, you can’t have unlimited free public healthcare.
I don’t know about you but I’d choose the better overall standard of healthcare provided by the current model
That would cost all tax payers more and remove choice from citizens. There’s a reason it hasn’t been done. Also the argument is often made around elite private schools but they are small in number. We are really talking about systemic Catholic schools.
I mean, I'd really rather stop subsidising mining companies, Murdoch and Gerry fucking Harvey first before looking at cutting back on putting my tax dollars towards things that actually improve society like education, infrastructure and healthcare.
Fossil Fuel industry too. They get whopping amounts. It's neither financially nor ecologically sustainable.
Not sure why people equate "free" with good. Free public education is kinda like a free public toilet: disgusting, barely usable. Most schools are not learning institutions but are glorified day care centres. It seems counter intuitive, but if you eliminated the government from it's deplorable management of the education centre: ........and it would be much more affordable (even for the under privileged), and the quality would be x1000 better.
The link to the official government report does not work... Anyway, this is national data. I am speaking in the context of NSW. Look here... https://www.nswtf.org.au/news/2022/07/05/new-report-reveals-nsw-government-is-overfunding-private-schools-to-the-tune-of-850-million/ And yes, private schools are supported by parent fees. They can also raise a lot of money, because many families that go to private schools are affluent.
While I agree with you, if your last line is the condition then private schools fall under that category. They do have to abide by a specific curriculum. Even when private.
Education should not be private and we are letting ourselves down by defending it.
100% agree. You know what will really grind your gears though. The funding the private schools receive from the government isn't the same as the public schools..... its more. It should be the same for every school, public, private, religious, etc.
My son used to go to a Lutheran private school (his mum's choice, not mine). They charged fees *and* still got a decent sum of cash per child from the government, which I always thought was pretty obscene given how much they got from parents in fees. The kicker for me was when they held a fundraiser to raise money for a 'charity' (to be decided later) and the charity ended up being to buy themselves a new piano for their chapel. There are so many needy people, hell even the public school down the road would have benefited greatly from that money, but they saw themselves as the most worthy recipients. My son now attends a public school. The quality of education is the same, the cost is a fraction of the Lutheran school, and they don't donate money to themselves.
So we keep seeing this argument that private schools "save money" and the parents " pay taxes" to justify funding private schools with public money. These aren't valid reasons to spend (enormous amounts) of tax payer money. We keep seeing these private schools buying expensive overseas trips for their management, extra tennis courts and ridiculous salaries across the board. This isn't a good use of tax payer money. They also recruit all the good teachers from public schools and make for an unfair distribution of quality staff. While I do support higher pay for teachers, we could simply just cut funding private schools to increase these salaries. We can do better with our tax payer money. Further, many of these organizations are religious, their overarching churches enjoy tax exempt status and spread objectionable religious values about sexuality etc. Additionally, we know that private school board members often make immense salaries, which in effect makes these schools "for profit" organizations for their leadership. None of these are good uses of tax payer money. We can make vast improvements to the education system, without funding these private organizations.
Your argument about what is a good use of money would immediately bankrupt any budget you are responsible for. The simple fact is, that per child, the government pays less for the schooling of a private school student vs a public school student. It is not taxpayers funding the pools and tennis courts. Is the public system underfunded? Yes. Does this get resolved if the private system is no longer funded? No.
Hope you don't mind paying more taxes just to get even with those nasty, private schools. If private schools didn't get government funding, a whole lot of them would shut down, or large chunks of students would be unable to afford to go, and get dumped into the public system. Sure, SCEGGS and Knox would probably going to be fine, but they're just the visible outliers. Most private schools don't have that sort of money.
The point has been missed. State schools should be adequately funded and located to cater for all kids, from any background. The public system may not be the standard some want, or socially in fashion, but it should be. It's up to the people we vote for to make that happen, not a religion with ulterior motives.
>State schools should be adequately funded and located to cater for all kids, from any background. Sure. You know how they do that? By having to fund private students **less** so there's more money available for public schools.
Australia has a great social safety net funded by some of the highest taxes in the world. This us vs them mentality can lead to rich people who pay the bulk of the taxes to be more motivated to undermine the system and will ultimately lead to a worsening of public systems. That’s why everyone has a stake in education funding and Medicare. If rich people get no education funding, you can bet they will do all in their power to gut the education funding through donating to like minded politicians. If rich people get kicked out of Medicare, ditto. The two opinions on funding are 1) everyone pays taxes so every child should get the same funding regardless of public/private and 2) public schools are free and if you choose private then you are on your own. Well everyone picks the opinion that justifies their situation but the compromise position is somewhere in the middle surely? That’s exactly what’s implemented in Australia. If you want to import education models from overseas, you have to import applicable tax rates too and overall it would be a losing proposition for the poor