School funding (1 Viewer)

[Enlightened_One]

I suppose it does suggest that at first glance. But looking at results I can't say the results are really any better at private schools. All they get is the facilities and the funds public schools don't get.

 

[hyperbole]

The government should definently not spend more fees on selective schools such as Sydney Girls or Sydney Boys. There are so many students that attend non-selective schools that are extremely hardworking and extremely bright. They may have chosen not to attend the selective school because they lived too far away. I agree with enlightened_one, are you trying to deprive non-selective schools of resources? How is that going to help anyone?

 

[Enlightened_One]

Originally posted by hyperbole
I agree with enlightened_one, are you trying to deprive non-selective schools of resources? How is that going to help anyone?

Exactly. And you are right, the nearest selective school to me was a few hours bus ride away.....I knew someone who went (he lived a little closer than I) and reckoned it was just too much travel.... And if he could get into a selective school, then I could breeze in (and probably straight out with my bludging) and therefore the kids aren't nothing special.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

Another issue also about the selective schools.... there are lots of bright kids out in the country areas of NSW who couldn't attend a selective... should they be deprived of resources just because they live in a rural area?

Anyway, back to the private/public issues..... those really really rich schools, like Knox PLC etc shouldn't get government funding... however I can understand why some smaller privates need funding. But funding should be needs-assessed.... I see private schools out here getting funding for expensive performing arts centres when my school has a hall which is actually a gym which can only just squeeze the student population in, and only when we were packed in like sardines.... not to mention our teacher shortages, resource shortages, etc.

 

[stainmepink]

ABSOLUTELY! GO SELECTIVE!

its stupid to fund schools based on the richness of kids... its should be based on the smartness of the kids. schools like ruse and syd girls should get the most money as they are our most valuable intellectual capitals in this country.

invest in the good ones is the only logical choice for a country.

 

[Xayma]

ABSOLUTELY! GO SELECTIVE!

It's a pity that people with your intelligence can get into selective schools. Many people learnt long ago that typing in all capitals doesn't make it very readable. But also that the last post in this discussion was 8 months ago, with the issue dead.

 

[leetom]

Tony Conabere, principal of Knox until his recent retirement. He did some great things, such as abolishing the P&C.

 

[sped_kid01]

ahhh, i couldnt be bothered to read through all of these threds, so i'll just say what i want to say:

the STATE government funds STATE (public schools)...

the ads you see on television, are the budget that the FEDERAL government gives to both private and public schools...NOT the STATE...

the state government is supposed to be the main source of cash flow for public schools

so the ads on tv, arent accurate, as they do not account for state funding, only federal

i went 2 an independant school, so im not taking sides

 

[Generator]

the ads you see on television, are the budget that the FEDERAL government gives to both private and public schools...NOT the STATE...

The federal government funds each and every school (as do the states), it's just that the federal government deals with the non-public sector directly (and the states offer support on the side) and the states distribute federal government funding throughout the public sector. It isn't a clear case of one or the other. Nobody appears to be disputing that in general the public sector schools are marginally better off from GOVERNMENT funding, but the funding figures do not seem to take account of school fees and other incoming cash flows, do they? Shouldn't we consider school funding in its entirety, and not just the level of government support?

The government should, and does, support each and every school, but it has no role in promoting social division through the 'subsidisation' of elitism and exclusivity. The problem is in finding a balance that enables each and every school (public or not) to provide a well-resourced teaching/learning environment... A difficult task.

Besides, it's an old issue/thread (but fun). Anyone interested should search for the Labor's education policy thread... Many arguments (for better or worse) have already been debated.

 

[Korn]

Now I know this a touchy topic. We have both private and public school students here, so be nice everyone. Keep on topic and don't go personal, and don't take nothing personal.
I was at Knox on Sunday and it made me pretty bloody angry. Our school has been screaming out for new buildings, we can barely cope with capacity, and down at Knox they had a swimming pool, a diving pool, a lecture hall, buildings that looked to be worth more than my house and other luxuries. And there were even people who didn't know what a demountable was.

Well, what do you all think of the school funding scheme.

Do you think it fair that private school kids, who's parents choose to send them to a non government school, still recieve government funding.

Well, here is something to think about, there is an increasing number of ppl who want to send their kids to private of Catholic Schools, so why should they pay tax that is used for education when it isnt used for their own childrens education, this is why Catholic schools and Private Schools (not sure about private but) receive govt funding.
Also u have to consider that private schools also get more money from students then public schools, so this is a factor in why they have better facilities.

 

[Xayma]

That post is nearly a year old. In any case, your logic is flawed. Why should those without kids pay for education?

 

[Korn]

That post is nearly a year old. In any case, your logic is flawed. Why should those without kids pay for education?

I never said that those without kids should pay for education, however what i said about why Catholic schools get govt funded is true, the parents of students at Catholic schools had a massive protest about it, so the govt changed it

 

[Enlightened_One]

A basic mandate of this nation is to provide a free education for our children. That's why public schools are there. Everyone has to pay for them because they are like the police force. They are provided by the government for the public. A free and equal education is a premise of a free nation.
Private schools are built outside the government mandate by people who don't want to use the government provided facilities. That's their right but it's also their responsibilty to pay for it. If those kids want government funding they should attend a government school.

Or shall we revert back to the times when only the wealthy could afford to send their kids to school.

Public eduaction provides equality regardless of a person's background.

 

[Xayma]

All kids attending government schools would destroy the structure, I think that was one of the first acts of rebellion against user pay all in the catholic school system.

Generally public school students get greater funding then the private school counterparts.

 

[Enlightened_One]

How would that destroy the structure? The government system is there to educate the public free and equally.

And as such, since it's provided by the government it should be funded by the government. Since the government provides free education (a basic human right according to the UN) then they should only fund the public sector. If someone sees themselves as too good for public schools then they should pay their own expenses.

 

[llamalope]

well... I've been to a public school, a selective school, a private school and a performing arts independant school... and personally I can't say that one deserves funds over the other, because all of them had good facilities. even the public school in ballina.

But I would just like to say, in defence of the private schools... people whinge about how private schools have better facilities, pools, gymnasiums etc. most of those are actually funded through school fees, fundraisers, donations and the like. and i KNOW this because i now work at my independant school.

but I am not saying that they deserve more funding from the government

 

[2sense]

The government should raise funding for public schools because the public schools need more funding. The private schools can just increase their school feesto increase funding.

 

[firehose]

The writing's on the wall. The Howard Government should stop sending more funds to those exclusive private schools and redirect it to much, much more needy public schools and fledging private schools. Funds would be so much more invaluable just for, say, air-conditioning at a public school than, say, even more manicured lawns and gardens at a private. But Howard's policy is heading the opposite direction, the direction that will create a two-tier Australian education system.

 

[Generator]

adamjmurphy, this was on the first page (30 posts per page):

sure in terms of school fees, maybe exclusive. but have to remember that not everyone that attends one of these "exclusive" schools is rich or bursting with wealth.

well then why are thery going...from snob value ...so they can tell their relations

If a parent is struggling to meet the costs, then why bother? Surely there is a cheaper non-government school nearby, or they could always dance with the enemy and consider the public system if they believe that the local comprehensive high is suitable (apart from the snob/network value, that is).

 

[Generator]

By that I meant that for me 30 posts are shown per page... I didn't know at the time whether they were on the first or second page of a 15 posts per page screen (I could have checked, but I didn't bother).

If it's a choice, then fine, but I can see no reason for such people to cry whenever a policy option supposedly suggests that fees may raise when other more affordable (and worthwhile, I would assume) options exist. By all means make the sacrifice, but is there any real point in going beyond your means?