[colliric]

One practical reason is that it would be anti-enterprising. It would be penalising success and rewarding inefficiency so in other words the worse a school performs financially the more funding it would get.

Regardless of what a school can raise in private funding the Govt funding should be based on per head of students being educated, full stop. The amount of private funding is irrelevant.

I look at this two ways being Govt funding to private schools is a tax payer's due entitlement to receive education funding for their children and / or the Govt paying a fee per student for services rendered. A much of a muchness.

lol, I never thought of it like that... you're right some already serially underperforming schools would end up "tanking for draft picks" as they say in the AFL! It would only be a matter of time before some one at some backwater school fudged the numbers and abused/exploited the system(as has happened in the AFL).

[Notorious B.i.G.]

It would be penalising success and rewarding inefficiency so in other words the worse a school performs financially the more funding it would get.

lol, I never thought of it like that... you're right some already serially underperforming schools would end up "tanking for draft picks" as they say in the AFL! It would only be a matter of time before some one at some backwater school fudged the numbers and abused/exploited the system(as has happened in the AFL).

Not really. If funding was provided not on academic achievement but by a Socio Economic Status (SES) score (which it currently is) then this is not an issue (which it isn't an issue).

[colliric]

Not really. If funding was provided not on academic achievement but by a Socio Economic Status (SES) score (which it currently is) then this is not an issue (which it isn't an issue).

Not really, that would invite inventive accountants to fudge the numbers on the finances(kind of like Carlton did in the AFL to stay "within the salary cap"), or would encourage some financially troubled schools under the funding threshold to remain there rather than take that "extra step" to financial independance from Government funding. In other words it would encourage some schools to "deal under the table" and others to let development standards on their facilities to slip, which with the state Victoria's curent construction industry would actually be very attractive to some schools at least in this state(who would want to plan new construction/refurbishment projects in this state when shit like Lonsdale Street is dominating the news?).

It only works currently because there's currently no cap(so schools like my ole BGS can still get some public funding). Put a cap on it, and these issues will rear their ugly heads one day. I recon under that system it wouldn't be long before lower "elite schools" like BGS slipped under the funding threashold(it's well known they're punching above their weight at that school for years, it's not what it once was... they really do need some public funding to keep their current major development projects on budget and schedule), their hidden financial issues are legion as is their recent public image as an educational institution, thanks to too many very public "Paedofile" incidents and at least one well known suicide incident. I would think there's many "elite" schools in their position too.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

I’m not sure why you keep likening this to the AFL, it is nothing like the AFL, with respect to draft picks or salary caps.

Not really, that would invite inventive accountants to fudge the numbers on the finances.

I’m not sure you understand. How are schools going to fudge the SES score

It only works currently because there's currently no cap(so schools like my ole BGS can still get some public funding). Put a cap on it, and these issues will rear their ugly heads one day.

I don’t think cap is quite the right word, but there is certainly federal funding limits to each school

I recon under that system it wouldn't be long before lower "elite schools" like BGS slipped under the funding threashold

Again, doesn’t work like that.

Non-government schools receive a recurrent cost from the federal government in respect to funding. The relevant Ministerial Council for primary and secondary education determines an average funding per student amount (the average recurrent cost). This is loosely based on the recurrent cost per student provided by state governments for public schools.
This average recurrent cost is distributed to independent schools based on an SES score. The SES score essential applies the proportion funding the school received of the average recurrent cost. The SES score is based on the combined average SES of the communities in which each student’s home is situated. This SES score is determined by an independent statistical body separate from the schools themselves. The only way a school could ‘fudge’ it’s SES score is to enrol more low-SES students. In which case they have a right to an increase in funding.
So if St Kevins decided to enrol a majority of its students from low-SES communities, it would receive a greater portion of funding per student, to offset the fact that those students family cannot afford the fees.

So GtG looks like there is a forms of means testing already in place.
The average recurrent cost per student from federal funding is lower than that for state schools. This is for a number of factors, of which one example is superannuation. State schools pay for teacher super out of state government funding, where as private schools cannot, therefore do not need the extra funding.
The new funding arrangement announced by the government will increase the average recurrent cost per student to bring it in line with its state counterpart.
This is why, as I said in my first post, I don’t have an issue with this. Every student is entitled to the same funding, be it public or independent school. Just not every student gets the same funding.

[Swagman]

If funding was provided not on academic achievement but by a Socio Economic Status (SES) score (which it currently is) then this is not an issue (which it isn't an issue).

If this is the case why are the resident socialists carrying on like pork chops.....?

[Notorious B.i.G.]

If this is the case why are the resident socialists carrying on like pork chops.....?

Perhaps an ideological belief that education funding should only be provided to public institutions and that education should be free unless chosen by an individual to pay for such a service.

[Exuro]

One practical reason is that it would be anti-enterprising. It would be penalising success and rewarding inefficiency so in other words the worse a school performs financially the more funding it would get.

It's not about a school's profit-margin; it's about not rewarding schools who jack up their fees to keep the lower classes out and maintain an exclusive clientele of rich elites.

I look at this two ways being Govt funding to private schools is a tax payer's due entitlement to receive education funding for their children and / or the Govt paying a fee per student for services rendered. A much of a muchness.

For some reason you're acting oblivious to the class-discrimination factor.

And like I said: everyone gets education funding, it's just that some choose not to use it.

[Swagman]

Perhaps an ideological belief that education funding should only be provided to public institutions and that education should be free unless chosen by an individual to pay for such a service.

And like I said: everyone gets education funding, it's just that some choose not to use it

These beliefs just might have an inkling of credence if one could also 'choose' whether to pay tax or not...

For some reason you're acting oblivious to the class-discrimination factor.

That's because I don't believe in 'class'.

[Exuro]

These beliefs just might have an inkling of credence if one could also 'choose' whether to pay tax or not...

Not sure what point you're trying to make, here. Do you think that rich taxpayers who opt out of public services in favour of private should not have to pay the percentage of their taxes that goes towards said services?

I don't believe in 'class'.

How convenient for you.

[GandalfTheGrey]

That's because I don't believe in 'class'.

the elite schools that you defend so vigorously certainly do.

[Swagman]

That's because I don't believe in 'class'.

the elite schools that you defend so vigorously certainly do.

These socalled 'elite' schools simply offer a product for which there is a level of demand for and the demand determines its price.......not some bone headed notion of "class".

I don't so much vigorously defend them, but the the individual tax payers' rights to get a return for their tax dollars.

[GandalfTheGrey]

These socalled 'elite' schools simply offer a product for which there is a level of demand for and the demand determines its price.......not some bone headed notion of "class".

sooo... you're saying a certain "type" of people can afford it, while another "type" cannot..

please enlighten me swag, if the above is not a definition of class (bone headed or not), what is?

And by the way, your idea of "level of demand" in this case merely means that the members of that class are themselves determined to maintain the class distinction.

[Swagman]

sooo... you're saying a certain "type" of people can afford it, while another "type" cannot..

Didn't mention "types", that is your view.

please enlighten me swag, if the above is not a definition of class (bone headed or not), what is?

I already mentioned that "I don't believe in 'class'". I may as well define the Easter Bunny.

And by the way, your idea of "level of demand" in this case merely means that the members of that class are themselves determined to maintain the class distinction.

"Level of demand" simply means what it says. Individuals regardless of their mythical class have their own reasons for buying or not buying.

[foxdemon]

Probably because as an Australian thread, I’d hazard a guess that Australian’s here are not familiar with European funding for education institutes.

Australia is isolated and thus many Australians are ignorant. Ok, so here is some info to help people get up to speed:

http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates ... -overview/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland

Education in Finland is an egalitarian system, with no tuition fees and with free meals served to full-time students.

.....

Schools up to university level are almost exclusively funded and administered by municipalities of Finland (local government). There are few private schools. The founding of a new private comprehensive school requires a political decision by the Council of State. When founded, private schools are given a state grant comparable to that given to a municipal school of the same size. However, even in private schools, the use of tuition fees is strictly prohibited, and selective admission is prohibited, as well: private schools must admit all its pupils on the same basis as the corresponding municipal school. In addition, private schools are required to give their students all the social entitlements that are offered to the students of municipal schools. Because of this, existing private schools are mostly faith-based or Steiner schools, which are comprehensive by definition.

The best preforming education system in the world is predominately pulbic with free fees for all levels of education. It seems fee universities help reinforce basic education by making avaliable well educated teachers. And no fees for the few private schools that exist.

Interesting how things can be differnet, isn't it?

"foxdemon"Furthermore no comment about the status old students gain from private schools. No serious attempt has been put forward to debunk that issue because there is no argument against it.

There is no serious attempt to debunk because it is not a serious argument. It's a complete fallacy. You seem to think it’s a problem, and I can only guess because you have a chip on your shoulder about private schools for some reason.

Are you for real? Since I attended Grammar schools, I think I would know about this. It seems this matter hasn't been discussed due to ingorance. Old boy networks encourage cronyism. They reinforce class priviledge. They divide the nation into rulers and the ruled.


Many European friends of mine have commented on the Australian delusion of egalitarianism. They do not observe egalitarianism in Australia, but rather class division. Yet, to they disbelief, the privileged Australians maintain a myth of the egalitarian nation. European nations are more egalitarian than Australia. Why do we maintain this myth?

[GandalfTheGrey]

Why do we maintain this myth?

good question. Certainly it had propaganda value for the Howard government, who rammed the myth down our throats ad-nauseum.

The myth essentially arose from Australian folklore, most notably through the "bush legend" that was promoted for nationalistic reasons by the likes of AB Patterson and Henry Lawson on the eve of federation. I have researched this particular literature, and it is evident that behind the "egalitarian" fanfare is actually a subtle acknowledgement and endorsement of the class status quo. For example Patterson's 'On Kiley's Run' romanticises the supposed harmony between workers and masters, but does not attempt to challenge in any way the mere existence of the class hierarchy between these people - and indeed actually serves as a veiled warning to the working classes (who at that time were mobilising politically through a rapidly growing union movement) to be happy with their role of subservience. Many other poems and literary pieces convey the same message - giving the illusion of an "equal" social landscape, without disrupting in any way the economic status quo.

That mythology had its purpose for a specific time and place - namely as part of the campaign to federate the colonies - and maintain class harmony in the process. Why has it persisted even after this campaign had succeeded? I suppose it continues to serve propaganda purposes for governments - especially conservative ones. Traditionally it served to distinguish us from the rigidly classed society of Great Britain when we were trying to find our feet as an independent nation. Critically important too is the fact that the myth transcended into the ANZAC legend, which of course is so important for our nationalist narratives today. The public as well get enjoyment from relating this idyllic narrative of our forefathers and applying it to our current society.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Are you for real? Since I attended Grammar schools, I think I would know about this.

I'm sure you're not the only one here that went to Grammar School, and since when does your personal experience at one school translate to every student that has ever been through a private school.

It seems this matter hasn't been discussed due to ingorance.

It hasn’t been discussed because it is non-existent.

Old boy networks encourage cronyism.

Old Collegian (old boy being Boys only schools, so a term more encompassing) networks are sporting networks. A chance for Collegians to relive the day they were good at sport at school.

They reinforce class priviledge. They divide the nation into rulers and the ruled.

Pure and utter rubbish.

[colliric]

Well they're also the "reunion organization committee"/"Careers Night Organization" in my own experience.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

So the Liberal Government in NSW wants to cut funding from independent schools. $67million I think the article said.
Source: SMH
Not sure how this would affect the average recurrent costs determined by ministerial council, and therefore the aggregate level of Federal funding. But still, interesting move.

[Bounce]

Old Collegian (old boy being Boys only schools, so a term more encompassing) networks are sporting networks. A chance for Collegians to relive the day they were good at sport at school.

They try to be much more than that. I'd also suppose in would be much larger in the elitist male schools such as Scotch, Melbourne Grammar and Geelong Grammar.

Even if you were to deny this, specialised expensive private schools favor wealth over talent. Schools such as these socialize politically connected and wealthy students, who often, end up in the top echelons of political or business organizations.