this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
58 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

64 readers
25 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
58
Australian public school funding falls behind private schools as states fail to meet targets (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 year ago by LineNoise@kbin.social to c/australia@aussie.zone
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Calls for special deal to be struck for NT, which has biggest funding gap between public and private schools

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lordriffington@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm not knowledgeable enough to be able to say whether the burden of funding for schools should be on states or the federal government, though at least with the states holding the majority of the burden it means that federal LNP governments aren't totally fucking up education for everyone.

That said, the only acceptable funding model (regardless of where the money comes from) is a base rate per student no matter what school they're in, then additional funding for public schools only.

[–] billytheid@aussie.zone 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No. If your school turns a profit you get nothing. No more corporate welfare

If your school mandates a religion you get nothing. God Will provide…

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I am ok with the government giving money to private schools. I personally never went to one, and my kids don't either.

But every kid is entitled to $x per year funding. Some parents are rich enough to contribute more above that, but they still entitled to the same government funding that every other kid gets.

You can't on one hand say 'tax the rich', then a minute later deny them services. That would be unfair.

[–] abhibeckert 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But every kid is entitled to $x per year funding

According to the ABC, independent private schools average $10k per year per student and public schools $14k per year.

AFAIK The exact amount a private school gets depends on how affluent the families are estimated to be (estimated by the government - not the school).

The reality is if every kid went to a public school, we'd have to significantly raise taxes to cover the additional cost (we'd also have to open new schools). I'd probably be in favour of that, but not everyone would.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

then a minute later deny them services.

Which services are they being denied?

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In billytheid's example, education funding.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

I don't consider funding a service, but for argument's sake let's pretend it is. Those kids still have access if they attend a public school. Though I suppose that would mean they'd need to mix with the "poors", how terrible for them.

[–] foo@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, they are entitled to funding. At a public school.

[–] stoic_sloth@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People say this, but if we did as you suggest, there would be massive complaints that parents can’t freely choose their public schools due to catchments.

Further, it doesn’t preclude privates from charging extra on top, so you would still have a two tier education system as they private schools can attract the talent and teach only the best/easiest/richest students.

The fundamental issue of education is that if a school can choose its students, it will be a better school.

Our best public schools are basically either selective entry or just “happen” to be in suburbs with rich people or have a large population of Asians.

[–] lordriffington@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, and if parents want their kids to go to the private schools, let the damn parents pay for it. Not the government. The entire point is for the lion's share of government funding to go to schools open to all (or at least all students within a catchment area) and who are bound to adhere to the same rules as every other government-funded school.

Private schools are already charging extra. Let them charge more. The only change is that those parents who do want to send their kids to private school will either have to pay the extra or accept that their kids will have to go to a public school.

The fundamental issue of education is that if a school can choose its students, it will be a better school.

It ultimately comes down to funding. Pretty much all of those 'better' public schools have more money than the others, mostly due to being in higher income areas and having parents who are able to contribute more, give to fundraisers, etc.

[–] stoic_sloth@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Doesn’t matter how logical you are: the net effect is that in the immediate, some kids who could have gone to private schools (with great familial effort) won’t be able to and thus receive a lower quality education.

Will you sacrifice the quality of your kids education for the greater good?

History, cause we have seen all this before, says you won’t.

[–] lordriffington@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Will you sacrifice the quality of your kids education for the greater good?

History, cause we have seen all this before, says you won’t.

Your question implies that I wouldn't believe they could get a good enough education at a public school (which frankly says more about you.) If I were to have another child and needed to send them to school, I would absolutely send them to a public school, even if I could afford the "best" private schools.

So while I reject your assertion that it's as cut and dried as 'private school=better,' the answer is yes. I would.

[–] stoic_sloth@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am not saying that private is always better, but the catchment rules for public mean that your kids might be going to a relatively bad public school just purely due to demographics.

History says that educationally minded parents are unwilling to send their kids to such a school…which further entrenches that schools low performance.

You might be willing to do so, but the aggregate are not.

It’s why this situation is politically fraught: short voting incentives prevent politicians from fixing it as it costs them their voters.

[–] yesterdayshero@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What's the link you're trying to draw between public/private school funding and catchment areas?

[–] stoic_sloth@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s a…weakness in schools drawing from a geographic area.

A school is not just the facilities and the teachers. It’s also the student body, and going to school with kids who care about education is better for education outcomes than a school with people who don’t.

This is why private/selective schools get such outsized results, they pick and choose the “best” students and let the wealthy leach buy their way in.

The effect is that the public schools don’t have this “cream” or the money.

If you want good outcomes. You functionally need to outlaw private schools.

[–] yesterdayshero@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why does any of that mean private schools should get more government funding than public schools?

Based on your argument, private schools should get no funding, because it doesn't improve education.

[–] foo@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

That's a great way to destroy public education.