No. If your school turns a profit you get nothing. No more corporate welfare
Comment on Australian public school funding falls behind private schools as states fail to meet targets
lordriffington@aussie.zone 1 year ago
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 1 year ago
Nath@aussie.zone 1 year ago
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.
UnknownQuantity@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The rich people’s kids are entitled to public education.
If you make education system based on class you’re going to deepen the social divide. This is already happening. People in power will advocate for private schools because that is where their kids go.
abhibeckert@beehaw.org 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 the typical income of the suburbs the school’s students live in (based on imperfect math - since they don’t require parents to tell the school their actual income).
Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 year ago
then a minute later deny them services.
Which services are they being denied?
Nath@aussie.zone 1 year ago
In billytheid’s example, education funding.
stoic_sloth@aussie.zone 1 year ago
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 1 year ago
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.
abhibeckert@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
No I don’t think it’s funding at all. None of the things that make a good school cost much money. Sure, the fancy private schools have nicer uniforms, go on more excursions, had better sports equipment, but none of that has much impact.
The stuff that really has an impact is allowing the school to choose its students. For example if a kid threatens to kill a teacher in a public school, they are politely told “don’t do that” and… that’s it. There’s basically nothing else the school can do. Not a hypothetical example by the way, it’s a real one. In a study a few years ago, 99.6 per cent of Queensland public school teachers claimed to have “experienced workplace bullying” and most of them were bullied by students. I know lots of teachers, and they back that up with their personal experience.
In a private school - those students are kicked out. That’s a real consequence and the result is the bullying doesn’t happen in the first place.
If basically every teacher has been bullied, that means every student is being bullied as well. I don’t want my kid to go through that shit if at all possible. Which is why I prefer a private school. Not because they have better funding, but because they can choose their students.
stoic_sloth@aussie.zone 1 year ago
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 1 year ago
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.
UnknownQuantity@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There is a public school system available to everyone. If people want to send their kids to private schools, they have every right to, but should be prepared to cover 100% of the expenses without any aid from the government.
Nath@aussie.zone 1 year ago
That sounds like it should be the case, but it isn’t. The Catholic schools alone account for something like 20% of the Australian student population. If just those schools weren’t there, our existing education system would collapse. Like it or not, we all rely on the presence of independant schools in our community.
This argument has been made before. In 1962, it lead to six Catholic schools to Goulburn to go on strike. The influx of 5,000 students on the public schools in the area demonstrated that independant schools save taxpayers money. Go have a read about it: …org.au/…/goulburn-catholic-school-strike
Imagine that on a national scale. And again, that’s just the Catholics. There is not capacity in the public system for every student in Australia. Not by a long shot.
UnknownQuantity@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’ll just leave you with some numbers. Here are school numbers (government, catholic, independent…). Please note the vast difference in number of government schools VS the rest. shorturl.at/tEPT6 (acara.edu.au)
Here is how much funding the education department provides this year: 10.6B for 6600 public schools and 16.4B for ~3000 of the rest. shorturl.at/bFH89 (education.gov.au)
All we need to do is fund public schools. Given the fact that Australia has a secular government and the catholic church pays no taxes, while still receiving taxpayer funded handouts it’s only fair.
Nath@aussie.zone 1 year ago
This has been quite the rabbit hole, thanks for sharing. I’ve learned more about how much fundung the Federal government provides for government schools (for the students at my kids’ school, it’s about $2.5k per kid per year).
Are you following topic under discussion? The headline summarises the issue, but the crux of it is also with the very link you pasted: “State and territory governments provide most of the public recurrent funding for government schools. The Commonwealth provides most of the public recurrent funding for non-government schools.”
You’ve compared the funding that the federal government provides to government schools to what it provides to independent schools. However, the bulk of government school funding comes from the state governments. Total government funding (state + federal) to public students is a greater than what non-government schools receive. Normally.
Which brings us to the article: Only ACT, SA and WA are meeting or exceeding their fundung targets for 2023. The other states are lagging a little.
I don’t see the solution you’re suggesting. Do you think the federal government should take education off the states? I don’t think that will be a popular policy. I only picked on the Catholic schools because they have so many students. This isn’t a discussion about religion or tax reform. Pretend rather that the Catholic schools are being run by the National David Boon Fan Club. It changes nothing.
Noughmad@programming.dev 1 year ago
How can you consider Catholic schools “independent”?
And the idea isn’t too get rid of those schools, it’s to use the money that usually goes to these schools to fund regular public schools instead.