Australian public school funding falls behind private schools as states fail to meet targets
Australian public school funding falls behind private schools as states fail to meet targets
Calls for special deal to be struck for NT, which has biggest funding gap between public and private schools
Calls for special deal to be struck for NT, which has biggest funding gap between public and private schools
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
There is a public school system available to everyone.
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.
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.
This argument has been made before. In 1962, it lead to six Catholic schools in 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: https://www.robertmenziesinstitute.org.au/on-this-day/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.
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. https://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. https://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.
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.
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.
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.
There are national education standards, so yes, take the state government decisions out of the equation. Say: "provide $x per student, we'll contribute $y per student." we don't need states (or federal govt) increasing contributions to private schools while decreasing it for public schools. I understand that being in opposition you have to contradict just about anything the government says. I also understand that being in government you have to think of not alienating the swing voters. Yes, doing the right thing is not in the nature of governments.
Solution is simple if you're not the government or the opposition. Gradually phase out funding to independent schools, while you set up new ones.
What we need is equal opportunity for every kid. Private schools are the antithesis of that. If your family can afford it, you're getting a leg up, if they can't, well, here's some bootstraps.
Sorry about honing on the catholic schools. You've mentioned them and my partner still has PTSD from her catholic education. I also see no need for religious school funding, especially those run by the biggest child molestation organisation on the planet.
Non government schools aren't entitled to any money from the public.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
Sure, they are entitled to funding. At a public school.
then a minute later deny them services.
Which services are they being denied?
In billytheid's example, education funding.
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.
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.
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.
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, have better sports equipment, etc, but none of that has much impact.
What 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.
The official state school line is they have zero tolerance to bullying, but the reality is very different. The reality is the only real options the school has is to send the kid to another school, which doesn't work because there's often no other school in the catchment area, or send the kid to jail / juvenile detention, which is only an option for extremely serious offences. Bullying doesn't get you sent to juvy (and it shouldn't). All the school can really do is ask the parents to do something - but in reality most parents are far less equipped to deal with behavioural issues than a school teacher.
In a private school - those students are kicked out. That's a real consequence and the result is better behaviour by students.
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'd like my kid to go to a private school. Not because they have better funding, but because they can choose their students.
While there are some expensive private schools, a lot of them (e.g. the one a couple blocks from my home) are very affordable. It's cheaper than sending a kid to childcare for example.
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.
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.
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.)
Yeah - I think that's the key difference between you and most people (like me) who prefer private schools.
I know my local public school. It has a bad reputation among all my friends (many of them are teachers, some have taught at that school). The NAPLAN results show the student education levels are "Well Below" the Australian Standard level. The data over the years show it's falling behind as well - worse every year than the year before.
The local private school, on the other hand, scores "Well Above" on NAPLAN. And the tuition fee is only $10 per day.
I would love to not pay $10 per day. And I'm also not particularly keen on the religious shit they'll expose my kid to. But realistically the only two options I'm willing to consider are the private school, or selling my home and buying somewhere else with a better public school. Not keen on moving to be honest.
I'm confused. What does this have to do with funding? Are you saying private schools should have the same amount of funding so it's cheaper for you to send your kid to private school?
Go back a couple replies in the thread - that's what I was referring to with the funding stuff.
I categorically reject the implication that this is a funding issue. It's a quality of education issue and that is largely not impacted by funding.
In fact - I'm pretty sure the funding between a public and typical independent private school is relatively similar. Private schools receive less funding than public schools, and often the difference is pretty close to the tuition fee. Ending up with about the same level of funding per student either way. But even where there is a big gap (e.g. private schools where the tuition fee is higher than my entire salary as a parent) I suspect it doesn't actually result in better student outcomes than if the school had more reasonable funding.
Doesn't this article show that the funding received by private schools is actually more in most cases?
Even if funding was exactly the same, private schools are most definitely providing more per student than public schools. Unless you believe those fees being paid are entirely pocketed by the teachers. Where exactly do you believe those fees are going? Those fees, along with the funding, are going into facilities, equipment and personell that public schools simply can't afford.
Sure, the quality of education isn't entirely based on funding. But to sit here and claim funding doesn't help is a little privileged. Kind of like how people who say money doesn't buy happiness, usually have money. It's easy to say money doesn't improve education, when you have the money.
I still don't see why private schools should be receiving more government funding than public schools though.
Doesn’t this article show that the funding received by private schools is actually more in most cases?
No it doesn't show that - go back and read it again.
The article says that funding is supposed to be an 80/20 split between the two levels of government, with the federal budget covering the lions share of private school funding and state governments covering the lions share of public school funding. It also shows the state governments are mostly failing to provide the level of funding they are supposed to provide, while the federal government is providing exactly the right amount or a little too much.
It shows percentages, not dollar amounts. The dollar amount is different for every school in both private and public systems and the method to calculate how much funding each school is entitled to is complex — for a lot of the funding they are working with estimates, for example if students don't turn up the school gets less funding (and for some schools, less than half the enrolled kids actually attend). It's impossible to know when the budget is set ahead of time what the attendance will be - they guess and they get it wrong all the time.
It's also worth noting that there are actually five sources of funding for schools and this article only covers two of them. Schools receive substantial funding from parents (even public schools usually expect parents to pay thousands of dollars per year on laptops/etc), they receive funding from teachers (83% of teachers in Australia claim they spend some of their own salary on resources - estimated to be close to $200m per year nationwide), and they receive funding from various fundraising efforts the schools undertake throughout the year - from donation drives to renting out school assets/land (e.g. sports facilities and ovals are often rented out on weekends).
Generally, public schools receive more government funding (and probably more teacher funding*) and private schools receive more from other sources. But that's a generalisation and it varies significantly from school to school and year to year.
I think teacher funding is the hero of the five sources of funding - it's the smallest part of the budget but also the most effective one. Teachers know what they need and they find good deals. For example a parent might spend $100 on a single text book for one student. A teacher might get that book for free (donated by a parent?) or very cheap (op shop?) and then illegally pay for a dozen photocopies at officeworks.
Sure, the quality of education isn’t entirely based on funding. But to sit here and claim funding doesn’t help is a little privileged.
I never said funding doesn't help. I just said funding is not the main indicator of student outcomes.
In fact more funding generally means the government has flagged the school as failing to provide an appropriate level of education... and while the extra funding surely helps it's also a simple fact that kids at that school aren't getting what they are entitled to.
If you are deciding which school to send your kid to... then funding shouldn't be the main thing you consider.
So the article shows public schools aren't getting the funding they should be getting (below 100%), while private schools are more than covered (over 100%).
I'm sorry, but the rest of your commentary is really a straw man. You're just trying to shift focus away from public schools not getting their share of funding, while private schools are getting more. And instead saying that funding shouldn't be the deciding factor on which school to send your kid to. No one said that. The fact is, public schools aren't getting the funding that was committed, while private schools are getting more than what was committed. Giving public schools the amount they should be getting doesn't stop you from sending your kid to private school. And it's disappointing to see people trying to excuse it or shift the focus elsewhere.
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.
What's the link you're trying to draw between public/private school funding and catchment areas?
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.
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.
That's a great way to destroy public education.