Government funding for religion based schools

[think positive]

^
So our precious tax revenue should be meted out and then freely given to private institutions. Again if you choose a private alternative over a public one, why do you expect our taxes to pay for that choice? It's just a concocted response to prop up private educational institutions with public money.

People who send their kids to private or semi private school pay taxes too, so they are part of the 'our' in our taxes.

Wokkos idea makes perfect sense, every child should receive equal public funding for education.

What I'd like to see is a better education system full stop, one where all children are safe, given equal opportunities, and access to decent teachers and teaching methods.

I can only speak for my self, but I picked the local catholic school because it was across the road, had 7 foot fences, a strict head master, a good name, and a direct route to the local girls only high school, the only school within cooee of our house with any kind of decent reputation. Religion had nothing to do with it, but it didn't hurt them, they felt free to make up their own minds. One is convicnced it's all a scam, the other is like me, appreciates the values, rather than having a strong belief.

And yet Altona primary school, fully public, is the best primary school around, it's magnificent, and the kids that went there all seem to excel. All schools should be good enough for all kids. Until then, the voucher thing seems fair, with struggling parents still receiving other benefits from welfare support.

[think positive]

They should not do that. They are Private Schools so they should not get Funding.

Only Public Schools should get Funding from the Government

Dave, imagine the following situation :

1. The government takes money from you each month for an NBN.

2. The NBN that it gives you in return does not let you download or access many of the things you care about most. These things are perfectly legal, indeed protected by the constitution.

3. You want to take out a separate subscription with an alternative service and not use the NBN, which saves the government a lot of money.

4. The government says ok, fine, but you have to pay the monthly cost of the NBN (in taxes) AND pay the full price for the alternative, so you are paying twice.

Most people would think that it is reasonable that the government give you back the money you saved it by using the alternative to the government's system..

Now, for the words "NBN" above substitute "state school system" and for alternative service substitute "religious school". That's the issue here.

Nicely put.

[sixpoints]

Australian education will never improve whilst it persists in this notion of trying to spend tax revenue on propping up 3 different systems. Public, Independent and Catholic. That's three bureaucracies, immense wastage of money, nonsensical duplication of services and some notion that competition and choice in education is the basis on which the nation should provide universal education.
Education should be about quality for everyone. Quality and equity. This idea of choice, competition, vouchers, private, public.... it's is all a furphy. It's just wastage. No other nation on earth tries our way of doing this as our way is a waste of time, money and effort. Our results internationally will continue to slide as so many of our kids miss out, as instead of quality we focus on "choice".

So you've got your all important voucher and off you go...look for a school you like. Let's provide and fund an unending amount of choice for you, yeah that's the way to go. Popular schools get more applicants and therefore money, unpopular ones get less, people who can afford to will add private fees to their voucher and go off to Catholic, Anglican schools etc etc. Reputations and differences matter based upon an inequitable system. It's a dogs breakfast that we've been caught up in as a result of publicly funding separate systems of education.

[Mugwump]

I think that parents should be able to choose the best education model for their children, that a competitive education model benefits everyone, that disadvantaged people should have the chance to give their children better education and that Governments shouldn't be forcing people into State education using the power of the purse.

Tax revenue isn't 'meted out', it's given back to the people who had it taken off them in the first place. If public education is so good then people will happily take their vouchers to public schools.

Quite, Wokko. All providers love to eliminate competition, and the state is no exception. It has the extra happiness of being able to eliminate the right of customers not to buy its services. Public education is a great good, but where people use private education for religious reasons, it is not necessary that they should pay twice.

[Mugwump]

Australian education will never improve whilst it persists in this notion of trying to spend tax revenue on propping up 3 different systems. Public, Independent and Catholic. That's three bureaucracies, immense wastage of money, nonsensical duplication of services and some notion that competition and choice in education is the basis on which the nation should provide universal education.
Education should be about quality for everyone. Quality and equity. This idea of choice, competition, vouchers, private, public.... it's is all a furphy. It's just wastage. No other nation on earth tries our way of doing this as our way is a waste of time, money and effort. Our results internationally will continue to slide as so many of our kids miss out, as instead of quality we focus on "choice".

So you've got your all important voucher and off you go...look for a school you like. Let's provide and fund an unending amount of choice for you, yeah that's the way to go. Popular schools get more applicants and therefore money, unpopular ones get less, people who can afford to will add private fees to their voucher and go off to Catholic, Anglican schools etc etc. Reputations and differences matter based upon an inequitable system. It's a dogs breakfast that we've been caught up in as a result of publicly funding separate systems of education.

Monopolies do not duplicate infrastructure, it is true. they make up for that by being incredibly inefficient, inconsiderate of their dragooned customers, and run in the interests of employees.

Infrastructure analogies based on capital assets such as roads (and NBN, which I was using just to try and explain the issue to DTM in terms he might relate to) are not perfect. The government doesn't directly save money when a person does not use common infrastructure such as roads. In service industries, however, where variable costs (wages) predominate, the return to the government is pretty direct. The government does not employ teachers who stand idle, in the way a road would stand idle if not used.

The real argument here is not economic, however ; it is moral and constitutional. Education is a moral matter, and as long as a religious education does not negate the ability of a child to function as an effective citizen or fail to actually educate (e.g. by teaching bogus science, or warped ideology), religious freedom under the constitution is best served by supporting choice within reason.

[sixpoints]

^
You make some good points. However Australia has clearly got itself caught up in this notion that "choice" in Education is worth funding over Universal quality.
The whole notion of 'choice' can only exist if there are inherent differences between schools. Without the differences the idea of choice is irrelevant. It should not matter whether you live rural to urban, rich to poor, western suburbs to eastern suburbs when it comes to schools. They should all be good. But in Australia it very much matters and the Government is actively promoting the differences by funding the different systems.
On every metric used to compare school achievement internationally, Australia is sliding. The nations at the top all fund one universal system based on quality of outcomes and equity for all. In Singapore it doesn't matter where you live, your local school will be a great one. We however prefer to have winners and losers - schools that are popular/unpopular, good/bad reputations, public/private. It is inefficient and wasteful and does not provide the results.
No nation on Earth would choose to copy our education set up as it is inequitable, inefficient and ineffective.
But all the pro-choice ideologues seem to have sway at the moment, so our wasted efforts look like continuing.

[Mugwump]

^
So our precious tax revenue should be meted out and then freely given to private institutions. Again if you choose a private alternative over a public one, why do you expect our taxes to pay for that choice? It's just a concocted response to prop up private educational institutions with public money.

People who send their kids to private or semi private school pay taxes too, so they are part of the 'our' in our taxes.

Wokkos idea makes perfect sense, every child should receive equal public funding for education.

What I'd like to see is a better education system full stop, one where all children are safe, given equal opportunities, and access to decent teachers and teaching methods.

I can only speak for my self, but I picked the local catholic school because it was across the road, had 7 foot fences, a strict head master, a good name, and a direct route to the local girls only high school, the only school within cooee of our house with any kind of decent reputation. Religion had nothing to do with it, but it didn't hurt them, they felt free to make up their own minds. One is convicnced it's all a scam, the other is like me, appreciates the values, rather than having a strong belief.

And yet Altona primary school, fully public, is the best primary school around, it's magnificent, and the kids that went there all seem to excel. All schools should be good enough for all kids. Until then, the voucher thing seems fair, with struggling parents still receiving other benefits from welfare support.

Good post, TP.

[regan is true fullback]

The only problems that conservatives solve by throwing money at them:

The armed forces, private schoolboys and the royal family...

[Mugwump]

^
You make some good points. However Australia has clearly got itself caught up in this notion that "choice" in Education is worth funding over Universal quality.
The whole notion of 'choice' can only exist if there are inherent differences between schools. Without the differences the idea of choice is irrelevant. It should not matter whether you live rural to urban, rich to poor, western suburbs to eastern suburbs when it comes to schools. They should all be good. But in Australia it very much matters and the Government is actively promoting the differences by funding the different systems.
On every metric used to compare school achievement internationally, Australia is sliding. The nations at the top all fund one universal system based on quality of outcomes and equity for all. In Singapore it doesn't matter where you live, your local school will be a great one. We however prefer to have winners and losers - schools that are popular/unpopular, good/bad reputations, public/private. It is inefficient and wasteful and does not provide the results.
No nation on Earth would choose to copy our education set up as it is inequitable, inefficient and ineffective.
But all the pro-choice ideologues seem to have sway at the moment, so our wasted efforts look like continuing.

Well, we can certainly all agree that a universally brilliant state education system, making private education redundant, would be great. Unfortunately, I don't think many of us would expect that to emerge even if all private schools were closed next week. Our public services, sadly, are always going to be struggling while they have to cope with the consequences of our chaotic and very disrespectful culture.

[sixpoints]

^
Again you make good points.
Yet IMHO aiming for a quality universal education system should be our aim. Damn if other nations can...why can't we?
But I also know that if the government persists in funding separate education systems then we will NEVER reach that goal.

[Mugwump]

^ fair enough, sixpoints. I just doubt that it's primarily about money, and even if it was, then I think abolishing private education would actually drain money out of the education system as a whole, and increase the funding burden on state schools. There would be other benefits, I accept, such as keeping the more motivated parents and kids in the state system.

[watt price tully]

All children regardless of parental income should be entitled to a quality education
All people regardless of income should be entitled to quality health-care
All people regardless of income should be entitled to decent affordable housing.

If we deal with education then money needs to be put into public education. In the last 30-40 years or so public money has gone to pay for private facilities. This is also true in health.

If you want private then go ahead & pay for it but not at the expense of public education which is what has been occurring for too many years.

[Mugwump]

All children regardless of parental income should be entitled to a quality education
All people regardless of income should be entitled to quality health-care
All people regardless of income should be entitled to decent affordable housing.

If we deal with education then money needs to be put into public education. In the last 30-40 years or so public money has gone to pay for private facilities. This is also true in health.

If you want private then go ahead & pay for it but not at the expense of public education which is what has been occurring for too many years.

As far as I am aware, people who educate their children privately, even under the present arrangements, reduce the cost to the state of their own children's education, and thus increase the overall pot of money available for state education. So I do not see the logic of this argument.

On rights, it sounds very high-minded, however I do not think these things are "rights". Health care, education, and housing are goods which must be created by the work of others ; other human beings in a society who work and accept responsibilities. Someone who refuses to contribute to creating those, for instance by refusing to work, or committing serious crime, or routinely injecting themselves with drugs that make them incapable, does not have the same entitlement to these as someone who contributes.

I should say that certain rights are inalienable (such as liberty within the law, including free speech, a fair trial, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, etc).....but the things you list are social welfare, not rights. Good in themselves, but not independent of contribution. Governments love to describe welfare as rights, for fairly obvious reasons. All organizations tend to wish to enlarge themselves, and none more so than the one organization which can conscript its customers.

[watt price tully]

All children regardless of parental income should be entitled to a quality education
All people regardless of income should be entitled to quality health-care
All people regardless of income should be entitled to decent affordable housing.

If we deal with education then money needs to be put into public education. In the last 30-40 years or so public money has gone to pay for private facilities. This is also true in health.

If you want private then go ahead & pay for it but not at the expense of public education which is what has been occurring for too many years.

As far as I am aware, people who educate their children privately, even under the present arrangements, reduce the cost to the state of their own children's education, and thus increase the overall pot of money available for state education. So I do not see the logic of this argument.

On rights, it sounds very high-minded, however I do not think these things are "rights". Health care, education, and housing are goods which must be created by the work of others ; other human beings in a society who work and accept responsibilities. Someone who refuses to contribute to creating those, for instance by refusing to work, or committing serious crime, or routinely injecting themselves with drugs that make them incapable, does not have the same entitlement to these as someone who contributes.

I should say that certain rights are inalienable (such as liberty within the law, including free speech, a fair trial, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, etc).....but the things you list are social welfare, not rights. Good in themselves, but not independent of contribution. Governments love to describe welfare as rights, for fairly obvious reasons. All organizations tend to wish to enlarge themselves, and none more so than the one organization which can conscript its customers.

Exactly wrong Mugwump.

[Mugwump]

I saw what you did there.

More government spending will fix all ills, natch. There is nothing wrong that cannot be resolved by more taxes, more regulations, more government employees, more government monopoly built on forced taxation and the extinction of alternatives by making those who resist the force of the state pay twice. It's a proven recipe for success.