Government funding for religion based schools

[sixpoints]

As soon as you allow government funding for different education sectors you will get schools and school sectors working not in collaboration, but in competition. Free market, neo-liberals will believe competition cures all ills, but applying it to the provision of a universal eduction system will cause massive inequities, inefficiencies and as is now happening in Australia, a lowering of standards.
Children and families now go through the following right across Australia.
You have a son in upper primary school. I picked a boy, as school enrolment officers are always more wary of boys as they tend to cause the most problematic issues.
You live in a large city with multiple secondary school options - Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc. Your son has a mild learning issue and try as he might, his grades are only average. Sometimes in frustration he can misbehave. You present (with your voucher) to the local private school which is opposite your house. You have an interview and are subsequently declined enrolment. Government funded private schools dont have to take you, even though you live opposite the school. You try three other private schools and all
say no. In desperation you know of a "good" state school in an adjoining suburb, you call them up, but again you are told no, as they are popular and have an enrolment zone.
You must head off to the local state school. It's numbers are low, as those who did get into private schools don't go there. Certainly no one from an adjoining suburb seeks enrolment there either. Every enrolled child tried somewhere else but didn't get in. You will also tend to get more of the students who are expensive to maintain eg those with a disability and those who may have limited English skills. (They always find it hard to get enrolled in selective schools). Morale at the school is low, grades don't compare well to other schools, misbehaviour is higher and naturally the local reputation of the school is poor.
Brilliant new methods of improving maths grades are instituted at that local private school, but the methods are not shared with any other school. That would be helping out the opposition. So innovative and effective curricula, teaching methods and teaching resources are carefully guarded.
That private school also hears that there is one new young dynamo of an English teacher at the struggling state school. They know this as they are constantly on the lookout for the best staff. That teacher is contacted, offered a great contract and leaves the state school for the private one.
All this is happening now.
Schools in open competition for funds, resources, staffing and students.
Many, many Australians in the 21st century receive sub standard schooling as a result. It's a travesty.

[David]

Well said, SP.

[Mugwump]

^ Sixpints argument is an important one, far more valid than the idea that private education drains financial resources from the state system. What it does is drain aspiration and talent from the state system, leaving it with a higher proportion of the children with disciplinary problems and parental indifference.

The trouble I have is that I don't believe a monopoly state system naturally tends toward excellence anyway, and I do not think (on the basis of a goodly sample) that the majority of teachers in the state system are high-quality educators, or politically representative of the community. So I paid for private education.

Let's face it - you have two products, one of which is more-or-less free to the consumer, while the other costs a very large sum of money - say $15,000 a year. They deliver the same notional service via the same curriculum. So how bad does the free product need to be, that people will prefer to use the expensive service in droves ? And if the state provided a high-quality education, isn't it obvious that nearly everyone would use it ? So why not drive up standards in the state system to the point where it is a no-brainer, rather than trying to exterminate its competition ?

[stui magpie]

^ Sixpints argument is an important one, far more valid than the idea that private education drains financial resources from the state system. What it does is drain aspiration and talent from the state system, leaving it with a higher proportion of the children with disciplinary problems and parental indifference.

The trouble I have is that I don't believe a monopoly state system naturally tends toward excellence anyway, and I do not think (on the basis of a goodly sample) that the majority of teachers in the state system are high-quality educators, or politically representative of the community. So I paid for private education.

Let's face it - you have two products, one of which is more-or-less free to the consumer, while the other costs a very large sum of money - say $15,000 a year. They deliver the same notional service via the same curriculum. So how bad does the free product need to be, that people will prefer to use the expensive service in droves ? And if the state provided a high-quality education, isn't it obvious that nearly everyone would use it ? So why not drive up standards in the state system to the point where it is a no-brainer, rather than trying to exterminate its competition ?

A good step towards driving up the standards would be massively reducing the ideologically based interference in teachers

[David]

^ Sixpints argument is an important one, far more valid than the idea that private education drains financial resources from the state system. What it does is drain aspiration and talent from the state system, leaving it with a higher proportion of the children with disciplinary problems and parental indifference.

The trouble I have is that I don't believe a monopoly state system naturally tends toward excellence anyway, and I do not think (on the basis of a goodly sample) that the majority of teachers in the state system are high-quality educators, or politically representative of the community. So I paid for private education.

Let's face it - you have two products, one of which is more-or-less free to the consumer, while the other costs a very large sum of money - say $15,000 a year. They deliver the same notional service via the same curriculum. So how bad does the free product need to be, that people will prefer to use the expensive service in droves ? And if the state provided a high-quality education, isn't it obvious that nearly everyone would use it ? So why not drive up standards in the state system to the point where it is a no-brainer, rather than trying to exterminate its competition ?

Because there's only so much education funding to go around and the private sector is eating up a fair chunk of it?

[Pies4shaw]

Schools are all pointless wastes of time, anyway. They're just glorified child-minding services, valuing conformity over creativity. No-one ever learnt anything important in a school. Kids learn despite - not because of - schools.

[stui magpie]

^

You may just be being sarcastic as usual, but I'll pay that.

[Mugwump]

^ David, the private education system clearly adds to the education resource pool and leaves more government money to be spent on state education. If current private educators do not pay for school fees, do you think they would pay the state more for a state education ? The state remits less than the cost of a state education to the private schools. You are entitled, as they say, to your opinion, but not to your own facts.

There are some good arguments against private education. Resources being subtracted from the state system is not one of them.

[Pies4shaw]

^

You may just be being sarcastic as usual, but I'll pay that.

No, I meant it. Horrible places that ruin lives.

[David]

^ David, the private education system clearly adds to the education resource pool and leaves more government money to be spent on state education. If current private educators do not pay for school fees, do you think they would pay the state more for a state education ? The state remits less than the cost of a state education to the private schools. You are entitled, as they say, to your opinion, but not to your own facts.

There are some good arguments against private education. Resources being subtracted from the state system is not one of them.

Sorry if I'm a little slow on the uptake, but can you break this down for me? By "private educators", do you mean parents paying private school fees, or the institutions themselves?

[Mugwump]

^ David, the private education system clearly adds to the education resource pool and leaves more government money to be spent on state education. If current private educators do not pay for school fees, do you think they would pay the state more for a state education ? The state remits less than the cost of a state education to the private schools. You are entitled, as they say, to your opinion, but not to your own facts.

There are some good arguments against private education. Resources being subtracted from the state system is not one of them.

Sorry if I'm a little slow on the uptake, but can you break this down for me? By "private educators", do you mean parents paying private school fees, or the institutions themselves?

Parents paying school fees. As I understand the status quo, parent A sends their child to a state school, which costs (say) $7k per annum. Parent B sends their child to a private school which costs (say) $20k per annum, and the state remits $4000 to the private school so the parent pays $16k. There is a net saving to the state via this arrangement, and parent A would not pay that $16k into the state system if their child were educated at a state school instead. The decision of the parent to educate privately has increased the money theoretically available to the state education budget.

Now, the numbers may have changed since I was in Australia, but even if the rebate from the state to the private school were to represent the full cost that would have been incurred by the state if the child was state educated, it is not actually draining net money from the state system.

[stui magpie]

^

You may just be being sarcastic as usual, but I'll pay that.

No, I meant it. Horrible places that ruin lives.

I wouldn't personally go as far as "ruin" as a generalisation, although it happens. I don't have a lot of fond memories of school, it was something to be endured in the main. My fondest recollections are of participating in things that these days would have me expelled if not arrested and, to be honest, being exposed to the principles of science and maths that I would have not been able to access at that time without it.