74
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
74 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
3579 readers
53 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
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:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
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:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'm not trying to do that. And for what it's worth, myself and everyone in my extended family has gone to state schools. Quite a number of people in my extended family as well as a lot of my friends currently work in state schools. I have seriously considered working at a state school myself.
Your core assertion was that private schools get more funding. And my reply to that is that it's complex because schools all receive funding from a myriad of sources.
If you exclusively count government funding, then Private Schools receive significantly less funding than public schools. But of course, only counting government funding would be silly, since for many schools that's a fraction of their overall funding.
The Article clearly shows the federal government is providing "the funding that was committed".
Unfortunately states are falling short, and yes obviously that needs to be addressed. But I think you're unaware of just how complex the issue is. The government doesn't just ask the school "How many students are enrolled? OK here's that $15k for each one". The amount of funding a school receives is based on a complex process to determine how much funding the school needs. They need to adjust those processes to increase funding, which isn't easy especially if you want the money to be spent well and not on something stupid like new carpets... at the same time if a school needs new carpets then they should absolutely get that.
The reason private schools get all of the funding they're entitled to is because the process to calculate that is so much simpler. As far as I know it's basically, "how many students to you have? How affluent are the parents of those students? You get this much per student". It's easy to get that right.
But anyway - mostly what I wanted to say is the government provides less funding to private schools - by approximately several thousand dollars per year per student - approximately because the exact amount is different for every school.