What's making you happy today?

[ZenGum]

Don't get me started.



Too late.

Public schools (the government ones) take all students in their district and charge only minimal costs -stationery, excursions (field trips).
Private schools (often Catholic, but other religious and secular schools, like to call themselves "independent") can be selective and charge fees.

All well and good so far.

The federal government does all the tax collecting, and gives a portion to the state governments who fund the public schools.

The state governments also fund all the curriculum development, exam moderation etc for the final two years which determine university entrance etc. The independents get to ride on this for free.

In the last decade or two, the federal government has been giving increasing amounts directly to schools - some to public schools, but even more per student to private schools. This is pretty much a form of middle class welfare done for purposes of vote buying.

I find this highly objectionable.

Why are my tax dollars going to elite private schools with vastly better facilities than public schools? Why are the being used to subsidise the brainwashing of children into a medieval make-believe game? If you want to forgo the place you are entitled to in the public system, that's you're choice, but don't expect me to subsidise your alternate choice.

There have been some half-hearted attempts to link these payments to the incomes of the parents, but this is done by looking at the average income for the postcode (zipcode) of the students, which is frankly ineffective.

Yet, as Ali rightly says, the private schools are generally better. Thus anyone who cares and can afford it will send their kids to a private school, unless they are motivated by social conscience as Ali and Dazza appear to be. This just bleeds more funding from the public system into the private.

Neither of our two main parties have the nerve to deal with this, and the more right wing party has at times touted a "voucher" system, whereby each student would get their bucket of funding and take it to whatever school they choose, where their parents can then top it up as they see fit. The vouchers aren't enough for a good education, hence the top up for the private schools, leaving a second rate education for the lower 2/3rds of the population.

In my view this is little short of class warfare against the poor. Bad education policy, bad monetary policy, and worst, very bad social policy. Australia is one of the more egalitarian societies in the world, and this is part of a current trend toward a lasting social division into the haves and have-nots.

Pardon me, I think I need to go and have a cup of tea and a lie down. Or a revolution.

[Aliantha]

Yep, highly objectionable indeed!

Putting it bluntly, it gives me the shits.

[DucksNuts]

I'm a supporter of the Public School.

I was public schooled and turned out OK academically....I realise a lot will have to do with the Teachers, but a lot has to do with the student as well.

Back in my day, by friends parents were sending him to Private School, to the tune of $14,500 per term, he walked out of that school with a below average comprehension of Maths, English and Science, but did quite well at sport. He wasnt a bad student, never in trouble, he didnt try and they didnt really push.

He's now a Cabinet Maker.

The boys will be public schooled unless something changes dramatically.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

In the last decade or two, the federal government has been giving increasing amounts directly to schools - some to public schools, but even more per student to private schools. This is pretty much a form of middle class welfare done for purposes of vote buying.

Holy shit! If anyone tried to give tax dollars directly to private schools here, there would be a riot. On the other hand, a good portion if not the majority of our private schools are not religiously-based. Also, we very well may be giving money to religious private schools in the form of tax breaks, I don't know. But state money directly to the schools that are already attended by rich kids? No freaking way.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Holy shit! If anyone tried to give tax dollars directly to private schools here, there would be a riot. On the other hand, a good portion if not the majority of our private schools are not religiously-based. Also, we very well may be giving money to religious private schools in the form of tax breaks, I don't know. But state money directly to the schools that are already attended by rich kids? No freaking way.

That's why we give them the money indirectly.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

The state governments also fund all the curriculum development, exam moderation etc for the final two years which determine university entrance etc. The independents get to ride on this for free.

But aren't the parents of those kids (independents) paying taxes to pay for that as well as paying taxes that support the public schools?

Yet, as Ali rightly says, the private schools are generally better. Thus anyone who cares and can afford it will send their kids to a private school, unless they are motivated by social conscience as Ali and Dazza appear to be. This just bleeds more funding from the public system into the private.

If the parents are paying taxes which support public schools, and coughing more money for private schools, how is this bleeding funding? Sounds like the government is dropping the ball.

Pardon me, I think I need to go and have a cup of tea and a lie down. Or a revolution.

Have fun storming the castle... and being revolting.

[Aliantha]

All parents have the same right to send their child to a public school, but some choose to forego that right and send their kids to private schools. If they choose to 'cough more money' for private school, that's their personal choice.

It's like having a free ticket on the bus but deciding you want to fly. You'll still get there in the end, but one's going to cost you more.

[Aliantha]

Just for the record, I'm not against private schooling for kids. I'm against tax payers funding the personal choices of more wealthy parents.

I'm against a lot of the new 'tax reforms' the labor gov have brought in over the last few years also. I'm so sick of them I'd like to spill blood over it.

[Lamplighter]

Beware of the word "vouchers"

They haven't really taken hold in the US politic,
but now we have "charter schools" which is
pretty much accomplishing the same thing.

[Clodfobble]

Except charter schools actually get less money per student than the public schools, and also have higher success requirements to meet in order to avoid having their charter revoked. And charter schools are required to open their lottery to any student living in the county, they cannot reject students like a private school can.

[BigV]

I was camping with my friend, B, and he passed me a bag of trail mix. I had some then commented that he had pretty spartan tastes in trail mix. He took the bag back and said "doggone it, S went through and high graded my trail mix!". I'd never heard that phrase before. Here's the definition:

The term high grading in forestry, fishing and mining relates to selectively harvesting goods, to “cut the best and leave the rest”.

This is exactly the fear I have of charter schools. That they can pick and choose what students they accept *and* accept public money for the education of those students will inevitably lead to the weakening of our public education system. The remarks by several above indicating a desire to contribute to the social capital of our society by actively participating in Public Education (as payers and students and parents) are echoed in my heart and actions as well.

There is no more precious or fruitful wellspring of prosperity than the education of our young. And as far as we all participate and benefit from society, we all should contribute to this irreplaceable source of new creative minds, active workers and entrepreneurs. ZenGum's alarm call of class warfare is not hyperbole--it is worse than mere warfare, it's killing the golden goose, to mix my metaphors. Who will serve the drinks? Who will valet park the cars? Who will trim the hedges and polish the weather domes on the security cameras? A strategy of every man(family) for himself is a good one--for precisely one generation--no more.

I have longer range aspirations for our country though.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Except charter schools actually get less money per student than the public schools,
and also have higher success requirements to meet in order to avoid having their charter revoked.
And charter schools are required to open their lottery to any student living in the county,
they cannot reject students like a private school can.

There is a lot of debate over each of those statements, especially the $ and success rates.
Obviously, there are many different kinds of "charter schools".
But every charter school takes $ out of the public school system.

When the charter school takes the $ from a finite and limited source,
or when the charter school appeals to more talented/motivated/capable students and parents,
the public system must manage with less funds and a more difficult population of students.
In that sense, the charter schools are taking the "cream of the crop",
while the public school outcomes are pushed further towards a self-fulfilling prophesy.

In reality, it is the religious component to charter schools that is most bothersome,
because it funnels public $ from the education system into "charter schools"
set up primarily to foster a group's particular religious views.
This is happening in Oregon, and it's not hard to find evidence of it in other states too.

To Wit:
The Dallas Morning News
JESSICA MEYERS
Nov 22, 2010

Charter schools with ties to religious groups raise fears about state funds' use

<snip>
More than 20 percent of Texas' charter schools have some kind of religious ties.
That's the case for six of the seven approved this year, including ones in Frisco and Arlington.

Church-charter partnerships are springing up across the country as private institutions
lose funding and nontraditional education models grow in popularity.

Their emergence prompts questions about the role religious groups
should play in the development of publicly funded schools.
"The church-state line is beginning to blur," said Bruce Cooper, a professor
at Fordham University's Graduate School of Education, who has studied religious charter schools.
"We may be coming to a midpoint between the best of what is private and the best of what is public."
Critics fear the fuzzy division means taxpayers are footing the bill for religious instruction.<snip>

Religious groups may apply to open a charter school if
they establish a separate nonprofit to receive state funds.
Even with a middleman, heavy overlap exists between the school
and the religious group that supports it.
Dozens of Texas charter school leaders or board members hold
prominent positions in the church, where the schooling sometimes takes place.
Parochial schools reinvent themselves as charters, often with little guidance on running a public school.
And the mission of the school itself typically stems from the values of the religious group.<snip>

[Clodfobble]

Charter school discussion moved here.

[Sundae]

Today I am happy because I've had my hair cut and I have pink hair again - for the summer.

I had it dones yesterday, and liked it, but I was in a narky mood. Everytime I started to type about my hair I wandered off into something Mum had said or a moan about something else.

Far better to just be happy with my hair and think "Yippee!" every time I pass a reflective surface, which is how I feel today.

[DanaC]

Excellent!

Mum was only saying the other day (when we saw a girl with bright pink hair) how much she likes your hair when you go really vivid.