Latham - education (1 Viewer)

[paper cup]

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/14/1094927555439.html
^

 

[Jago]

that's a pretty long article...tell me what it says.

 

[paper cup]

that's a pretty long article...tell me what it says.

...or you could just click on the link?
basically he's going to cut funding to prestigious schools and up funding to not so flashy ones.

 

[Jago]

i read the first paragraph and got bored.

 

[mervvyn]

interesting policy, bound to attract attention. The kings guy does have a point though, there is a surplus there from which this education policy could be funded fully without choosing to further the divide between public and private supporters. education doesn't need to be such a political football in my opinion, just better dealt with (read: funded)

 

[thorrnydevil]

As much as I would like to see public education funding increased, this will never happen, and it won't happen for 2 reasons:

Reason 1) The wealthy pay their taxes. The wealthy can find many loop holes to get out of paying their taxes. The wealthy are the ones who send their children to private schools. The wealthy won't want to dish out even more money for their childs education. Which will lead to:

Reason 2) The wealthy just wont vote Labor.

 

[big_ticket]

Labor's robinhood education policy is just a joke...why punish people who actively choose to give their kids a good education at private schools? not everyone that goes to private schools are rich and loaded like everything thinks that they are. Every school is entitled to funding and by reducing funding to private schools, it's just going to cause fees to rise and then people may move out of the private sector, into the public causing a GREATER STRAIN on the government. the reason why the federal government funds private schools is because if everyone was in the public sector the government wouldn't be able to fund it. By keeping people in private works out better for everyone...so to say that the ALP's robin hood education policy is a decent, fair one... is a complete JOKE!!! Everyone in the public sector receives more funding per child than the private schools......to say otherwise is a joke, a lie,
a clear fabrication of the truth.

the ALP is a joke.....we dont need them now, or ever running this country.....!!~!!!

 

[Ziff]

"why punish people who actively choose to give their kids a good education at private schools?"

You realise that just shot you in the foot right there...

Why is a private education better than a public one? Explain it.

"people may move out of the private sector, into the public causing a GREATER STRAIN on the government"

Back up your assertion with at least a fact that may prove or at least insinuate this outcome.

---

Does your idea about private schools v. public schools also apply to the public v. private health insurance and health systems?

Maybe those that can pay deserve a "good" health system whilst those that can't do not?

Maybe those that can pay deserve a "good" education system whilst this that can't do not?
---

If you look at the schools that the SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/14/1094927561170.html) reports Latham is cutting funds from it's not going to matter much at all because the parents already pay about 98% of the fees anyway (this figure is anecdotal from a person that I know who goes to one of the listed schools). They can afford it. Latham is redirecting funds from these schools to the POORER Catholic and Independent schools which actually allows these schools to lower fees for the "battling" workers.

Excerpts from the ALP Education Policy
$1 billion in additional targeted support for struggling government and non-government schools to attract high performing teachers; improve discipline; teach Australian values; lift literacy and numeracy skills; upgrade capital and ICT infrastructure in disadvantaged areas; and encourage needy schools to share resources.

$220 million to develop and retain more great classroom teachers for government and non-government schools and improve their teaching skills.

http://www.alp.org.au/policy/education/ausschools.php

It is redirecting funds from the listed schools to other Catholic, Independent and State schools.

Read the articles before you shoot your mouth off.

 

[dingding]

I love you Ziff.

Couldn't of put it better myself.

 

[mervvyn]

"people may move out of the private sector, into the public causing a GREATER STRAIN on the government"

Back up your assertion with at least a fact that may prove or at least insinuate this outcome.

i think what he is trying to say is that a decrease in government, state or federal, to non government schools would necessitate fee rises in those schools, making it too expensive for some families who can only just afford it at the moment. although the targeted group of schools isn't that big, any significant loss of funds for those schools, even though they have large fees, would eventually result in fee rises and transfers to cheaper or public schools. And obviously, more students in the public system would be a greater strain, particularly in the short term before the benefits of extra funding flow through entirely.

Although my school is not listed in the article, i imagine it would be on labor's list. My understanding is that the parents don't quite pay 98% of the amount that the school spends per student - at a rough guess with total govt contributions at $8k (i'm guessing, anyone who has a better figure please say so) and fees at $14k-$15k, so parents are paying ~65% (it's too late for maths). A significant decrease in funding, which would have to happen if labor is to get all of its $520m from a handful (67, plus a cap on funding for 111 more). This would result in fee increases, as the schools would still want to have the same amount of available funds to maintain their prestige. Such fee increases would serve to make those schools even more "exclusive" - make of that what you will.

My personal feeling is that Labor's policy IS a vote grab, but without a doubt public education has been underfunded at a federal and state level for several years now, which has caused the social rift between the government and non government schools to be exacerbated - just think of the various series that the SMH and other papers have done on public vs private and you get a feel for the unhealthy us vs them attitude that has developed. I only have general knowledge to go on, but i'd say that attitude has worsened over the past few years, primarily as the funding levels have not increased appropriately.

So yes, if you read all that, thanks for listening.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

I think it's a smart move by Labor in some ways.... they will win votes for those that despise the uber-rich, and the uber-rich whose kids go to those schools probably weren't going to vote for labor anyway....

Public schools and the smaller independents/catholics etc need more funding.

 

[blahzz]

Public schools and the smaller independents/catholics etc need more funding.

haha definately =)

 

[CrashOveride]

If you want to goto Kings and pay wahtever, 20K/year, by all means do so. I don't see why the gov. should be giving more funding to these already well-off schools compared to say some not so well off public schools.

Of course, as Aqsy pointed out, there is a need to promote students from certain backgrounds (socical, eco, racial etc) because it serves their interest. If i was in there position, i would do the same.

 

[paper cup]

"why punish people who actively choose to give their kids a good education at private schools?"

You realise that just shot you in the foot right there...

Why is a private education better than a public one? Explain it.

"people may move out of the private sector, into the public causing a GREATER STRAIN on the government"

Back up your assertion with at least a fact that may prove or at least insinuate this outcome.

---

Does your idea about private schools v. public schools also apply to the public v. private health insurance and health systems?

Maybe those that can pay deserve a "good" health system whilst those that can't do not?

Maybe those that can pay deserve a "good" education system whilst this that can't do not?
---

If you look at the schools that the SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/14/1094927561170.html) reports Latham is cutting funds from it's not going to matter much at all because the parents already pay about 98% of the fees anyway (this figure is anecdotal from a person that I know who goes to one of the listed schools). They can afford it. Latham is redirecting funds from these schools to the POORER Catholic and Independent schools which actually allows these schools to lower fees for the "battling" workers.



It is redirecting funds from the listed schools to other Catholic, Independent and State schools.

Read the articles before you shoot your mouth off.

what he said. ziff is my hero.

 

[Skillo]

Ziff stole the words out of my mouth. You're my hero too...

Big_Ticket seems to think that Private education is superior to Public education...but I'd also like to question why you think this is so. How can anyone justify paying in excess of $15000 a year for a place in a private school? Nowdays it's like you're paying for a good result in your HSC/VCE/IB.

A student can achieve a good education in a shed as far as I'm concerned, with the right will, determination and talent. Multi million dollar complexes or technology packages will do nothing to prepare you for the real world...

 

[thorrnydevil]

I agree that a Private Education is no better than a public education. But, the way I see it is people pay taxes, they expect those taxes to pay for goods and services, eg. education. These people pay there money to go to a private school. Why shouldn't the private schools get funding? The parents pay taxes, or should people from lower socio-economic backgrounds get more money? To me, it just seems unfair.

I go to a public school, and love it. I see no reason for private schools, however, other people disagree. They have the choice to send there children to private schools and good for them for doing so. I most cases, there teachers aren't even teachers!

My parents went to public schools, I'm going to a public school and my children will go to a public school. Sure, I'd love to see some more funding, hell, we had Commerce textbooks from 1988!!!

In my opinion, public education is better, but people have the right to send there children wherever the god damn want...and they deserve to have there tax dollars spent on education.

 

[Constip8edSkunk]

heres a list of the schools to have their funding cut http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/14/1094927561170.html

the exclusivity of school like kings isnt based on govt funding... most ppl who wants to go to kings dont go hey, govt gives more money to kings so i want 2 go to kings. (edit : for not-that-bright)

another thing, why does exclusivity necessarily imply 'better'????? by the argument that this will make kings barker scots etc more exclusive....isnt it ironic its the ppl who want to goto those schools purely because of this magical exclusiveness that complain that it will be more exclusive ?

 

[big_ticket]

1. Schools like Barker and other private schools dont have a large ALP population ... not coz they are liberal....but because they are not stupid, to support a labour government.

2. comes more easily to the labour party to screw everyone over

3. if there were NO need for private schools and that everyone went to public schools....then how would the government facilitate that?? every child in the public sector costs the government more money in funding, than it would if they went to private schools. the public system would not be able to support an influx of people if there were NO need for private schools. What does bragging rites have to do with schooling??? education is just that, providing kids with the best possible education available.

4. cutting funding to private schools will definately push up fees, and those aspiring to send their kids to private schools, wont be able to afford the fees and opt for the public system instread....again raising the question, how is the government going to cater for that.... THEY CANT... that's the answer........if there is nothing good about sending your kids to schools like KINGS, then what's soo good about public schools...private schools offer everything to people who go there. what's soo damn good about sending kids to public schools???

Private schools DO NOT receive rediculous amounts of funding. What people in public schools overlook is the fact that the funding is little, therefore is made up in fees and extensive fundraising. Why punish parents for working hard??
Trust the labor party and Mark Lathem to come up with an absurd education policy!!

 

[leetom]

The quality of education a child receives should not be determined by the salary of his or her parents.

May Mr Latham live for a thousand years.

 

[thorrnydevil]

i thought i was your hero

Oh, she changed her custom status!!! Your not in there anymore...poor Asquithian.