ALP Education Policy [regarding funding to independant and non-independant schools] (1 Viewer)

[thorrnydevil]

Not to burst Generator's bubble or anything, but if the huge increase in Independent schools fees forces the predicted 11 thousand or so students into the public system, it would collapse. it is a fact that without the independent schools taking pressure of the public education system, the public system would collapse, even with increased funding. I hate to be the one to break it to you but you actually need independent schools, not just to exist but to be affordable.
working against them is working against yourselves.

That is quite true.

 

[leetom]

Not to burst Generator's bubble or anything, but if the huge increase in Independent schools fees forces the predicted 11 thousand or so students into the public system, it would collapse. it is a fact that without the independent schools taking pressure of the public education system, the public system would collapse, even with increased funding. I hate to be the one to break it to you but you actually need independent schools, not just to exist but to be affordable.
working against them is working against yourselves.

As it is, all high school school students will receive $12 000 by 2012 from the government as a base level of education funding, which is fair as all families are taxed to provide this money, so all children, regardless of their parents income deserve to receive this amount.

The problem comes when a private school is set up which requires the parents to pay not just the tax to support the $12 000 for every child, but the fees of the private school as well which are often quite substantial. As a result, only the children of wealthy parents will be able to go to a private school as poorer parents can't afford to pay. As a result, you have wealthy parents buying a better education for their children.

The quality of a child's education should not be determined by his or her parents's income.

Education is a deciding factor of whether to choose Labor or Liberal. If you think that everybody is entitled to a universal standard of education, regardless of their parents income then you should side with Labor.

If you believe that if my parents can afford a private education, then I am entitled to it, then you should side with the Liberal party.

 

[thorrnydevil]

As it is, all high school school students will receive $12 000 by 2012 from the government as a base level of education funding, which is fair as all families are taxed to provide this money, so all children, regardless of their parents income deserve to receive this amount.

The problem comes when a private school is set up which requires the parents to pay not just the tax to support the $12 000 for every child, but the fees of the private school as well which are often quite substantial. As a result, only the children of wealthy parents will be able to go to a private school as poorer parents can't afford to pay. As a result, you have wealthy parents buying a better education for their children.

The quality of a child's education should not be determined by his or her parents's income.

Education is a deciding factor of whether to choose Labor or Liberal. If you think that everybody is entitled to a universal standard of education, regardless of their parents income then you should side with Labor.

If you believe that if my parents can afford a private education, then I am entitled to it, then you should side with the Liberal party.

If you believe that tax dollars should be distributed equally, vote Liberal.

 

[ellymelly]

As it is, all high school school students will receive $12 000 by 2012 from the government as a base level of education funding, which is fair as all families are taxed to provide this money, so all children, regardless of their parents income deserve to receive this amount.

The problem comes when a private school is set up which requires the parents to pay not just the tax to support the $12 000 for every child, but the fees of the private school as well which are often quite substantial. As a result, only the children of wealthy parents will be able to go to a private school as poorer parents can't afford to pay. As a result, you have wealthy parents buying a better education for their children.

The quality of a child's education should not be determined by his or her parents's income.

Education is a deciding factor of whether to choose Labor or Liberal. If you think that everybody is entitled to a universal standard of education, regardless of their parents income then you should side with Labor.

If you believe that if my parents can afford a private education, then I am entitled to it, then you should side with the Liberal party.

The manner of society is always such that you get what you pay for. The quality of anything (economy wise) is defined by how much you are willing to pay for it. You pay more for a house, you get a better one, a car, clothes etc. The money you recieve from your job is not the same as everyone elses, it is determined by what you do. everyone strives to earn more, to have more, it's human nature. to suggest that a school system would be any different makes no sense. a standard of education is set, then, if you desire to, you can attend a school which requires money from you to put toward better services and opportunity for your child. Just because everyone can't afford it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. if you worked on that basis, well, we wouldn't be able to drive cars, have houses, an education, because the greater majority of the world can not afford such things.

A society needs motivation, this society's motivation is the promise that if they work hard, earn their money, then they can buy better futures for themselves and their children.

here's my challenge that you all subscribe to an elitest society

if you wish to object, first answer this hypothetical question:

If there was a person, (we'll call him bob) and he only works a casual shift at the corner store because he wants to surf for the rest of the day. He receives 20 dollars a week for his work.

You went through school, trained for many years at university, your family sacificed everything so that you could attend university and get your degree so you could work at, (i don't know some place) where the hours a long, hard, but well paid. you earn 650 dollars a week.

based on a society where everyone deserves the same, equil opportunity and standard of living. (pertaining to communist principles) then you would have to give 315 or you money to bob so that he had an equal opportunity in life.

would you do this?

 

[twiddla]

The problem is that money DOES NOT always come from hard work - as they say money breeds money - we are not in favour of supporting those who couldn't care about their education - but their are alot of ppl who work very hard from state schools who deserve enough money for a decent eucation and their parents simply can't afford to send them to a rich private school, but wouldn't u say they deserve a chance to fulfill their dreams - we live in what is know as an egalitarian society where everyone deserves a fair chance (not the same amount of mone) however the 2 are linked!!

 

[ellymelly]

The problem is that money DOES NOT always come from hard work - as they say money breeds money - we are not in favour of supporting those who couldn't care about their education - but their are alot of ppl who work very hard from state schools who deserve enough money for a decent eucation and their parents simply can't afford to send them to a rich private school, but wouldn't u say they deserve a chance to fulfill their dreams - we live in what is know as an egalitarian society where everyone deserves a fair chance (not the same amount of mone) however the 2 are linked!!

I said, if you are going to object, at least answer my question as it puts into practice your theory.

 

[thorrnydevil]

The problem is that money DOES NOT always come from hard work - as they say money breeds money - we are not in favour of supporting those who couldn't care about their education - but their are alot of ppl who work very hard from state schools who deserve enough money for a decent eucation and their parents simply can't afford to send them to a rich private school, but wouldn't u say they deserve a chance to fulfill their dreams - we live in what is know as an egalitarian society where everyone deserves a fair chance (not the same amount of mone) however the 2 are linked!!

When I think of hard work, I think of manual labour...and others do to.

My dads in construction, my mums a nurse, why don't I deserve to go to a private school? My parents have and still worked hard.

Although they should get some funding, the current levels are very sufficient, and there is no need to increase them.

 

[Generator]

i dont think anyone was advocating the destruction and dismantlement of private schools

No, I was. I'm a commie, afterall.

 

[leetom]

In response to that girl's question with the poor surfer and the wealthy, works really hard uni graduate-

Are you suggesting that the child of a lazy surfer does not deserve the same quality of education as the child of a uni graduate? If so, you are discriminating against the unlucky children who are unfortunate enough to be born into poor familes. It's not the fault of the child his dad is a lazy surfer.

 

[twiddla]

I'm not for a moment suggesting that in fact i'm suggesting the opposite - if that guy wants a decent education he should get no matter how much money his parents earn!!!

 

[dingding]

.

Also, you may have noticed the difference in the amount of funding per student between public and private students. Anyone notice how much higher public is?

http://www.publiceducation.org.au/factsheets/factsheet2.pdf

it doesnt seem that way to me.

 

[thorrnydevil]

http://www.publiceducation.org.au/factsheets/factsheet2.pdf

it doesnt seem that way to me.

Just with that table 2...it actually shows that private school kids get more...granted...but they pay huge arse fees...so public actually does get more.

 

[iambored]

normanhurst boys high

its pretty much like asquith boys...its 10 mins from barker in the other direction...its selective and manages high uais each year...

Hornsby Girls High School

One of the best schools in the state...no facilties but still a great school

they're both selective, there would be something seriously wrong with the school if they didn't 'manage' high uais every year

It's ABBOTSLEIGH


parents who send their children there don't see it as a waste of money, they see it as giving their children the best possible opportunity for education, is it so hard to believe that a parent would sacrifice so much for their child?

i agree. i personally think it's too much to pay, but if people want to pay it because they think they are getting something more for their money good for them, i don't care.

Not to burst Generator's bubble or anything, but if the huge increase in Independent schools fees forces the predicted 11 thousand or so students into the public system, it would collapse. it is a fact that without the independent schools taking pressure of the public education system, the public system would collapse, even with increased funding. I hate to be the one to break it to you but you actually need independent schools, not just to exist but to be affordable.
working against them is working against yourselves.

:uhhuh: and it's been proved

The problem is that money DOES NOT always come from hard work - as they say money breeds money - we are not in favour of supporting those who couldn't care about their education - but their are alot of ppl who work very hard from state schools who deserve enough money for a decent eucation and their parents simply can't afford to send them to a rich private school, but wouldn't u say they deserve a chance to fulfill their dreams - we live in what is know as an egalitarian society where everyone deserves a fair chance (not the same amount of mone) however the 2 are linked!!

that's true.

that should be the slant on the argument, rather than "they have pools, they should have less funding." if you look at the argument in terms of the above there'd be better answers

 

[mervvyn]

Maybe not 35000, given that would be more than doubling, but the schools would use it as an excuse, valid or otherwise, to increase fees "by more than CPI" (how many times have private school parents heard that one) - fees pushing 20000pa after a few years would not be unheard of. I'm not passing judgement, i'm just pointing out what could happen for better or worse.

 

[Ribbon]

I *could* be wrong, but I thought the money being taken away from the top private schools, the ones charging more than $12k a year, was going to go the the lower private & catholic schools. Additional funding is being provided to public school seperately, and has nothing to do with taking away funds from the private schools...

so shouldn't this be a lower private school v higher private school, not private v public debate?

 

[mervvyn]

Probably, but mentioning public and private education in the same breath will trigger the pub vs priv debate anyway.

 

[iambored]

the quote was directed at their lack of facilties

lol, i was skimming, i read it as to do with marks in general, still, facilities or none they will get good marks.

 

[Generator]

I *could* be wrong, but I thought the money being taken away from the top private schools, the ones charging more than $12k a year, was going to go the the lower private & catholic schools. Additional funding is being provided to public school seperately, and has nothing to do with taking away funds from the private schools...

so shouldn't this be a lower private school v higher private school, not private v public debate?

That's true (it was mentioned in another thread before this one was created), but this is more of a general public vs non-public debate.

:uhhuh: and it's been proved

It isn't as though we could not operate an education system without non-public schools, it's just that we are stuck with them given past (and present and future) funding policies.

 

[ellymelly]

Well, seeing as though none of you have answered my hypothetical question, I think that it is safe to assume that all of us here subscribe to an elitest society ~ and that shall be the end of that.

 

[lissa2085]

Why should people who already pay more taxes and who are making huge sacrifices in order to send their children to a really good school be shat on my the government?? If anything, we should be easing the burden on these people rather than increasing it. Every child is a citizen of this country and they deserve tax-payer funded education whether their parents choose to send them to a private school or not. Why should the people who send their children to private schools have to pay for everyone else's children's education but receive no such financial assistance with their own child's? If anything we should be encouraging more parents to send their children to private institutions, since the level of all-round education is generally higher and it would also ease the burden on the public system? The ALP's education policy is just another pathetic attempt by Latham to secure a vote which the dipshit has already got.