School funding (1 Viewer)

[jennylim]

And, as mentioned by someone before, and which I read in the paper too, since kids from public schools out perform their private school counterparts at uni anyway, what's wrong with the public sector.

that's probably true statistics-wise, but private schools are there to help us get to uni (and our course) in the the first place. and while ppl say that may be rigging the system, giving yourself an unfair advantage and so on - well selective schools are pretty similar. if we're prepared to pay and to work, then why shouldn't we get our marks?

 

[Generator]

Enlightened_one, wether that story about "outperforming private skoolz people at uni in first year" is true or not, u need to realise that in general private school students end up with higher levels of income than public school students, they also often end up with a higher level of education.

I am yet to see you justify the idea that a higher income is in some way a measure of success that deserves to be objectified. Sure, for many it's important, but that does not mean that it should define who we are and what we become.

I can't really contest the point about a higher level of education, but at the same time you didn't exactly tell us what a higher level happens to be and then there is also the consideration that such figures are likely to be based on past instances that aren't truly relevant today given the non-public sector's greater (and continually increasing) share of the total student population in relation to the past. Then there is also the apparent existence of an across the board emphasis on higher learning rather than vocational training that should be considered, too.

Sorry about all that.

 

[Enlightened_One]

that's probably true statistics-wise, but private schools are there to help us get to uni (and our course) in the the first place. and while ppl say that may be rigging the system, giving yourself an unfair advantage and so on - well selective schools are pretty similar. if we're prepared to pay and to work, then why shouldn't we get our marks?

If you're prepared to pay the whole way WITHOUT GOVERNMENT HELP then yes you can go to private schools and get your easier entrance into uni. Private schools seem to be about pushing people into uni so you can get higher incomes later in life. And I agree with Generator, this shouldn't be a measure of success because I'd rather be poor and happy than rich and hating life.

A lot of people from public schools do not go to uni, precisely, so the ones who make it there are used to working hard and not having things spoon fed to them. And all those who go elsewhere, into TAFE and apprenticeships etc, go to do something they enjoy. They do not necessarily go chasing a high income. Public schools don't have the whole "you need to be rich to be happy" stigma.

And if governments did stop supporting private schools they could send the money into the public schools and probably handle the influx of ex private school kids who couldn't pay the fees. If government schools received the money they were entitled to there'd be less demountables and better conditions generally.

 

[Peking Duck]

Im a private school student. Nothing wrong with being wealthy is there. Doesnt mean we are ALL snobs, does it?

 

[jebbie]

If you're prepared to pay the whole way WITHOUT GOVERNMENT HELP then yes you can go to private schools and get your easier entrance into uni. Private schools seem to be about pushing people into uni so you can get higher incomes later in life. And I agree with Generator, this shouldn't be a measure of success because I'd rather be poor and happy than rich and hating life.

A lot of people from public schools do not go to uni, precisely, so the ones who make it there are used to working hard and not having things spoon fed to them. And all those who go elsewhere, into TAFE and apprenticeships etc, go to do something they enjoy. They do not necessarily go chasing a high income. Public schools don't have the whole "you need to be rich to be happy" stigma.

And if governments did stop supporting private schools they could send the money into the public schools and probably handle the influx of ex private school kids who couldn't pay the fees. If government schools received the money they were entitled to there'd be less demountables and better conditions generally.

Broad generalistaions here. *sigh*

If masses of students (most likely) had to leave the private schools due to fees, alot the private schools would be forced to close down or increase the school fees even higher so that eventually no one would be at private schools. Think about this in reference to the domino effect. They would lose whatever funding they currently have from the government. This would cause an influx in fees. The higher rates mean students have to drop out. Causing another rise in fees. etc. Grah. Stupid stupid stupid.

Besides the private schools which have alot of funding often cater for disadvantaged students/students with learning disabilities.etc. Such as my school which has a seperate class for those with disabilities ie. down sydrome. - Such people would not be able to receive one on one care and receive the education that aids them in everyday life after school. They help them with interaction/proper behaviour/simple mathematics so they don't get conned when shopping/stranger danger/applying for jobs/work experience. this is useful for these girls lives and they couldn't receive this/our school couldn't provide it ithout the additional funding.

Anyways back to my point. All these students from the private schools wouldn't fit in the public schools. Causing a massive problem. Schools would probably become all similar to selective in being that you would most likely sit an exam to see if you got into school because there wouldn't be enough funding for all students to receive free education.

So basically, if someones parents want to pay extra for their own child's education and have the resources to do so - Don't complain

 

[Sphyx]

The amount of generalising in this thread is astounding. You cannot simply allocate different boxes to different groups of people just because it suits your purposes. The person you are is determined just as much on nature as nurture.

I dont know how many of you have gone to both private and public schools, I have, and have grounds for comparison. Overall, i guess the only marked difference that i can see is that in private schools people respect each other's wants and needs much more than in public schools, hence allowing space for those that do care for their education to pursue it without being distracted, etc. like it happens in the public education. Also, the very bottom layer of people is eliminated in the private system, hence raising the standard somewhat. That doesnt mean that the private system should not be subsided by the government. Just because something has earned a certain advantage doesnt mean it should be eliminated out of the race, does it?

 

[velox]

thank god for private schools.

 

[Generator]

Public (comprehensive and selective) and non-public (independent and Catholic systemic). I think that that is about it. I'm sure that someone else will add another general category if it exists, though.

Edit: As Calculon points out, not all Catholic schools are systemic.

 

[waterfowl]

Public - inexpensive or in some cases free

Private - expensive

 

[withoutaface]

I am yet to see you justify the idea that a higher income is in some way a measure of success that deserves to be objectified. Sure, for many it's important, but that does not mean that it should define who we are and what we become.

I can't really contest the point about a higher level of education, but at the same time you didn't exactly tell us what a higher level happens to be and then there is also the consideration that such figures are likely to be based on past instances that aren't truly relevant today given the non-public sector's greater (and continually increasing) share of the total student population in relation to the past. Then there is also the apparent existence of an across the board emphasis on higher learning rather than vocational training that should be considered, too.

Sorry about all that.

Well if we're measuring within the same field, especially in business, then generally someone who is earning more will be the more successful, but across fields you're right, it's not an accurate pointer.

And I think Generator's covered the types of schools, although it should be pointed out that not all Catholic schools are systemic.

 

[elisabeth]

Besides the private schools which have alot of funding often cater for disadvantaged students/students with learning disabilities.etc. Such as my school which has a seperate class for those with disabilities ie. down sydrome.

So? There are government schools, including mine, which offer similar separate classes. If only we had a lot of funding...

 

[jebbie]

So? There are government schools, including mine, which offer similar separate classes. If only we had a lot of funding...

Your school would get extra funding for those additional classes

 

[Cape]

right on, sister.

if only these guys spent the day with ms king.[/personal joke]

What was wrong with ms king? She is so nice! She still kept in contact with me during my first yr of uni

 

[Enlightened_One]

Broad generalistaions here. *sigh*

If masses of students (most likely) had to leave the private schools due to fees, alot the private schools would be forced to close down or increase the school fees even higher so that eventually no one would be at private schools. Think about this in reference to the domino effect. They would lose whatever funding they currently have from the government. This would cause an influx in fees. The higher rates mean students have to drop out. Causing another rise in fees. etc. Grah. Stupid stupid stupid.

Besides the private schools which have alot of funding often cater for disadvantaged students/students with learning disabilities.etc. Such as my school which has a seperate class for those with disabilities ie. down sydrome. - Such people would not be able to receive one on one care and receive the education that aids them in everyday life after school. They help them with interaction/proper behaviour/simple mathematics so they don't get conned when shopping/stranger danger/applying for jobs/work experience. this is useful for these girls lives and they couldn't receive this/our school couldn't provide it ithout the additional funding.

Anyways back to my point. All these students from the private schools wouldn't fit in the public schools. Causing a massive problem. Schools would probably become all similar to selective in being that you would most likely sit an exam to see if you got into school because there wouldn't be enough funding for all students to receive free education.

So basically, if someones parents want to pay extra for their own child's education and have the resources to do so - Don't complain

Yes I know public schools who cater disadvantaged kids and they're facilities are no where as near up to scratch as some private schools. If the governemnt funding was taken away from private schools it would just mean they'd have to cut a few things back but they're wouldn't be the mass exodus you think.
The reason so many private school kids have to get into uni is because they're chasing the life. They feel that they have to be lawyers etc because their parents were and their parents would pay for their private schooling regardless of the cost just to get them into uni.
Have a look at Knox in Sydney and tell me why the government should fund that place.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But can't u see that leads to LESS funding? =/

 

[jebbie]

Yes I know public schools who cater disadvantaged kids and they're facilities are no where as near up to scratch as some private schools. If the governemnt funding was taken away from private schools it would just mean they'd have to cut a few things back but they're wouldn't be the mass exodus you think.
The reason so many private school kids have to get into uni is because they're chasing the life. They feel that they have to be lawyers etc because their parents were and their parents would pay for their private schooling regardless of the cost just to get them into uni.
Have a look at Knox in Sydney and tell me why the government should fund that place.

Knox is crap. I'm talking about good Private Schools.
And the students don't feel that the have to be lawyers, they know that their parents paid that much so that they have to be lawyers. Theres really no thinking involved. And if the Government funding was taken away, as in all of the funding I believe what I said would be true. Some people literally scrape into those schools with both parent's working their butts off. So it would cause a domino effect. Maybe not to the extent of what I said, but for some schools I believe so.

 

[stainmepink]

Lets end this shinanigan by nationalising all private schools. That way funding will be perfectyly equitable.

yeh lets do that

 

[Generator]

I would like to know whether anyone/a couple actually has a tangible reason for 'scraping' together as much money as they can so that they can send their child/children to a school just beyond their reach. In other words, a solid response to a why so that we may see whether their justifications are in anyway linked to reality.

I do not have a problem with it (provided that the kids are not 'sheltered' to a significant degree, but that's a general public/non-public concern of mine), but the motivations for such actions escape me when in many cases there is a cheaper alternative or even the local comprehensive school if they are willing to 'slum' it.

Just to make sure that you all understand my position:
- I'm not against the idea of choice, yet I would like to know whether it is a warped choice or not.
- I'm not talking about the mums and dads that can afford the schools fees without making use of the 'what a sacrifice' rhetoric, just those who appear to go beyond their financial capacities.
- I'm pro-public education, but I'm not against the non-public systems provided that the public alternative is not disadvantaged through funding arrangements (I'm not saying that that is the case).

 

[jebbie]

I would like to know whether anyone/a couple actually has a tangible reason for 'scraping' together as much money as they can so that they can send their child/children to a school just beyond their reach. In other words, a solid response to a why so that we may see whether their justifications are in anyway linked to reality.

I do not have a problem with it (provided that the kids are not 'sheltered' to a significant degree, but that's a general public/non-public concern of mine), but the motivations for such actions escape me when in many cases there is a cheaper alternative or even the local comprehensive school if they are willing to 'slum' it.

Just to make sure that you all understand my position:
- I'm not against the idea of choice, yet I would like to know whether it is a warped choice or not.
- I'm not talking about the mums and dads that can afford the schools fees without making use of the 'what a sacrifice' rhetoric, just those who appear to go beyond their financial capacities.
- I'm pro-public education, but I'm not against the non-public systems provided that the public alternative is not disadvantaged through funding arrangements (I'm not saying that that is the case).

My parents are not just scraping in. They almost were, we had the money but we were also knocking down our old house and rebuilding on our block of land. We had dodgy builders thoug (I suppose most are so average builders?) anyway it took alot longer then it was meant to, obviously we couldn't live in the house so we were renting at the time with 3 children in private schools. So at one stage we were apparently close to being bankrupt. My parents decided to send us to private schools even though they knew they would have to work hard because they went to public schools and they wanted to give us a 'better education'. Im not saying it is, although there are arguments, but that was their own unique reason. The end

 

[Tulipa]

I would like to know whether anyone/a couple actually has a tangible reason for 'scraping' together as much money as they can so that they can send their child/children to a school just beyond their reach. In other words, a solid response to a why so that we may see whether their justifications are in anyway linked to reality.

Are you saying that the reason "I would like to give my child a good education" is not a valid one? Before you argue, yes I know that in public schools good educations are provided but it is a personal choice and one that many parents make.

The reason so many private school kids have to get into uni is because they're chasing the life. They feel that they have to be lawyers etc because their parents were and their parents would pay for their private schooling regardless of the cost just to get them into uni.

Beg pardon but what exactly is the life? Also of all the private school people I know maybe two or three have lawyers for parents. Added to that, no one I know at private schools wants to be a lawyer, do Law yes maybe but in a double degree. So really broad generalisation.

I go to an Indendepent Catholic school where girls will have brothers at Joeys, Riverview etc. On the North Shore, there are many private yet very good schools. When we moved here, we looked at a number of different high schools and my parents thought that it'd be better not to send us to public high schools. They had been to public high schools in the states and in all honesty the system over there is so much better than here.

To address the issue of funding, I would have to agree with the comments jebbie and not that bright made, without funding to private schools the fees would increase (perhaps drastically, maybe not) however it would lead to a large number of students not being able to further attend because of the fee increases. Unfortunately Sydney public high schools do not appear to have the ability to handle this. Also to make all schools public, an impossible idea, it would lead to less funding for everyone.