Calls for special deal to be struck for NT, which has biggest funding gap between public and private schools

  • lordriffington@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • stoic_sloth@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • stoic_sloth@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • yesterdayshero@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.)

      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.

      • yesterdayshero@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • yesterdayshero@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Doesn’t this article show that the funding received by private schools is actually more in most cases?

              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.

              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.

              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.

              • yesterdayshero@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You’re just trying to shift focus away from public schools not getting their share of funding

                  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 fact is, public schools aren’t getting the funding that was committed

                  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.