Email

Gillard won't budge on school funding bill

By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers

Posted December 2, 2008 10:32:00
Updated December 2, 2008 10:37:00

Education Minister Julia Gillard says Opposition demands to split the Government's $28 billion private school funding bill are "completely unreasonable".

Ms Gillard has urged the Senate to pass the bill before Parliament rises at the end of the week.

The Coalition wants the bill split to pass the funding but allow further debate on the proposed national curriculum and measures to force private schools to publicly disclose all their funding sources.

Ms Gillard says the Government is committed to implementing its education reforms.

"The Government is determined to bring this new era to Australian schools," she told Fran Kelly on Radio National.

"Delivering the schools assistance bill in this sitting week is a very important part of that.

"We are saying to senators, the bill has to be passed by the end of the week or the people who suffer will be the kids who go to non-government schools."

Ms Gillard says the new transparency measures will help the Government lift education standards across the board.

"We want to be in a situation to compare schools with similar populations and if we saw one going streets ahead, getting really great results, and one falling behind we would be able to say what's the difference?", she said.

However Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne says the Coalition will not budge on its insistence to have the national curriculum removed from the bill.

"The Opposition is quite prepared to pass the $28 billion of funding through the Senate today but the Deputy Prime Minister insists the national curriculum be part of this bill," he said.

"But the Coalition has said the national curriculum hasn't even been written yet, it's unfinished, it is a contract that the schools are being asked to sign without seeing the fine print and we'll not sign that."

Tags: education, federal-government, australia

Comments (140)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

• Zak:

  02 Dec 2008 10:49:12am

  One can only wonder at why the opposition would not want to pass this bill. It seems to have little to do with the national curriculum and all to do with from where some of these private schools are driving their none government funding from...
  
  The coalition still seem to think they are in government however, at the moment they are increasingly irrelevant.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Stewie:

    02 Dec 2008 11:03:30am

    Isn't the purpose of an opposition to question rather than blindly follow? Isn't that exactly what they are doing?
    
    They aren't passing the bill as they want it spilt and reformed. Did you read the article at all??

    Agree (2) Alert moderator

    • twobob:

      02 Dec 2008 11:11:51am

      I hope that they realy sink their teeth into this. I would love to see the 28 billion returned to the budget or better yet become available to public schools. Please oppose this bill for a bit longer, please, please, please

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Izvestia:

        02 Dec 2008 12:14:21pm

        He, he. Not to public schools twobob, the libs wouldn't want money dragged from private to public!

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Ben:

      02 Dec 2008 11:20:48am

      Stewie did you read the article?
      
      What the coalition are asking for is the money to be passed but the legislation be held back. So in other words give them the money now and when you come back with the legislation we will review it... and then block it. This would put the government in a position of not being able to negotiate, are you suggesting that is a good thing with tax payer money at stake?
      
      If private schools can't operate without this funding I have to question their business model personally myself... otherwise they should be happy to receive money with strings attached, no?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • bemused:

        02 Dec 2008 11:46:18am

        Yep, damn those private schools. Get rid of them all and give all the funding to the public school system.
        
        But wait, private school kids get less per person in funding, and with the sudden influx into the public system the government would need to build how many new schools at a cost of how much???
        
        To put it simply, the government couldn't afford to lose private schools. If you think the standard of education is poor now, think what it would be like with more overcrowding and less funding (per child).
        
        And all the people with class envy, give it up. I certainly didn't come from a rich family but I still went to a private school. But then again, I worked hard to get a scholarship and my parents went without a lot of the things they would have liked. And that's with a single income family.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • arry:

        02 Dec 2008 12:07:32pm

        The government could afford to lose private schools. We are a wealthy nation and can afford to fund a completely publich schooling system.
        Private schools should be exactly that 'private'. ie. no government funding.
        Private schools discriminate on gender, class, race and are not compatible with an open, tolerant and equitable society.
        We are only one of very few OECD nations that actually has a government propping up such a large number of private schools. Many nations less wealthy than us have much fewer private schools, and many of those are completely privately funded. Do some research.
        I believe our future generation would benefit enormously from the removal of these discriminatory schools from the public budget.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Ben:

        02 Dec 2008 12:14:46pm

        Funny bemused, I didn't attack private schools at all... perhaps you need to read my post again.
        
        I came through the public system (and then onto uni), but will send my kids to private schooling (this is my choice).
        
        My point was in response to Stewie about accountability, neither Labor or Liberal seem to know what that actually means. On one side we have Labor telling private schools they need to be part of the system if they want funding, this is fine but I agree the detail is lacking. On the Liberal side we have that the money should be provided now and the legislation should be debated later, this is not fine as the government will have no power at negotiating with this approach (carrot and stick is still the best method in negotiating). Perhaps the bill should just be rejected until more detail is known (and then a new bill can be put forward), seems the best solution given the circumstances.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Spooky:

        02 Dec 2008 11:50:17am

        Ben, did you read the article?
        
        What the ALP is asking is for schools to accept the funding, in exchange for agreeing to blindly accept the curriculum. Not only is this financial blackmail, but the curriculum has not been even been written or reviewed yet.
        
        The schools and the opposition are quite rightly refusing to play ball. Only an idiot signs a contract when they are not allowed to read the fine print.
        
        The ALP is asking for a blank check, so they can continue with their lack of accountability. Naturally the Rudd supporters would agree with this.
        
        If the ALP thinks that arrogant sneers and insults can hide them from criticism, they are mistaken. The public will eventually start asking their own questions, like who to vote for in 2011.

        Agree (2) Alert moderator

      • chalkie:

        02 Dec 2008 12:04:53pm

        but private schools take on curriculum change all the time. It happens every decade or so. The natinal curriculum is not related to the issue of a bill designed to ascertain the exact financial state of those schools who make claims on the public purse.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • The Pav:

        02 Dec 2008 12:11:51pm

        
        "The schools and the opposition are quite rightly refusing to play ball. Only an idiot signs a contract when they are not allowed to read the fine print."
        
        The same argument can be applied to the governements position
        So why should the government be the idiot that provides the funds without the schools signing on on.
        
        Once they , the schools, have the cash what do you think the schools motivation will be then.
        
        As the saying goes
        
        "He who pays the piper...."
        
        Just to declare my interest I have been involved extensivley with both system and frankly I consider the private school system corrupt

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Fed up with party politics:

        02 Dec 2008 12:13:26pm

        Spooky.....you obviously went to a private school. "Blank Check" is actually spelt "Blank Cheque".
        The simple solution is to pass the bill in its present form and debate the curriculum later.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Geoff from Noosa:

      02 Dec 2008 11:21:55am

      But what we are getting from this Opposition is "blindly opposing" rather than a selective rational approach.
      
      I also smell a rat here. Private schools have had it way too good for way too long. Lets get the ghosts out of the closets.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • BJ:

      02 Dec 2008 11:22:31am

      Stewie
      
      Why should they separate it ? This policy is central to this government's education plank.
      
      This reform is long overdue.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • gaz:

      02 Dec 2008 11:34:24am

      What else do you expect from the Libs who have nothing to offer other that opposing anything and everything that the government wants to do.
      
      The "Opposition" seems to oppose legislation they supported while in office. Life's hard for those who believe they were born to rule.
      
      Fortunately, in a democracy governments change every few years. Get use to it.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Pistol Knight:

    02 Dec 2008 11:13:26am

    If the coalition is irrelevant why can't labor get its legislation through the senate?
    The team you barrack for doesn't control both houses, get over it.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Izvestia:

    02 Dec 2008 12:13:14pm

    Oppose everything is the motto for this opposition, play cheap politics. This is partculary a good one, private schools are their property, don't you dare Labor touch them.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• rob:

  02 Dec 2008 10:49:26am

  Typical. Coalition wants $28 billion of funding handed out - but only government schools should be accountable for it!

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Brock:

    02 Dec 2008 11:04:41am

    If you think Government schools are accountable for much, then you don't work in a Government school.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • AB:

    02 Dec 2008 11:08:04am

    Gillard's handling of this is inept. Senator's are right to stare down the Government's strong arm tactics on passing poorly prepared legislation.
    
    The Senate is a house of review not a rubber stamp for half-baked education policy. Get the detail right Labor and then submit your bills.
    
    The computers in schools debacle demonstrates the poor standard of Labor's leg work due to of a lack of attention to detail.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Patch:

      02 Dec 2008 11:31:49am

      So whats wrong with this bill exactly?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Spooky:

        02 Dec 2008 12:12:04pm

        What is wrong with the bill, Patch?
        
        Well, it wants the schools to accept a curriculum. But the curriculum has not been written or assessed yet. You could say that the ALP has got their legislation back to front.
        
        Unfortunately, this is intentional. Rudd wants to bind the schools to the curriculum, so when it is drafted (and comes out a turkey, if previous policy is any indication) he doesnt need to worry about accountability or unpleasant questions.
        
        And that is terrible on so many levels.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • JC:

    02 Dec 2008 11:13:32am

    Typical. Govt wants to hand out money no questions asked. Do you see how silly both yours and my comment is?
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• gjc:

  02 Dec 2008 10:49:45am

  Gillard wants private schools to disclose their funding sources, the opposition would not like this information to be available. The government want petrol stations to make their day's prices freely available to the public via fuelwatch, the opposition would not like this information to be available. The government want people to be aware of comparative grocery prices at various supermarkets, the opposition would not like this information to be available. Does anyone see a pattern here?

  Agree (2) Alert moderator

  • polyquats:

    02 Dec 2008 11:04:00am

    Yep, same old pattern; keep them in the dark and feed them nothing but fear. Worked for 12 years, worth trying again?
    
    Let them keep trying, it will keep them in opposition for decades.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Nath:

      02 Dec 2008 11:19:23am

      Gee they were reasoned and well thought through arguments.
      
      The issues have no correlation. Fuel watch is a stupid idea and does not guarantee decreases in the cost of fuel, all it does is lock in a price for 24 hrs, hows that worth the millions of tax payer dollars required to make it work? As for the grocery commissioner, its the same as the fuel one, a waste of money, the ACCC have the powers already (please correct me if im wrong) so whats the point of paying more money for another agency to do something that an existing one can and does already do. Its all window dressing nothing more.
      
      As for this issue, yes private schools should have to declare interests, as for a national curriculum it would make things simplier, but would it work, and would it cut costs, i dont know enough to comment. But at least the issue deserves some looking into not just blindly pushing through. Didnt everyone complain when the former government used to push through legislation with minimal debate and review, does anyone remember how labor and everyone else screamed blue murder about it then, but now the shoes on the other foot i guess...

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Davoe:

        02 Dec 2008 11:40:29am

        Nath-
        The Howard government reduced funding and powers for the ACCC. Introduced APRA an ineffective body to deal with financial matters. The Liberals were about reducing consumer power, and it is consistent with what they are doing today.
        
        Labor is for consumer power and disclosure. Something that the liberals will have to adopt at some stage.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • ladyfarmer:

    02 Dec 2008 11:08:38am

    definitely a pattern here, none of them actually work or help the so called "working families" shame, Rudd,shame

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • kathy:

    02 Dec 2008 11:10:23am

    I can see their half baked policies!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Joel B1:

    02 Dec 2008 11:20:17am

    Sorry, but including GroceryChoices as an informative measure is laughable.
    
    Last month it very helpfully informed me that in Southern Tasmania Woolies was $0.94 cheaper than Coles for a $166.00 basket. No mention of what stores, no nothing.
    
    If that's the best Labor can do then the Libs have nothing to fear.
    
    Pathetic.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Stewie:

    02 Dec 2008 11:28:27am

    Fuelwatch was a stuff up, they didnt vote for it because it was a stupid idea. Ask the NRMA.
    
    Grocerywatch was a stuff up, they didnt vote for it because it was a stupid idea. Ask the consumer groups.
    
    This idea is looking like another stuff up, so they won't vote for it.
    
    Are YOU seeing a pattern?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• drew:

  02 Dec 2008 10:51:05am

  I think Pyne is possibly the worst performing liberal member.
  It is people like Pyne that will ensure that Rudd will be around for a long long time.
  
  Lets just hope Turnball - gets back on his feet, and stops playing politician. All he needs to do is play the positive line and put forward good alternate policy. (where he has one)
  
  learn how to lead from behind turnball and you will win the next election.
  
  if you keep up this normal opposition on everything - and politics of it all - you will never make it beyond where you are now.
  
  
  
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Peter T.:

  02 Dec 2008 10:51:07am

  The Government has not yet developed a national curriculum. Why would any school want to sign to something unseen? As the Opposition explains, it is quite like signing a contract without reading the fine print. Given the Government's poor record with implementation of its initiatives (FuelWatch, GroceryWatch, computers in schools, National Broadband Network etc etc), it cannot be allowed to force schools into this unknown situation. The Opposition needs to be supported in their opposition to this Bill.

  Agree (3) Alert moderator

  • stargirl:

    02 Dec 2008 11:06:53am

    Agree. The whole point of scrimping and saving for a private school education (because most families in the private system are not actually wealthy) is to get something different than what you get in the public system. So why would private schools want funding attached to a legal requirement that they might all be required to teach the same stuff? I might be suffering from conspiratory theoritis but to me, the phrase "national curriculum" smacks of social engineering. Can someone explain the good points to me? Is it basic reading, writing and arithmetic standards, or do they mean having national uniformity in areas like Australian history, politics, sex ed, religious education etc. where private schools often differ from public?

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • chalkie:

      02 Dec 2008 11:30:06am

      Private schools offer not so much a different 'what' but a different 'how'. The emphasis is on the way things are taught, and the religious and other values that are ostensibly part of the place. Schools - public and private - are all working under similar syllabus requirements and the senior years (11-12) are fairly carefully minitored to ensure standards and curriculum conformity.
      
      There is a lot about the National Curriculum - google it.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Peter T.:

        02 Dec 2008 12:13:02pm

        Chalkie said, "There is a lot about the National Curriculum - google it."
        
        Chalkie, Please read what I wrote! I am not disagreeing with a national curriculum. I am disagreeing with being bound to it before it is even developed - sight unseen! Is that really the way you run your life, signing and agreeing to contracts before reading them?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • dalek:

        02 Dec 2008 12:18:11pm

        Hmm, it was the Howard government that introduced the idea of a national curriculum for state besed governemnt schools. Now that the idea is being extended to private schools, they don't like it.
        
        One rule for some and another rule for others.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Captain Swing:

      02 Dec 2008 11:30:51am

      Well done Stargirl!! I get sick to death of ignoramuses (ignoramii?) slagging off at private schools. My child has a learning disability, can you imagine what the sociological ideologues in the most of the public system (there are exceptions) would have done to her?? Also I agree with other posters, parents who send kids to private schools are not necessarily wealthy. You count the 5 series BMWs picking up kids from a public school. Also why do I have to pay for a public education that we will never use?

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • chalkie:

        02 Dec 2008 11:44:42am

        or pay for learning support for children with special needs that I do not have . . .
        
        The selfish "it is a waste if I don't benefit" argument is unpleasant, and dangerous for those who might seek special considerations themselves.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Patch:

        02 Dec 2008 11:46:54am

        Count the 5 series bmw picking up kids from a public school?! Where exactly do you live?! lol.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Peter T.:

        02 Dec 2008 12:14:20pm

        Patch, I went to a public school in the western suburbs of Sydney. A damn tough place! I've never been to a private school, but that does not make me incapable of seeing the idiocy of the Government's Bill.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • rfnk:

        02 Dec 2008 12:15:40pm

        Have a look at what the public school systems in Australia actually provide children with learning difficulties and disabilities and then compare that to what the private schools - across the board - actually provide (or more to the point, what they don't provide). Then you might begin to understand why so many of us see the continuing funding of wealthy private schools as so distasteful.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Hmmm:

        02 Dec 2008 12:18:10pm

        To Captain Swing
        
        While you are by all means entitled to it, please go easy on the sweeping generalisations about the public and private.
        
        As far as 'why should I pay for something I will never use'? Imagine applying this concept to police, hospitals, firefighters etc... ?
        
        The inclusivity of public schools is absolutely amazing, I witness it every day, yet it continues to be either ignored or positioned against rather than along the benevolence of private school, which by the way are exclusive by nature.
        
        I wish you and your child all the best, I truly do, but please consider your arguments.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Steve:

      02 Dec 2008 11:30:55am

      The basic point of the National Curriculum is to have a uniform set of knowledge taught to all Australian children. At the moment the differences between States cause problems with both entry to tertiary study (when my friends started maths at uni they told me that the people from NSW couldn't do the algebra and the people from WA couldn't do the calculus) and for people with high levels of mobility (e.g. defence personel).
      
      At this point the National Curriculum Board has provided papers on English, History, the Sciences and Mathematics. The English paper stresses a return to grammar, punctuation, spelling, literature (esp. Australian) and visual texts. The History one sets out a framework for learning from K-12 that includes an overview of history's major civilisations and what influenced their rise and fall, a global context for the Australian history that we're forced to learn and a prescription for teaching it via overview and in-depth study. The Maths document is a little woolly at the moment but it's hardly social engineering. The Sciences actually give teachers a lot of discretion to make the subject relevant to the kids.
      
      As you point out, families 'scrimp and save' to send their kids to private schools because they're different. If private schools don't want to conform to the new national standards, there's a pretty easy solution - don't take government funding.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Patch:

      02 Dec 2008 11:37:20am

      Private schools dont want to play ball fine, as long as no more tax payer dollars go to them.
      
      That would be my preferred outcome.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Odge:

      02 Dec 2008 11:39:56am

      Nationally Recognised Training, or NRT is good enough for all our states TAFE and vocational training RTOs, private and public to live up to, Why not schools. In order for students to compete on a level playing field and ensure they are recieving the same quality education I believe that a national curriculum is a positive thing.
      
      Wasn't it the coalition who originally wanted to foist the NC on the states?
      
      I would rather that my taxes went to public education and health. What makes private services so special when they are only being run for the profit of the operators. Lets invest in public education and lift the quality of education for everyone. My wife and I don't have any kids (yet) and we fit in the category where we don't get any benefits or rebates from the government. If you want to send your kids to private school? Fine, just don't make us pay for it.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Ben:

    02 Dec 2008 11:11:45am

    I view this more as private industry/institution receiving government (tax payer) money. I have no objection to private schools receiving money, however accountability needs to be transperent. Yes, ideally the knowledge of the exact details of the bill would be nice, but when private institutions want to accept money from the public they need to do so with conditions attached (in the end the idea of private industry/institutions is they should operate without any government assistance - so any arguement that they have become reliant on government payments says something about how they are operating).

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • chalkie:

    02 Dec 2008 11:13:06am

    Private schools everywhere are paid fed govt money but undergo curriculum change every so many years anyway. Schools make the necessary changes and get on with it. Private schools do not 'sign up' to state based curriculum changes (at least the more substantive ones affecting universtiy qualification) as if they are buying a book off the shelf. The Libs are assuming this kind of thing is new. Of course, private schools can remain independent completely - but choose to take the money and so have to toe the line too.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • jws:

    02 Dec 2008 11:14:11am

    Peter, you'll find it was the Opposition who blocked FuelWatch - it never got off the ground....

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • drew:

    02 Dec 2008 11:18:09am

    but arnt the parties themselves the ones who are going to do the writing?
    
    even the private education bodies will get a say...
    
    just more liberal party spin.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• frog:

  02 Dec 2008 10:54:17am

  Opposition obviously very worried about private schools having to disclose who gives them money.
  I wonder why.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Brock:

    02 Dec 2008 11:05:36am

    Hmmmm. Private means largely self-funded. Why does the Government give a damn about where it comes from as long as they don't have to fork it out?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • frog:

      02 Dec 2008 11:21:12am

      Well, in the case of religious schools, no matter which religion, surely the government is entitled to know where their money comes from.
      I imagine the Liberals would have made a huge fuss if Labor blocked them from finding out where Islamic school funding came from for example.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • JC:

        02 Dec 2008 11:47:48am

        I think I would sooner rather know where and how the political parties are funded, and that limitations be placed upon the amount that parties can receive from business, business groups and member groups (eg, unions, business associations etc). Political parties have a lot more to "achieve" via non disclosure - go back to the days of Burke & WA Inc, Tricon, Rothwells etc etc. Even more recently with the under handed deals done with local govt and developers, I believe in Albury.
        
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • chalkie:

      02 Dec 2008 11:31:36am

      so that private schools cannot keep donations 'off balance sheet' and thus allow private schools to qualify for additional moneys? Schools often have a Foundation that has the money while the school itself is up to its eyeballs in debt.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Jeremy:

  02 Dec 2008 10:55:28am

  I don't understand Christopher Pyne's statement. Surely the schools get no say in the passing of this legislation anyway. What does he mean by saying that it's a "contract that the schools are being asked to sign?" Surely the schools don't have a choice about things either way.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • kathy:

    02 Dec 2008 11:08:10am

    It is ok for school to disclose their fudings... but would you sign a paper with reading it? I would not!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jeremy:

      02 Dec 2008 11:45:56am

      My question is; What paper will the schools be signing? Individual schools don't make decisions about national policy. That's what governments are for.
      
      There is no paper for them to sign, they have no say in the issue, whether they get to see the national curriculum or not. If they don't like it, they can protest about it when they see it. They're certainly not being asked if they agree with it or not at this stage.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jamie Bloomfield:

    02 Dec 2008 11:20:19am

    As the government funds private schools AND public ones, all schools should have to disclose their funding. After all, we wouldn't want to be subsidising those schools that don't really need it, would we? This would go against the grain with the Coalition wouldn't it? After all, they are super critical of ANY spending the government makes, so wouldn't they see this as a good thing? Let's face it, the Coalition keep telling us that they are for less government spending and less taxation. In actual fact, let's save a HUGE bundle and not subsidise private schools at all. This would save billions, and it would probably help us NOT to go into deficit, which for the Coalition is a dirty word. Surely this would keep the Coalition happy.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Lenwx:

    02 Dec 2008 11:57:32am

    Chrisopher Pyne is right re "a constract that the schools are being asked to sign". All private schools have to sign the agrement individually and any that do not do sign up to what is efectively an agreement with unknown conditions will receive no funding. Principals have the choice: sign up or else.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• GelF:

  02 Dec 2008 10:57:22am

  So there should be conditions on spending public money.
  
  This is more about religions privelidged position than about education standards.
  
  I'd even remove all taxation exemptions and other blatantly discriminatory practices against athiests.
  
  Public funds for non-religoues schools only!

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • stargirl:

    02 Dec 2008 11:16:46am

    I'm always sad to read comments from the average angry, bitter atheist.
    
    And the even sadder fact is that most "religious" schools are no longer religious in any way whatsoever. Any seriously religious parent can tell you that.
    
    So my atheist friend, you have no fear in sending your children to most expensive private schools. Alternatively, perhaps you should draw on the generous spirits of your atheist colleagues and create your own atheist private schools. You can convene committees and fundraise for years before it can open, and then you can all convene and fundraise all year round for the rest of your working life to keep it running, just as most private schools do. I'm sure atheists are just as willing to give their time and money as Christians and Muslims are.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • MattB:

      02 Dec 2008 11:36:05am

      But Stargirl, you miss the point where the non-religious private school would have to raise far far more money because they would not benefit from the tax loopholes available to religious organisations. That is why all private schools are religious.
      
      Personally I'd LOVE the choice to send my children to a private school with great quality education that was based on secular beliefs.
      
      Surely you would also love this? Because then you would not have private schools that "pretend" to be religious to get the tax benefits.
      
      Lol I also love that just because most private schools are not bastions of fringe fundamental christianity you claim they are "lo longer religious in any way."

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • chalkie:

      02 Dec 2008 11:49:31am

      generally, it is only those who put faith over their children's education who would submit their child to the poverty of a startup school.
      
      Most parents rather not have their children take the hits for their biases. It is no accident most new startups are from the more passionate religious communities.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Odge:

      02 Dec 2008 11:54:09am

      Stargirl, don't be said, we dont need your sympathy. Are you honestly telling us that you believe public schools don't have caring communities of parents who are members of P&C associations, volunteer for canteen duty or get involved in running school fetes and fundraiser. These must be the soul domain of the caring, community minded private schools. That is SAD!!!
      
      "most "religious" schools are no longer religious". Except where you have to send your kids to the Seventh Day Adventist church in order for them to get into the school like my aetheist brother did because his wife wanted their boys go to a specific school.
      
      I guess those guys in robes wandering the halls of the catholic schools we hear so much about for their misadventures with their charges have no connections to the Pope, God's vassal on earth?
      
      Stargirl, even public schools still have religious studies so you can have no fear of sending your precious christian, muslim or buddist poppet to a secular public school without having them converted into an atheiest.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jeremy:

      02 Dec 2008 11:55:39am

      It's hilarious the way religious people use logical fallacies such as this argument ad hominem to dismiss the opinions of non-religious people.
      
      Stargirl is obviously missing the point, which is that the money that pays for "private" schools in Australia is actually public money, not private money. Most "private" schools in Australia actually receive a majority of their funding from the government. Hence the question is, how happy are you working hard to pay taxes for society when that tax money goes towards funding a fundamentalist Muslim school or an Exclusive Brethren school?
      
      I don't think it's asking much to ask that the tax dollars that I pay doesn't go to teaching children superstitious beliefs that I think are harmful to society and false. There's nothing to stop parents from indoctrinating their own children, but can the government please not use my money to pay for schools to do it?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Tom:

  02 Dec 2008 10:59:09am

  Oh those poor private schools , what a sad day for the average population of Australia.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • chalkie:

    02 Dec 2008 11:16:46am

    ABout 40% of year 12 kids will have gone to a private school at some time. For better or worse, privately schooled students are over represented in university courses and punch above their weight in terms of post uni performance. Now there are social and economic factors operating here, but private school education is far from a marginal issue for cast numbers of voters and the influential.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jeremy:

      02 Dec 2008 11:56:54am

      So what can be done to raise the standard of public schools so that having rich parents isn't such a factor in a child's success later in life?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • wmc:

    02 Dec 2008 11:19:36am

    Despite high fees and facilities that are usually no better than those found at public schools, average Australians have been flocking to private schools. One in three high school kids now goes to a private school, so what does that say about public schools?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • frog:

      02 Dec 2008 11:29:55am

      That public schools have had their guts ripped out by a decade of extreme coalition ideology.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • wmc:

        02 Dec 2008 11:43:57am

        If public schools have had their guts ripped out, it's because they've been underfunded by Labor state governments who've wasted the GST windfall.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • JC:

        02 Dec 2008 11:58:14am

        Is that right Frog? I attended private school between 1977 and 1983. Heres the clincher - my dad was a spray painter (as an employee, not his own business) and my mum was a humble secretary/bookkeeper. How did they pay the fees? They saved their backsides off to give me the best possible. My dad built trailers, anything to make money. Class envy I thought was not a part of Australian culture - how sadly naive of me. Maybe I should go back to a re-education camp!
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Tom:

      02 Dec 2008 11:33:24am

      Public schools are underfunded, and private schools have top notch facilities. Pools, club houses, rowing sheds, clean toilets, air conditioning, new textbooks, more computers ect ect
      
      You get a better understanding of the real world at a public school, the elite school down the road from me one year flew their First 15 or whatever to the head of the river in a helicopter for crying out loud

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • kathy:

        02 Dec 2008 11:53:17am

        You should complain it to the state govt... it is the state responsibilities!

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jamie Bloomfield:

      02 Dec 2008 11:39:19am

      It says that we should abandon private school funding out of the government purse and invest invest it in public schools.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • mr.sp3aker:

      02 Dec 2008 11:46:49am

      It says, quite clearly, that the Government should stop spending money on private schools and put it ALL into public schools.
      
      The longer this divide between private / public education the more it will become like the USA, where most of the population simply will never afford a good education (college and all).
      
      I for one resent paying taxes to help the elite attend schools with multiple swimming pools and basketball courts, when the majority of kids study in libraries with 10 year old books.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Lukemac:

        02 Dec 2008 12:16:29pm

        My guess is that you dont resent your taxes going to pay for education but rather are simply envious.
        
        Look at it this way, for every child in private school, is a reduction of your tax dollars spent on their education. In fact they are doing you a favor by going private, otherwise you would incur the full cost of educating them with your tax dollars.
        
        The fact that their parents pay for extra services should have no being on the debate, unless of course you cant stand the idea that someone work hard for their money and can use it to better their children
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Odge:

      02 Dec 2008 11:59:35am

      Probably due more to the fear put into them by the former government. I'd like to know where Chalkies figures come from.
      
      Actually, despite the active poaching of well performing students from public schools on scholarships, private schools have not been able to prove any acedemic advantage over public school students. As for post study success, it probably has more to do with the networks generated with other well to do students and parental financial support than academic performance.
      
      Not only that, recently we are seeing a strong current of returning students seeking access to public schools. Have parents begun to see through the hype of private education?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Jamie Bloomfield:

        02 Dec 2008 12:13:22pm

        Private Schools=Elitism. It doesn't automatically follow that those that are privately educated are any better educated than those in the public system. As much as a good education relies on good resources, it also relies on a person willing to and possessing the abilities to learn.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jeremy:

      02 Dec 2008 11:59:50am

      Public schools need more funding. Private schools get too much.
      
      In pretty much every country in the world apart from Australia, a "private" school is one that does not receive government funding. Schools that do receive some portion of government funding are usually expected to meet government expectations etc.
      
      Australia is unusual in that our "private" schools receive the majority of their funds from the government, but don't have the same obligations as "public" schools that also receive their funds from the same source.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • The Pav:

      02 Dec 2008 12:19:40pm

      What does it say about public schools?
      
      Only that they've been starved of funds by during the Howard years and the private schools spoiled as a consequence of his dogma.
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • spin sick:

    02 Dec 2008 11:41:23am

    BACK OFF!!!! I work hard, pay my taxes (more than most of you) , scrimp and save to send my kids to a better school, I get engaged in their school life and they work hard in return.
    
    Here we have and education department that does not run one school, educate one kid and its telling us what to do!!! Not to mention that the Minister does not know what it is like to worry about your kid, juggle work and kids or to make choices for their kid...... get some experience Julia and then speak to me!!!
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jamie Bloomfield:

      02 Dec 2008 11:57:28am

      "Private School" does not necessarily equate with a better school. I think you need a Bex and a good lie down!

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Patch:

      02 Dec 2008 12:15:01pm

      Wow. So all her experience and knowledge comes to nothing because she doesn't have a child?
      
      logical fallacy.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• twobob:

  02 Dec 2008 11:01:16am

  I expect that this has absolutely nothing to do with the national curriculum and everything to do with the funding. As such it would be wise for labor to play the hand a little longer and give the libs and fielding enough rope so to speak. Then separate the national curriculum part from the package and listen to them squeal. I am pretty sure that fielding has something to hide here otherwise what is his problem?

  Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • swamprat:

    02 Dec 2008 11:23:00am

    Fielding is desperately trying to make a name for himself to appear relevant before the next elections {where hopefully he'll be voted out} he's a waste of space in parliament, theres independants or minor parties who can use a vote in the senate wisely and some who just misuse it like Meg Lees did, Fielding is another like Lees.
    
    the coalition will oppose for the sake of opposing whatever the government proposes in the senate, they are still trying to come to grips that they are not governing now and the voters have given Rudd a mandate to carry out his changes, Rudd said he'd be changing the education guidlines well before the election and i guess that gives him a mandate--something the opposition cant seem to accept.