Email

Opposition in 'humiliating backdown' on schools bill

By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers

Posted December 4, 2008 13:05:00
Updated December 4, 2008 14:41:00

Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne has denied the Coalition has backflipped on its opposition to the Schools Assistance bill, after agreeing to pass it without further amendments.

But Education Minister Julia Gillard has described the move, which will now allow $28 billion of funding to reach independent schools, as a "humiliating backdown".

This morning the Opposition said it would move an amendment to allow schools such as Steiner and Montessori schools to teach an accredited equivalent of the national curriculum.

But Ms Gillard insisted the amendment was not needed.

Now Mr Pyne says he has decided to drop the amendment because of assurances made in in the Senate by Kim Carr that the curriculum would not impact on teaching methods.

"We have said all along that we believe that it was very loose, the way it was being described in the legislation," he said.

"Senator Carr in the Senate put on the Hansard record the national curriculum will not mandate teaching methods, it will not mandate teaching techniques."

When asked by reporters if the change in position was an "embarrassing backflip" Mr Pyne replied: "How could it be? We got everything we wanted."

"The fact that it didn't proceed with our amendment underlines the fact that we are satisfied with what Senator Carr said on the record."

However, Ms Gillard says Mr Pyne has "completely backflipped" and is "scrabbling for excuses".

Ms Gillard says the Government has always been clear that the curriculum would allow for flexibility among different schools.

"Instead of just having the fortitude to go out publicly and say, 'yes I did backflip, I did change my mind', the shadow minister for education has been trying to pretend to all the world that apparently a statement about curriculum was made today in the Senate that had never been made before," she said.

Tags: education, government-and-politics, federal-government, australia

Comments (133)

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.

• geoff:

  04 Dec 2008 1:28:22pm

  Very clever politics by Julie Gillard. By insisting on the funding being tied to the idea of the curriculum, and given that a significant part of the Coalition's constituency sends its kids to private schools, the Opposition really had no choice.
  Very clever.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • bob:

    04 Dec 2008 1:51:41pm

    Clever politics often goes hand in hand with bad policy. The opposition had a very decent point in that the two components could be separated, and should be, so that the curriculum could be debated. The similar rushing through of legislation without debate was ultimately how Howard came unstuck with workchoices
    
    However, at least the government now has forward momentum on this issue....

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • swamprat:

      04 Dec 2008 2:07:55pm

      it couldnt have been very bad policy when the two main private school councils came out and said they were satisfied with the policy, this was all about the coalition agenda to try and block any government policy and then whine the governments doing nothing, it gave Pyne a reasom to throw out and pound his puny little chest and do the he man act and expound he'll never give way.
      seems like some irate schools must have got in touch with him, now he'll creep away with his tail between his legs, as for Fielding, he's been tying his flag to the coalition mast, this comes at a lesson never to trust them, he wont lat after the next election.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • swamprat:

        04 Dec 2008 2:28:20pm

        Just because two bodies say they support it, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be examined in more detail. Like it or not, that is what oppositions do. It is the foundation of our political system and it is what their job is.
        
        I'd rather they spend a week discussing the bill (regardless of which party is in government) instead of them rushing it through
        
        Too many times with this government and with Howards has these same policies on the run have led to a terrible outcome

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • El Barto:

        04 Dec 2008 3:04:20pm

        Swamprat:
        
        It is being examined...They are commiting to come up with a National Curriculum..when I say "they" I mean the private schools are part (if not the main part) of working out a national curriculum. I think standarising students curriculum accross the country is a desirable thing to do.
        
        The only conditions here is that they (the schools) will sit down with Goverment and come up with a National Curriculum. And in doing so they will not FORCE any one to change long tradditional teaching methods.
        
        The Liberals/NAT were playing politics with this whole thing. I think personally it was a poorly plan strategy, which played into Labors hands...
        
        Whoever adviced Pyne was wrong into thinking they could score any points with this strategy. Notice that the Leader of the Opposition did not join the Debate as strong as Pyne. Pyne was eigther sacrificed or he wanted to push this agenda for some god forsaken reason.
        
        All in all stupid politics from the Libs/Nats....

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Homer:

        04 Dec 2008 2:44:51pm

        The only reason it got any approval from private school council was because the govt held them to ransom.
        Accept this or get nothing.
        Schools need funding to operate and the govt threatened to withdraw it so the councils said OK we will do it.
        Is it better for education - the consensus is no, but you have no choice with a funding gun to your head.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • mark:

        04 Dec 2008 3:00:08pm

        sounds a bit like coalition policy on health a few years back... accept inadequate funding or get nothing. Then blame the states for mis-managing health.
        I guess if we see a few coalition governments running the states we'll get a repeat performance there as well.
        It's time to nationalise health and education... take some of the politics out of essential services

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Craig:

    04 Dec 2008 1:58:04pm

    politics should have had nothing to do with school funding. both issues were and should have been delt with separately.
    
    1. Proposed private school funding
    
    2. A national curriculum adgenda
    
    By putting them together, the government is efectively blocking the oppositions ability to debate the national curriculum adgenda (. . . not very democratic). this is the wrong thing to do in the interests of all students who should benefit from diverse perspectives so that they are able to form thier own beliefs.
    
    i am public school educated (and am happy that i was) but i can also see the benefits of private schooling for those that can afford it (or sacrifice enough to achieve it) i.e. greater access to extra-curricula persuits / faith / drama / arts / debating / music etc.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Homer:

      04 Dec 2008 2:46:37pm

      Exactly. How do you push through a tainted policy - threaten to withdraw funding on the eve of distribution if it's not supported.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Smithy:

      04 Dec 2008 2:52:44pm

      I would say that any public school student has the right to have the same access to extra-curricula activities as those from a private school. Isn't there something fundamentally wrong with the system when this is not happening?

      Agree (2) Alert moderator

  • Jobo:

    04 Dec 2008 2:15:13pm

    This is actually an attempt at a clever politics by the coalition to a) back down from their previous position without making themseves look like flip floppers and b) pin the labor party to a 'no educational philosophies' position
    
    b) at least is clearly ridiculous whn what we are talking about is a national curriculum

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Homer:

      04 Dec 2008 2:49:11pm

      Have you seen the curriculum?
      
      No - just like everybody else. Therefore we now have a curriculum that has been virtually approved without knowing what it is.
      
      Great step forward.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Gypse:

    04 Dec 2008 2:32:03pm

    The bottom line is we are one step close to a national curriculum.
    
    It's a little unfair to suggest that private schools get no government funding.
    
    It's fairer for he government to pay the same per student regardless of whether they are in a government or private school.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Smithy:

      04 Dec 2008 2:56:54pm

      Considering that public schools have no other source of funding, and that the private system is for those who have deliberately made a choice to 'opt out' of the government system, shouldn't the vast majority of funding at all government levels should go to public schools?
      
      A small proportion should go to private schools, but this needs to be as part of an agreement to in return allow government oversight to maintain standards and in conjunction of reporting of all sources of funding to maintain transparency and allow us to see where funding is or is not needed.

      Agree (2) Alert moderator

• Joel B1:

  04 Dec 2008 1:30:57pm

  Love the "not-so-real" headline...
  
  Try "Minister reassures: Senate "Yes to School Bill""
  
  
  Pathetic, misleading and rather typically pro-Labor ABC bias.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Tim:

    04 Dec 2008 2:06:07pm

    Countered by the gentle description 'opposition climbs down' when it should say 'opposition performs total backflip'

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Spooky:

      04 Dec 2008 2:22:35pm

      And in a few months time the article will be 'Schools forced to accept terrible curriculum, ALP assurances to Libs turn out to be empty promises'
      
      A backflip you say?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Tim:

        04 Dec 2008 2:38:00pm

        Wiith full somersault. Just heard it described on the radio as a "humiliating backflip" which is probably more accurate. And you seem to forget that the vast majority of schools and their interest groups supported and still support the legislation. How then can anything be "forced" on them?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Odge:

        04 Dec 2008 3:12:44pm

        ...with pike!
        
        keep in mind, that these same independant school councils are involved in the development of the new national curriculum. So they probably have a much better idea about the direction it is heading. Compare that to the automatically opposing opposition, who obviously hadn't done the homework that was set out for them by the voting public of Australia and have been embarrassingly caught out.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Mark:

      04 Dec 2008 2:34:58pm

      It's hardly a total backflip. The opposition wanted assurances that the national curriculum wouldn't affect alternative schools (such as Steiner, Montessori and those that teach the IB). They got those assurances in Parliament from the Minister, so they passed the Bill.
      
      I don't see how that is a total backflip.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • 180 Degrees:

      04 Dec 2008 2:57:15pm

      Agreed Tim, Joel go easy on the ABC, they watered down what actually took place, you should have seen Chris' face this morning.......I give the Libs a fail for that dive somersault, very big splash Pyne, Julia didnt let that go un-noticed......

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Bob:

    04 Dec 2008 2:41:13pm

    Pull your head in about ABC pro-Labor bias - the Australian - which can hardly be called pro-Labor has the same headline "Coalition in backflip on private schools funding" http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24750073-601,00.html
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• derek409:

  04 Dec 2008 1:31:01pm

  Any comment from Christopher Pyne ? Where is Christopher Pyne. Who's that sneaking out the back door of Parliament House ? Surely not Christopher Pyne, he always seems to have something to say !

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• sojourner:

  04 Dec 2008 1:32:04pm

  I'm a bit lost. What really did change if anything from the original bill submitted?
  
  Assurances are not legislation.
  
  Score - Juli Gillard 100 Opposition 0?
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jamie Bloomfield:

    04 Dec 2008 2:02:35pm

    What's changed? Today is the last sitting day of Parliament, that's what. If the Bill had not passed, they would have to stay on in Canberra. So much for Christopher Whine's and the Coalition's principled blocking of this Bill. In the end, he and U-Turnbull & Co flip-flopped once again to satisfy their own selfish selves. They simply want to knock off for Christmas on time. Once again, the Coalition have shown that they are only interested in what's good for them. As usual, the country comes last!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Pen Pal:

      04 Dec 2008 3:01:59pm

      Don't you think Jamie that we should wait and see if the legislation actually works before hailing it a success.
      
      I agree with earlier scribes to this article that to link funding to a curriculum is not the right way to go - however, I accept that's politics.
      
      Separate Bills would have better focused the Parliament's time in getting an even better outcome through better legislation.
      
      I also believe that the Coalition was thinking of Australia by passing this Bill in time for the start of the new school year - what would have been your writings if they refused passage of the Bill - I can see it now - "Coalition destroys the educational opportunities for thousands of young Australians".

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Jamie Bloomfield:

        04 Dec 2008 3:18:34pm

        No, I disagree with you - the two should have been combined as they were. If private schools DON'T want private funding, then it is their decision whether or not they adhere to a national curriculum. However, these schools DO want public funding, and quite rightly, public funding comes with strings attached. From the way that Christopher Whine was shrieking, it appeared that they would in no way compromise - their principle was more important. But alas, they have proven this was not the case. If the Bill had not passed, the Coalition as is their usual way, would have carped, whined, whinged and criticised that it was all Rudd's fault - "Government Declares Class Warfare in Private School Funding Row". I do see your point of view, but at the end of the day it is the governments legislation regarding PUBLIC funding, and they are, after all, the government. The Opposition should just get used to the fact that they are the Opposition and no longer call the shots.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • DeeCee:

    04 Dec 2008 2:11:54pm

    indeed. Not yet within lightyears of Howard's Machiavellian deceit of 'Children overboard' or WMD, but Julia is mastering Little Johnny's Wedge.
    
    Onya Julia!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Spooky:

    04 Dec 2008 2:12:48pm

    The Opposition only supported the bill due to the assurances from the ALP. It was an exercise of trust and professionalism. It is also a trap.
    
    If the curriculum comes out poorly, the schools will be forced to accept it. The schools will rise up, the ALP assurance will prove to be an empty promise and the Liberals will get a massive opportunity to rip the government to shreds.
    
    The ALP, by comparison, will be stuck in a very ugly position. 2011 is getting closer every day.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jamie Bloomfield:

      04 Dec 2008 2:36:14pm

      Keep dreaming Spooky. One day it MIGHT happen, but not in 2010 (not 2011) when the next election is due. This is not a trap at all - that's just desperate talk from a Coalition supporter disgruntled because his party lost. All this scaremongering over a national curriculum is just ridiculous! It will be formulated and agreed to by educators and the like - people who in the know. God, the way you and others are behaving over it, anyone would think our kids were going to have electrodes strapped to them and will undergo mass brainwashing. Grow up!

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

• BB:

  04 Dec 2008 1:34:35pm

  geoff...you're making a big assumption on who sends their kids to private schools.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • arry:

    04 Dec 2008 2:09:45pm

    It's not an assumption actually. Stats back it up.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Gilligan:

      04 Dec 2008 2:32:33pm

      Remember the maxim arry... lies, damned lies and statistics?
      
      Show us the numbers arry please.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Bean:

  04 Dec 2008 1:34:39pm

  YES! Let the dumbing down of our education system continue - who needs a smart county anyway.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Brad:

    04 Dec 2008 2:05:01pm

    How is having a uniform national curriculum dumbing down? This is the very thing to stop student dumbing themselves down if they move interstate.
    
    Literacy and numeracy greatly improved when Germany introduced a national curriculum, instead of letting their states make disparate decisions.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

• Di:

  04 Dec 2008 1:35:49pm

  At last! Commonsense prevails!

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Pen Pal:

  04 Dec 2008 1:37:05pm

  The Libs can do what the Labour Party has done to WorkChoices - when they occupy the Treasury benches after 2010, they can amend this legislation to better suit their policies at the time.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Hal:

    04 Dec 2008 1:58:50pm

    Well, it's what they did for over a decade when they were in office, so why change now? Why else are our schools and univerities broke?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jamie Bloomfield:

    04 Dec 2008 2:04:45pm

    The way they are going, I wouldn't bet on them occupying the government benches anytime soon. They stink with the electorate as the polls show, and no amount of muck-chucking by you or any other Coalition supporters still in denial is going to change that.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Willster:

      04 Dec 2008 2:29:25pm

      24 hours is a long time in politics. 2 years is 730 times as long.
      
      It doesn't take "muck-chucking" to change the polls. It's Rudd's performance, or lack thereof, that will do the job. As the global finanicial crisis fades away and removes their excuse for all things negative Labor will fade quickly in the polls, unless they actually manage to deliver on something for a change, which is unlikely under such a band of ditherers.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Jamie Bloomfield:

        04 Dec 2008 2:42:53pm

        Thank you Nostradamus. Perhaps the reason why things are going slowly is because of a hostile Senate. The sooner that Rudd and Co get a double dissolution trigger, the better. The Coalition wouldn't stand a chance!

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Spooky:

        04 Dec 2008 3:07:48pm

        Who is trying to predict the future now?
        
        Based on the last few mistakes (This issue, the Christmas splurge, whaling and WorkSmartChoices), a double dissolution is not what Rudd needs.
        
        If enough swing voters have been put off by his management and arrogant smile, your predictions might need some fine tuning.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • arry:

    04 Dec 2008 2:10:29pm

    Yeah! and increase funding to private schools once more... as it should be...

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• chalkie:

  04 Dec 2008 1:37:27pm

  a false debate has ended: there was always no real debate over the National Curriculum as the processof curriculum change always occurs, always accommodates private school concerns and always remains contingent on the opt-out to the International Baccaulaureate which universities independently accept.
  
  Of course, it was all a ruse to mask the concern over private schools having to reveal their assets and income along with the payments to Headmasters/mistresses (and yes the terms are still used). Expect to see packages in the mid$200 000s.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Lenny:

  04 Dec 2008 1:38:03pm

  What on Earth were they trying to acheive anyway? And if it was so important yesterday why not today? The opposition seem to be going from bad to worse.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Spooky:

    04 Dec 2008 2:00:49pm

    I think that this is a mistake. The Opposition should have stuck to their guns. Now the schools will be forced to accept the curriculum, even if it turns out to be a turkey.
    
    On the other hand, this may be intended.
    
    The Opposition may be seeking to allow this to run, knowing that they can attack the poorly drafted curriculum in a few months. With the schools being forced to accept a bad curriculum, the Opposition will win a greater PR victory then if they had solved the problem today.
    
    If asked why they supported the bill in the first place? Their answer will be that the ALP gave assurances that the curriculum would be flexible.
    
    Politics is always about picking the battleground, as well as the battles.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Tim:

      04 Dec 2008 3:03:31pm

      Spooky, again you seem to be forgetting that the vast majority of schools support this legislation and were urging the opposition to pass it.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• DeepFritz:

  04 Dec 2008 1:40:29pm

  Classic Wedge strategy from Gillard. Works a treat.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• FRLT:

  04 Dec 2008 1:41:13pm

  geoff, if the opposition had pulled this stunt whilst in government, you would call it blackmail. It is not often that I countenance inept and useless commentary such as yours with any response.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Robert M:

  04 Dec 2008 1:41:36pm

  MMM... Either the opposition is either supporting the Government to impliment its election mandate, but more likely it seems that the Senate does not have the stomach for a double dissolution trigger just now...
  
  Carbon Trading legislation will probabley pass for the same reason

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Grumpy:

  04 Dec 2008 1:43:51pm

  Let's hope that alternative "teaching methods or philosophies" do not include "Intelligent Design" taking on the mantle of Science.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jeremy:

    04 Dec 2008 1:47:24pm

    There are already over 100 private schools in Australia that receive about half their funding from the Government and teach "intelligent" design in science classes.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • DeepFritz:

      04 Dec 2008 1:52:23pm

      I'd love to see a list of these prestigious institutes - time to name and shame....
      
      Heck most of these schools (even those on that list) have RE (now there's a non-subject if ever there was one)...

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Gah:

      04 Dec 2008 1:59:32pm

      All the more reason to have a national syllabus and to declare where your money is coming from so agendas are a little more transparent.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Brad:

        04 Dec 2008 2:18:07pm

        The national curriculum actually prohibits teaching intelligent design as science.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Fergz:

        04 Dec 2008 2:36:36pm

        Hang on, is hasnt even been finished yet has it?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Hal:

      04 Dec 2008 2:02:34pm

      I love spending taxes on mumbo jumbo. Please, can those 100 schools also put witch detection back in the curriculum (I believe Monty Python produced a good traing film on that).

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • arry:

      04 Dec 2008 2:11:56pm

      Great use of public funds...

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Brad:

      04 Dec 2008 2:17:11pm

      Roll on the national curriculum! A small number of Christian schools opposed it (although most private schools support it) because it would prohibit teaching intelligent design as science.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Brad:

    04 Dec 2008 2:08:24pm

    The science curriculum is written by science teachers. Science teachers will not teach intelligent design as "science" unless it is forced on them.
    
    That was the case in the USA. Science teachers were universally opposed to teaching intelligent design as "science", but the curriculum and the choice of text book is set by individual school boards.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • quinny:

    04 Dec 2008 2:57:17pm

    calm down everyone. Creationism is not allowed to be taught in science classes, only in those schools who teach religious classes and then, to my knowledge, it is not compulsory should parents decide against it. The issue is not about 'what' is taught (all schools must abide by a set curriculum), but 'how' it is taught. parents should maintain this freedom of choice when deciding which school best suits their children.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• b denham:

  04 Dec 2008 1:44:19pm

  The bills been passed without further ammendment, with only prime LIBERAL Stephen Fielding voting against it.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Gilligan:

  04 Dec 2008 1:46:56pm

  Great politics but of absolutely no inherent value to the country.
  
  We now have a bill in two parts 1) heres the money 2) tell you the rules later
  
  Yeah, great politics but lousy governance.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• John:

  04 Dec 2008 1:48:06pm

  An unscrupulous government and a spineless opposition -- not usually a formula for good governance. At every opportunity, the opposition has shown itself unwilling to stand by its guns. We had high hopes that Mr Turnbull's gravitas would help bolster a dejected Liberal Party and restore that Howard steel, but apparently we were wrong.
  
  NEXT PLEASE!

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Willster:

  04 Dec 2008 1:48:11pm

  Since federal funding makes up 10% of a private school's recurrent funding Julia can dictate 10% of the curriculum. Beyond that she can pull her head in.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Gah:

    04 Dec 2008 2:00:40pm

    I got a better idea. How about private schools do what they want and we keep out tax payer money for public schools? Deal?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Willster:

      04 Dec 2008 2:41:37pm

      That would be my taxpayer money too. My kids have just as much right to exactly the same amount of federal funding as yours regardless of whether they're in a public or private school. If I tip in more of my own dollars, after tax dollars at that, then that's my choice, my sacrifice, and not the business of the federal government, or you.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Gadget:

        04 Dec 2008 3:05:31pm

        I love this form of non-argument.
        
        If you choose NOT to send your children to perfectly serviceable Public Schools, you also choose to forego the public funding. It is called a Provate School, meaning the funding should come from Private sources, not Public sources.
        
        It's like me asking the government to fund my going to a Private swimming pool, when a perfectly useable Public beach is available.
        
        Once you pay your Tax, it is up to the government of the day to decide how those tax dollars are disbursed. Your children don't have an "ear-marked" set of dollars set aside in the Tax take for their education and neither do mine.
        
        Tax is a collective asset. the sooner people comprehend that the better.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Trent:

        04 Dec 2008 3:08:25pm

        No, you don't. Private schools are just that, private. Public money should not be spent on private establishments. Why should my money help your kid get a better education than mine when I can't afford to send mine to the same place?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Hal:

    04 Dec 2008 2:10:23pm

    Well, if it's really just pin-money, maybe some private schools might wish to opt in order out to teach 100% of whatever mumbo jumbo they like. But I have a sneaking suspicion that more of my taxes are going into chapel restoration fund than you're letting on.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Trent:

  04 Dec 2008 1:48:57pm

  Absolutely ridiculous. The whole point of a private school is that the rich people sending their kids their pay for it. This is money that should have been spent on state schools. Total waste of tax payers money here, the rich get more of the poors money. Fantastic, well done Gillard.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Gilligan:

    04 Dec 2008 1:54:58pm

    Trent, your colours are showing; how many posters have to say that private school kids are not, in the main, rich kids. They are children of families who go without just to send their kids to a decent school.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Trent:

      04 Dec 2008 1:59:23pm

      hence the reason the state schools should recieve the funding, so those parents don't have to send their kids to a private school to get a "decent" education. How about giving every child a decent education not based on the wealth of their family?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • arry:

      04 Dec 2008 2:15:25pm

      Don't be ridiculous Gilligan. Your true (blue) colours are showing. Grammar is a perfect example of the way in which private schools promote and continue inequality in our society. It is a disgrace that our taxpayer dollars are used to fund this growing inequity. 28 billion- imagine what that could do for the public system and the many disadvantaged and disabled students it takes.
      How many disabled students to do you see at the average private school? How many Indigenous students? How many from poor backgrounds?
      On all counts, the percentage is higher in state schools. Make no mistake.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Gilligan:

        04 Dec 2008 2:48:56pm

        Lots actually, they come in all shapes, sizes, colours and creeds. Boys on scholarships too Thats the wonderful thing about having choices, one decides what sacrifices one is prepared to make in order to achieve certain goals, like footballers, golfers and other athletes.
        
        The reference to Grammar puzzles me... must be a secret code?
        
        I pay taxes, I employ people and pay company tax; I contribute to our society in other ways; why should my choice of school not get a share of the nations wealth?
        
        Or is your argument that we should all be the same with no choices at all?
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Trent:

        04 Dec 2008 3:00:02pm

        Why shouldn't your choices involve what you learn at the state school rather than which school you go to?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Matthew Brown:

        04 Dec 2008 2:54:08pm

        Probably more then you think go to private schools! Ours goes to a private school. All the schools encourage it whether they private or public as they receive extra funding for that child!

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • arry:

        04 Dec 2008 3:16:16pm

        Extra funding from who? Ahhh the GOVERNMENT. Extra funding from the GOVERNMENT for a PRIVATE school... and so the wheele keeps spinning lol...

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jamie Bloomfield:

      04 Dec 2008 2:16:18pm

      Successive State and Federal governments of both persuasions have seriously underfunded public education in favour of private education, and we wonder why standards drop? And then parents say they are forced into putting their kids through a private education, at considerable cost to themselves, to give them a better education, not that a private education equates with a better one. A willingness and an ability to learn are required. It is all an elaborate con job. How many parent's gleefully accepted the Howard Government's "tax cuts" without thinking about where those "tax cuts" were REALLY coming from? This was also the practice health funding. The Howard government reduced it's share of health funding from 50% to 41% forcing the state governments to pick up the shortfall, people were having to fork out for private health cover, and were paying $16 billion out of their own pockets on health. And the Howard Govt gleefully blamed the States for the drop in services and standards. Education and health care are a right, and we should get rid of private education and health care and use the funds to improve both public systems to become first class ones, where everyone gets a decent education and health care, not just those that can afford to pay for it out of their own pockets.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • MT:

      04 Dec 2008 2:17:19pm

      People who can afford to go without may not be rich, but they certainly are not poor

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Willster:

        04 Dec 2008 2:45:20pm

        So your saying that Fred on $100K a year sends his kids to a public school and snorts at the public trough should be fully taxpayer funded while Joe on $100K a year tightens the belt to cough up the $10K after tax dollars he needs to get little princess into a desirable private school should wear the whole cost on his own?
        
        Yeah, very equitable I must say. Not.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • And now the other one:

    04 Dec 2008 2:02:00pm

    That's right Trent - the rich aren't taxpayers, so shouldn't get any benefit on that which happens to slop around all those big fatcat loopholes they're throwing their wads of cash through.
    
    And whilst we're at it, those taxpaying (aka not rich) parents who live tight so that their kids can go should really just pull their heads in and get back in their public school box. Who are they kidding...
    
    Let's crank that class warfare handle just a little bit harder.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • arry:

      04 Dec 2008 2:22:40pm

      You think it's fair that a kid's quality of education is determined by their parent's wealth? This is not about class welfare, this is about quality education for all Australians.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • neil:

        04 Dec 2008 2:38:37pm

        Well, not necessarily wealth, but often parents priorities.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • arry:

        04 Dec 2008 2:52:17pm

        But how is the parent's priorities the child's fault? Why should they pay the price?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Gilligan:

        04 Dec 2008 2:57:31pm

        Then you should look at how we train teachers; its not the system thats necessarily at fault its the systems ability to produce quality teachers. (And tongue in cheek, parents ability to produce the right material for them to teach!)
        
        The fairer system may well be to have a base funding for each child in an area and then vouchers for parents to make a choice, to which of the schools do they want to send their children?
        
        Your philosophy seems to want to make sure that we have no choice, we all have talents of one sort or another, what we need is a school system that can address those talents and the choices that parents make.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • arry:

        04 Dec 2008 3:17:43pm

        I agree. choice. Free market. So stop government funding of private schools and give them to the free market. That would be real choice. Capitalism in its purest form. At the moment, we don't have private schools, we have publically subsidised selective schools.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Matthew Brown:

    04 Dec 2008 2:26:33pm

    I think it is totally fair that private schools receive govt funding so long as it based totally on total funding for year / total number of students (private and public) times by number of enrolments for that school. Private schools do take a burden off public schools. We send two childeren to a state school and one to a private school which is a very small school and caters well for his special needs. My shouldn't my tax dollars go towards his private school as well. We are certainly not rich!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • arry:

      04 Dec 2008 2:54:00pm

      I think other critiria are also necessary; they should take a certain number of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds etc... at the moment have a situation where public schools are having to do all the grunt work, while private schools (not all but many) take the cream.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Vic:

  04 Dec 2008 1:51:52pm

  For the benefit of Geoff and I would expect many others, you would be very surprised how many Labor MPs send their children to non government and independent - sometimes referred to as "private" - schools.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • geoff:

    04 Dec 2008 2:01:28pm

    and that affects what i said how? i sent mine to private school for a while too. so what?
    last night on the news the heads of several private school organisations said they wanted tthe bill passed. today it was.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• James:

  04 Dec 2008 1:52:45pm

  So Fielding and the Coalition were holding up funding to non government schools, nice. Times have changed.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Bean:

  04 Dec 2008 1:53:33pm

  A great victory for the continued dumbing down of Australia's education system. Who needs a smart country anyway!

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Hung One On:

  04 Dec 2008 1:53:40pm

  The Opposition should have listened to the schools who were happy to be invovled in the deveklopment of the national circulum, school from all sides.
  
  Look its one thing to be an Opposition but to be so stupid now on all these issues they are just becoming a laughing stock

  Agree (0)