Garrett says review will make school funds fair



The Minister for School Education, Peter Garrett, says a review of school funding will examine whether the current funding system is equitable.

Education unions have called for a new funding regime after it was revealed elite schools are charging annual fees of up to $28,000.

Unions say some private schools made $14 million profits last year but they are still receiving Government money.

Mr Garrett says the current system was set up by previous governments and it is now time to examine how it is working.

"It is critical that we have a system which is effective, which is sustainable, which is transparent and which is fair," he said.

"An independent review on schools funding which this Government has commissioned will give us some consideration and recommendations as we look at school funding overall."

Mr Garrett says the review will determine the most equitable model of funding schools.

"We have had a funding system in place for decades now which is the product of decisions by previous governments," he said.

"It's time for us to take the opportunity to have a fresh and clear sighted look at Commonwealth funding."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/23/3119241.htm?section=justin

I couldn't say it any better than this comment I just read;

'Simply put, the increases in funding for the wealthy private schools during the Howard years were not just absurd. They were obscene. In many cases commonwealth funding increases during this period, for the very wealthiest of schools, ran at 200 to 300%. Their fees increased at a far, far lower rate.

Not many these days begrudge poor Catholic and Muslim schools some government bucks, but providing commonwealth moneys for schools that have annual fees close to the median weekly wage is simply outrageous. I’m sorry, but giving government funding to schools that charges annual fees that run at 1.5 times the rate of the Age Pension with bonus is simply disgraceful.

If there is a place where the Commonwealth should look first when it comes to cutting expenditure to pay for the flood damage this is surely a first priority. This isn’t middle class welfare. It is welfare for the very wealthiest.'

My old school charges about $20k pa for yr11 and 12 day boys and near $40k pa for boarders.
Back when I was there it did perfectly well without any govt funding.

My dad always used to joke my schooling cost the same as a new ford falcon each year - that measurement would still seem to hold true.

My old school now receives a decent chunk of govt  funding.
Why?

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 8:26pm:

My dad always used to joke my schooling cost the same as a new ford falcon each year - that measurement would still seem to hold true.

Yep, my father once starting calc'ing up the total sunk cost of my sister and I over the course of early years to leaving uni.
He stopped counting after working out he could buy several porsches with the amount.
It ran into hundreds of thousands I think.

Such is life.

wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2011 at 7:53pm:

I couldn't say it any better than this comment I just read; 'Simply put, the increases in funding for the wealthy private schools during the Howard years were not just absurd. They were obscene. In many cases commonwealth funding increases during this period, for the very wealthiest of schools, ran at 200 to 300%. Their fees increased at a far, far lower rate. Not many these days begrudge poor Catholic and Muslim schools some government bucks, but providing commonwealth moneys for schools that have annual fees close to the median weekly wage is simply outrageous. I’m sorry, but giving government funding to schools that charges annual fees that run at 1.5 times the rate of the Age Pension with bonus is simply disgraceful. If there is a place where the Commonwealth should look first when it comes to cutting expenditure to pay for the flood damage this is surely a first priority. This isn’t middle class welfare. It is welfare for the very wealthiest.'

There’s also nothing new about the union’s argument that Catholic and independent schools do not deserve funding and that only state school students deserve taxpayer support.

Based on the union’s arguments the public could be forgiven for thinking that non-government schools are awash with funds as a result of government largesse, especially during the Howard years, and that state schools, by comparison, are starved of funding.

Not true, based on Productivity Commission figures, over the years 2003-04 to 2007-08 while government funding to state schools increased by 1.6% a year in real terms, the figure for non-government schools was only 0.65%.

When arguing that the current socioeconomic status (SES) model of funding is inequitable and unfair critics, like the AEU, always forget to include the contribution states make to school funding. Given that states provide the lion’s share of funding to schools (approximately 78%), ignoring their contribution and only focusing on the Commonwealth expenditure is misleading and false.

If state and Commonwealth funding are combined then it is clear that state school students, compared to those in non-government schools, receive substantially more support.

The reality, as noted in the 2010 Report on Government Services, is that total government funding per state school student is $12,639, while non-government schools only receive $6,606 per student. Every student that attends a non-government school saves government, and taxpayers, approximately $6,000.

It’s also the case that the current socioeconomic status (SES) model of funding is needs based. Wealthier non-government schools only receive 13.7% of the recurrent cost of educating a student in a government school, with needier non-government schools receiving up to 70% of the figure.

These figures refer to recurrent funding, when capital funding is included the imbalance is even greater. In relation to independent schools close to 90% of capital funding is provided by parents and school communities, with state and Commonwealth governments providing 10%.

The other fact that the AEU rarely mentions is that government funding to Catholic and independent schools is an increasingly sensitive and volatile political issue as more and more parents, especially amongst aspirational voters in marginal seats, are voting with their feet and choosing non-government schools.

Between the years 1998-2008 the number of students attending Catholic and independent schools grew by 21.9% while the figure for state school students was only 1.1%. Based on 2008 figures, approximately 30% of primary school students attend non-government schools, the figure rises to 40% for secondary school students.

All I can say is I am sooo lucky to have "beds are burning" in charge of my kids.

Leta hope he does NOT cause any long term or permanent damage.......

I don't know why there is always this fuss about funding to private schools etc.

At the end of the day, we need to treat all equally.

In my personal experience, kids at schools in the public sector do just as well in some respects as we do.
It's just all sour grapes.

People need to stop being concerned with this and get on with it.

I don't lose any sleep about public v private arrangements at all.

We all get the same chances in life from what I can see.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 1:37pm:

I don't know why there is always this fuss about funding to private schools etc. At the end of the day, we need to treat all equally. In my personal experience, kids at schools in the public sector do just as well in some respects as we do. It's just all sour grapes. People need to stop being concerned with this and get on with it. I don't lose any sleep about public v private arrangements at all. We all get the same chances in life from what I can see.

I have to agree with you. It is just that being a teacher in a public school and seeing what parents spend money on, than many do NOT care about their own children.

Many will not even buy their children a school uniform and proper school shoes.

And having to teach under a Labor Govt's curriculum for the past 20 odd years is NO fun!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 1:37pm:

I don't know why there is always this fuss about funding to private schools etc. At the end of the day, we need to treat all equally. In my personal experience, kids at schools in the public sector do just as well in some respects as we do. It's just all sour grapes. People need to stop being concerned with this and get on with it. I don't lose any sleep about public v private arrangements at all. We all get the same chances in life from what I can see.

So Andrei, you going to send your kids to public school? And if not, why?

<<So Andrei, you going to send your kids to public school? And if not, why?>>

If you are a product of the public system than I would suggest Andrie would have to say NO.

Another purposefully difficult issue to understand to any real degree.
The feds fund private and the states fund public.
1st question asked would have to be do any public schools have investment funds?
The argument used rightly, is all children deserve the same amount of taxpayer funding after all wealthy families who typically use private schools pay more tax than a family on a lower to middle income.
Private schools also are the main if not only schools that receive bequests of $$ and scholarships( I haven't heard of any public schools receiving any and wouldn't it go to consolidated revenue) which of course free up funds to invest.
Perhaps the solution is a higher tax rate on a sliding scale on investments starting around the 5 mill mark.
Or even better would be not to increase funding per student(forcing the feds to up theirs and the roundabout continues)but to maintain  and invest in improving excisting schools, keeping libaries stock,computers and printers up to date, air conditioning & safely heat all classrooms, in short maintain and improve the investment already made.
Who knows with more up to date,cleaner,modern looking public schools may find more students attending.

whatsforme wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 5:27pm:

<<So Andrei, you going to send your kids to public school? And if not, why?>> If you are a product of the public system than I would suggest Andrie would have to say NO.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I am a product of public school.  And I believe that while obviously private school provides students with more opportunities, in the end it is up to you what you do in school and how you go.

That is clearly shown by the fact that I did quite well in school and you thought that the internet was running out of english names, not IP addresses. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 6:18pm:

whatsforme wrote on Jan 24th, 2011 at 5:27pm: <<So Andrei, you going to send your kids to public school? And if not, why?>> If you are a product of the public system than I would suggest Andrie would have to say NO. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I am a product of public school.  And I believe that while obviously private school provides students with more opportunities, in the end it is up to you what you do in school and how you go. That is clearly shown by the fact that I did quite well in school and you thought that the internet was running out of english names, not IP addresses. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

ONE person's outcome is hardly the standard by which you judge two competing educational systems. And based on the vitriol and class-bias that you often display, you are hardly the standard-bearer for education excellence in the public sector.

The FACTS remain that private school students have vastly better educational outcomes and general life outcomes. That is not even denied by public school advocates.

I am beginning to think that public education is too infested with ideology and politics to be actually fixable. And clearly a lot agree based on the huge rush to the private sector.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 6:18pm:

And I believe that while obviously private school provides students with more opportunities, in the end it is up to you what you do in school and how you go.

Was that not exactly my point??

Given my girls are 2 and 6 months, it's not exactly a decision in the forefront of my mind right now.

I just don't think there is that much of a problem in regards to the schooling.

In my own experience, I think the current education system seems to work pretty well.

Good, driven, intelligent people succeed.
Dropouts, losers and deadbeats don't.

Irrelevant of schooling.

In Melbourne I worked with plenty of people in management positions who had been through the public system.

From my perspective, the private system did ok by me as well. I thought my school gave me a chance, but if I didn't grab it I'd be pushing trolleys in Sainsburys. As I should be if I didn't work hard.

Too many people too often will use 'not given the opportunity' excuse to make themselves feel better about their own failure in life.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 6:18pm:

whatsforme wrote on Jan 24th, 2011 at 5:27pm: <<So Andrei, you going to send your kids to public school? And if not, why?>> If you are a product of the public system than I would suggest Andrie would have to say NO. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I am a product of public school.  And I believe that while obviously private school provides students with more opportunities, in the end it is up to you what you do in school and how you go. That is clearly shown by the fact that I did quite well in school and you thought that the internet was running out of english names, not IP addresses. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hey dopey show me the post?

I think people get a bit hung up on schooling and the 'type' of school.

My wife went to a public school in North Queensland, I went to a private school which cost a fortune in Britain.
Year on year in the last few years she out-earned me by a good $5k per year.

My father went to a right drop-kick school in Britain, my mother went to a pretty elite Afrikaans school in Apartheid South Africa.
He supported the family and out earned her several times over.

Two personal examples (which i know Longweekend hates but I find them real world to me) of how the type of school means little the character of the person means everything.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 6:54pm:

I think people get a bit hung up on schooling and the 'type' of school. My wife went to a public school in North Queensland, I went to a private school which cost a fortune in Britain. Year on year in the last few years she out-earned me by a good $5k per year. My father went to a right drop-kick school in Britain, my mother went to a pretty elite Afrikaans school in Apartheid South Africa. He supported the family and out earned her several times over. Two personal examples (which i know Longweekend hates but I find them real world to me) of how the type of school means little the character of the person means everything.

defining the world based on your own experience and that of your parents might give you a great deal of comfort, but what it doesnt do is deliver a world-view based on facts. That outcomes of private educated people is measurebly better than public educated ones is an irrefutable fact - like it or not. Your personal experience is not the world in microcosm. You need to look outward and read more than margaret thatcher and ronald reagan and your father's diary.

whatsforme wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 6:48pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 24th, 2011 at 6:18pm: whatsforme wrote on Jan 24th, 2011 at 5:27pm: <<So Andrei, you going to send your kids to public school? And if not, why?>> If you are a product of the public system than I would suggest Andrie would have to say NO. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I am a product of public school.  And I believe that while obviously private school provides students with more opportunities, in the end it is up to you what you do in school and how you go. That is clearly shown by the fact that I did quite well in school and you thought that the internet was running out of english names, not IP addresses. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Hey dopey show me the post?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295824310
Reply #7

Obviously neither public or private could've helped you.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 8:10pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24th, 2011 at 6:54pm: I think people get a bit hung up on schooling and the 'type' of school. My wife went to a public school in North Queensland, I went to a private school which cost a fortune in Britain. Year on year in the last few years she out-earned me by a good $5k per year. My father went to a right drop-kick school in Britain, my mother went to a pretty elite Afrikaans school in Apartheid South Africa. He supported the family and out earned her several times over. Two personal examples (which i know Longweekend hates but I find them real world to me) of how the type of school means little the character of the person means everything. defining the world based on your own experience and that of your parents might give you a great deal of comfort, but what it doesnt do is deliver a world-view based on facts. That outcomes of private educated people is measurebly better than public educated ones is an irrefutable fact - like it or not. Your personal experience is not the world in microcosm. You need to look outward and read more than margaret thatcher and ronald reagan and your father's diary.

Agree that private schooling does provide students a lot more opportunities when we consider the state of some of the public schools.  From a point of view however, I agree that public school funding is not the responsibility of the federal government, and Howard's reasoning of every child receiving the same support from the government regardless of private/public makes sense.  What I would like to see however is that idea actually taken up in a more efficient way then the way it currently works.  I know private schools are against a "voucher" based system where each child is handed a $1000 voucher that goes to their school because they state it gives them uncertainty in terms of funding, and as a result they can't plan their curriculum.  I think that's absolute crap. Schools do analysis and predict what their intake will be each year, and for future years. Based on that alone they can still do their predictions, and given budgets are a living document, they can alter where necessary. But it makes more sense to use a voucher based system, especially given that the federal government's position is that "each child deserves the same opportunities" etc. etc.

I also note I said before that it's up to the student to take advantage of their education, and actually put effort into their education rather than expect to be taught.  That being said, public schools are underfunded in each state, and with the extra funding that a voucher based system can bring to them it might actually give them resources to allow different approaches towards teaching that get their students interested, and as a result take advantage of the AUstralian school system.

<<I am a product of public school.  And I believe that while obviously private school provides students with more opportunities, in the end it is up to you what you do in school and how you go.

That is clearly shown by the fact that I did quite well in school and you thought that the internet was running out of english names, not IP addresses.>>

Clearly you misunderstood the above post. It points out that the English language has over 1,000,000 words and more words are coming into it everyday so how is it possible to run out of internet names.

Now show me where it says anything about English names.

Yep you done weal good at skol d1ckhead.

Guess how many words there are in the Chinese language alevere?

Give up?

I will help you out here...Over 15,000,000.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 6:54pm:

I went to a private school which cost a fortune in Britain.

A "working class" private school ?

Parents bear the burden of surging private fees Anna Patty
January 23, 2011

THE state's richest schools are more out of reach than ever to ordinary families. In the 10 years since the Howard government introduced a funding system to make private schools more affordable, the most expensive schools' fees have risen by about 100 per cent - against inflation of 37 per cent.

At Trinity Grammar, a private school for boys in primary and high school, year 12 fees have increased from $10,020 in 2001 to $25,330 this year - a rise of 153 per cent.

Scots College, at Bellevue Hill, will charge as much as $28,296 for year 12 day students this year. Scots' headmaster Ian Lambert said this was all-inclusive, unlike schools that charged for additional expenses.

Advertisement: Story continues below The Howard government made assurances that its socio-economic status funding model, introduced in 2001, would keep a lid on fee rises. The model aims to allocate funding to schools based on the socio-economic status of the families of their students. But it uses census data to measure the average wealth of families in the areas where they live.

This has drawn criticism of the funding for schools such as Kings, which draws some of its students from wealthy farming families, even if they live in relatively poor areas.

Under its ''no losers'' policy, the Howard government refused to cut funding to schools, even if they were entitled to less under the new funding arrangement. This has meant that more than half the schools funded under the system have received more than their strict entitlement.

The Rudd and Gillard governments have maintained the $27 billion four-year funding arrangement, despite a federal Department of Education review finding it delivered $2.7 billion in overpayments. The inflated payments will grow to at least $3 billion by the end of 2016 if the current system continues.

The Gillard government has commissioned a panel of eminent Australians, headed by Sydney businessman David Gonski, to review schools funding. Mr Gonski told a recent meeting of the Australian Education Union that the charge for his panel was to address disadvantage. He said a direct measure of parents' income or occupation might be a more effective measure for funding needs than census data.

''The panel believes that the focus on equity should be ensuring that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possession,'' he said. The funding system should be ''transparent, fair, equitable and financially sustainable''.

Of NSW's 20 most expensive schools, the 17 that provided full details lifted fees by an average of 102 per cent between 2001 and 2011. Cranbrook, at Bellevue Hill, managed a surplus $8.4 million while receiving a Commonwealth subsidy of $3.5 million. Malek Fahd Islamic school, at Greenacre, got one of the biggest subsidies - $15.46 million.

The Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation, which oversees 16 schools including Roseville College, received $88 million in government revenue in 2009, when it also posted a $20.7 million surplus. In 2004 the corporation received $45.4 million and posted a $13.95 million surplus.

Laurie Scandrett, chief executive of the corporation, said enrolments had increased by 28 per cent between 2004 to 2009.

Funding for independent schools is tied to the average recurrent cost of funding government secondary schools, which rose by 24 per cent between 2004 and 2009.

''Multiply these together and that will explain the increase in the government revenue,'' Dr Scandrett said.

In 2009, he said, parents had paid $85 million in addition to the $88 million in government subsidies.

Some of the ''accounting surplus'' included capital grants, such as those awarded under the Building the Education Revolution. Of the $20.7 million surplus, $12 million was used to pay loans on school land and buildings; the rest went to capital works.

''Any surplus earnings, after day-to-day operating expenses are deducted, are retained for SASC's self-preservation, expansion and future plans,'' he said.

The chief executive of the Association of Independent Schools NSW, Geoff Newcombe, said education costs had increased by about 8 per cent last year and on average about 6 per cent a year since 2001.

''Independent school fees have to take into account both recurrent and capital costs, so it is not surprising that fees have had to increase at or above these average figures over the years,'' Dr Newcombe said.

Trevor Cobold, from Save Our Schools, a public school advocacy group, said the wealthiest schools had become more exclusive. ''The fee increase is more than double the cost increases in private schools. The wage price index for private education and training increased by only 44 per cent between 2001 and 2010 …

The school funding review has to put a stop to this appalling waste of taxpayer funds.''

A Greens NSW MP John Kaye said: ''There are grave concerns that Julia Gillard's schools funding review panel will not understand the frustration felt by public sector teachers and parents after 11 years of watching ever greater amounts of government money flooding into wealthy private schools.''

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/back-to-school/parents-bear-the-burden-of-surging-private-fees-20110122-1a0jq.html

:)

"A "working class" private school ?"


Their uniform had blue collars.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 7:22am:

Parents bear the burden of surging private fees Anna Patty January 23, 2011 THE state's richest schools are more out of reach than ever to ordinary families. In the 10 years since the Howard government introduced a funding system to make private schools more affordable, the most expensive schools' fees have risen by about 100 per cent - against inflation of 37 per cent. At Trinity Grammar, a private school for boys in primary and high school, year 12 fees have increased from $10,020 in 2001 to $25,330 this year - a rise of 153 per cent. Scots College, at Bellevue Hill, will charge as much as $28,296 for year 12 day students this year. Scots' headmaster Ian Lambert said this was all-inclusive, unlike schools that charged for additional expenses. Advertisement: Story continues below The Howard government made assurances that its socio-economic status funding model, introduced in 2001, would keep a lid on fee rises. The model aims to allocate funding to schools based on the socio-economic status of the families of their students. But it uses census data to measure the average wealth of families in the areas where they live. This has drawn criticism of the funding for schools such as Kings, which draws some of its students from wealthy farming families, even if they live in relatively poor areas. Under its ''no losers'' policy, the Howard government refused to cut funding to schools, even if they were entitled to less under the new funding arrangement. This has meant that more than half the schools funded under the system have received more than their strict entitlement. The Rudd and Gillard governments have maintained the $27 billion four-year funding arrangement, despite a federal Department of Education review finding it delivered $2.7 billion in overpayments. The inflated payments will grow to at least $3 billion by the end of 2016 if the current system continues. The Gillard government has commissioned a panel of eminent Australians, headed by Sydney businessman David Gonski, to review schools funding. Mr Gonski told a recent meeting of the Australian Education Union that the charge for his panel was to address disadvantage. He said a direct measure of parents' income or occupation might be a more effective measure for funding needs than census data. ''The panel believes that the focus on equity should be ensuring that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possession,'' he said. The funding system should be ''transparent, fair, equitable and financially sustainable''. Of NSW's 20 most expensive schools, the 17 that provided full details lifted fees by an average of 102 per cent between 2001 and 2011. Cranbrook, at Bellevue Hill, managed a surplus $8.4 million while receiving a Commonwealth subsidy of $3.5 million. Malek Fahd Islamic school, at Greenacre, got one of the biggest subsidies - $15.46 million. The Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation, which oversees 16 schools including Roseville College, received $88 million in government revenue in 2009, when it also posted a $20.7 million surplus. In 2004 the corporation received $45.4 million and posted a $13.95 million surplus. Laurie Scandrett, chief executive of the corporation, said enrolments had increased by 28 per cent between 2004 to 2009. Funding for independent schools is tied to the average recurrent cost of funding government secondary schools, which rose by 24 per cent between 2004 and 2009. ''Multiply these together and that will explain the increase in the government revenue,'' Dr Scandrett said. In 2009, he said, parents had paid $85 million in addition to the $88 million in government subsidies. The school funding review has to put a stop to this appalling waste of taxpayer funds.'' A Greens NSW MP John Kaye said: ''There are grave concerns that Julia Gillard's schools funding review panel will not understand the frustration felt by public sector teachers and parents after 11 years of watching ever greater amounts of government money flooding into wealthy private schools.'' http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/back-to-school/parents-bear-the-burden-of-surging-private-fees-20110122-1a0jq.html :)

This is just the same old envy-based nonsense, using 20 elite schools to mask the argument for 4000 private schools. A proper value-based argument would come up with a very different result.

I don't get what people's hang-up about private and public schools are about most of the time.

Some people get quite worked up about it, really for no reason.

From what I can see and have experienced, I think the schools system works pretty fine as it is.

I see no need to change it.

whatsforme wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 6:01am:

Clearly you misunderstood the above post. It points out that the English language has over 1,000,000 words and more words are coming into it everyday so how is it possible to run out of internet names. Now show me where it says anything about English names. Yep you done weal good at skol d1ckhead.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
OMG You just love to dig the hole even deeper don't you!!!!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
What am absolute nuff!!!  hahahahaahahahahaahahaha!

whatsforme wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 6:07am:

Guess how many words there are in the Chinese language alevere? Give up? I will help you out here...Over 15,000,000.

ooOOoooh wow :) Can I have your autograph, Mr. Genius?  

I'd argue that re-evaluating the practice of giving money to schools that don't need that money is NOT "envy based", but rational and sensible.

Cranbrook was given $3.5M which just went straight to the bottom line, helping them to an $8.4M profit (one of my friends teaches at Cranbrook, I hope she'll forgive me).

$6.75B per annum is a lot of money. I've said before that some schools are well spoken of, and are obviously not driven by elitist attitudes and a drive for more polo fields in Double Bay.

But some schools - Cranbrook, Kings, Scots et al - simply don't need this money, and it would be better spent elsewhere.

Funny to read you arguing against a rigorous examination of government spending, hicks and longweekend.

A lot of people's views in regards to private vs public schooling tends to be envy-based or mainly built around ignorance.

From what I can see, we probably had slightly better teachers, some better facilities but in the end we take the same exams, we get the same access to universities and people succeed off their own back in my types of school.

I think I have worked with more people at management level from public schools than private - and its key in the fact that a lot of the time you can't remotely tell the difference.

I've never gone in for the old school tie and that sort of palava but that's more down to my grounded working class upbringing (and I have pointed out previously).

I wish people wouldn't get so caught up in the envy-driven "why should they get that?" red mist.

I've never gone in for the old school tie and that sort of palava but that's more down to my grounded working class upbringing (and I have pointed out previously).

Lol. Always the card, eh hicks?

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 8:47am:

I've never gone in for the old school tie and that sort of palava but that's more down to my grounded working class upbringing (and I have pointed out previously). Lol. Always the card, eh hicks?

We're not going down that path again.
Your class is nothing to do with what you currently earn.

It's your family background and where they are from.
My father's background is a poor, manual labour family background - hence the working class roots.

Irrespective of the here and now.

We studied 'class and wealth' at school and this is a classic of misunderstanding of the two.

I just wish you'd stop saying it.

Firstly, and most importantly, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Secondly, for someone whose education has cost "several porsches" and who was raised by a well remunerated pilot to argue that they have a working class background is ridiculous. Your father MIGHT be able to argue that, but you cannot, and should not.

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 8:55am:

I just wish you'd stop saying it. Firstly, and most importantly, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

You reckon????
A lot of people's views on areas such as this is built upon class ignorance and the whole "them and us" thing.

It is ridiculous.

There is a burning envy in some quarters that private school, middle to higher incomes get a whole heap of advantages they are denied.

From my experience, that isn't the case.

Someone who constantly says something like "I am from the working class" is fooling no-one.

Is that what you feel you have to say for credibility in these arguments? Truly perverse.

"I'm more working class than you"???

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 9:13am:

Someone who constantly says something like "I am from the working class" is fooling no-one. Is that what you feel you have to say for credibility in these arguments? Truly perverse. "I'm more working class than you"???

Not at all, it's the fact that I am able to see the whole picture and not some burning envy side of things looking up.

I went to a private school, my parents are working class, I can appreciate that the whole argument that people have based on envy is nonsense.

Class to me is irrelevant, but it does play a part in how many people see things.

What I am saying is that people need to forget their hang-ups of 'rich kids get this and that' and get on with succeeding themselves - because their beliefs are often wrong.

"Class to me is irrelevant"

So you keep bringing it up.

You are NOT working class. Be honest with yourself.

Working class (or Lower class, Labouring class) is a term used in the social sciences and in ordinary conversation to describe those employed in lower tier jobs (as measured by skill, education and lower incomes), often extending to those in unemployment or otherwise possessing below-average incomes. Working classes are mainly found in industrialized economies and in urban areas of non-industrialized economies.
Workers on Volkswagen assembly line in Wolfsburg, Western Germany, 1973

As with many terms describing social class, working class is defined and used in many different ways. When used non-academically, it typically refers to a section of society dependent on physical labor, especially when compensated with an hourly wage. Its use in academic discourse is contentious, especially following the decline of manual labor in postindustrial societies. Some academics question the usefulness of the concept of a working class.

The term is usually contrasted with the Upper class and Middle class, in general terms of access to economic resources, education and cultural interests. The cut-off between Working class and Middle class is more specifically where a population spends money primarily as a lifestyle rather than for sustenance (for example, on fashion versus merely nutrition and shelter).

Its usage can alternately be derogatory, or can express a sense of pride in those who self-identify as Working class.

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 9:17am:

"Class to me is irrelevant" So you keep bringing it up. You are NOT working class. Be honest with yourself.

It is irrelevant - but not to many people.

You have to admit that a lot of people have a view that 'rich kids get given everything' in viewing the whole private schooling programme?

A set of people who went through the public system and don't earn that much will have that view - I guarantee you.

I am saying that it is wrong. My class (which I still state through family background is working) is neither here nor there but it gives me a perspective not afforded to others.

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 9:21am:

Working class (or Lower class, Labouring class) is a term used in the social sciences and in ordinary conversation to describe those employed in lower tier jobs (as measured by skill, education and lower incomes), often extending to those in unemployment or otherwise possessing below-average incomes. Working classes are mainly found in industrialized economies and in urban areas of non-industrialized economies. Workers on Volkswagen assembly line in Wolfsburg, Western Germany, 1973 As with many terms describing social class, working class is defined and used in many different ways. When used non-academically, it typically refers to a section of society dependent on physical labor, especially when compensated with an hourly wage. Its use in academic discourse is contentious, especially following the decline of manual labor in postindustrial societies. Some academics question the usefulness of the concept of a working class. The term is usually contrasted with the Upper class and Middle class, in general terms of access to economic resources, education and cultural interests. The cut-off between Working class and Middle class is more specifically where a population spends money primarily as a lifestyle rather than for sustenance (for example, on fashion versus merely nutrition and shelter). Its usage can alternately be derogatory, or can express a sense of pride in those who self-identify as Working class.

So my father brought up on a council estate by a father who worked per hour on building sites fails this category how exactly?

That's my family background.

Point proved, let's move on.....

That's your father's father.

Not you, nor your father.

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 9:25am:

That's your father's father. Not you, nor your father.

A person is brought up by their parents.
That is their class.

You don't change class mid-race.

Your claim is like me pointing out that one of their ancestors was a king, therefore I'm royalty.

Simply not supportable.

Your father barely knew what manual labour was, and you wouldn't know one end of a shovel from t'other.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 9:21am:

Please delete wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:17am: "Class to me is irrelevant" So you keep bringing it up. You are NOT working class. Be honest with yourself. It is irrelevant - but not to many people. You have to admit that a lot of people have a view that 'rich kids get given everything' in viewing the whole private schooling programme? A set of people who went through the public system and don't earn that much will have that view - I guarantee you. I am saying that it is wrong. My class (which I still state through family background is working) is neither here nor there but it gives me a perspective not afforded to others.

If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student?


Quote:

The University of Durham, commonly known as Durham University, is a university in Durham, England. It was founded by Act of Parliament in 1832 and granted a Royal Charter in 1837. It was one of the first universities to open in England for more than 600 years and has a claim towards being the third oldest university in England, although there are other institutions that also claim this distinction. Durham is a collegiate university, with its main functions divided between the academic departments of the University and 16 colleges. In general, the departments perform research and provide lectures to students, while the colleges are responsible for the domestic arrangements and welfare of undergraduate students, graduate students, post-doctoral researchers and some University staff. The University is generally seen as very prestigious and is consistently one of the highest ranked universities in the UK. "Long established as a leading alternative to Oxford and Cambridge", the University attracts "a largely middle-class student body" according to The Times Good University Guide. The University was named Sunday Times University of the Year in 2005, having previously been shortlisted for the award in 2004. The Chancellor of the University is Bill Bryson, appointed by the University's Convocation on 4 April 2005. The post-nominal letters of graduates have Dunelm (the Latin abbreviation for Durham) attached to indicate the University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_University

John S wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 9:43am:

If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student?

Because I had the required A Level grades for the course.

Universities in Britain don't discriminate based on class.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 9:48am:

John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:43am: If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student? Because I had the required A Level grades for the course. Universities in Britain don't discriminate based on class.

Well why have they got the following quote on their web site


Quote:

the University attracts "a largely middle-class student body" according to The Times Good University Guide

If they didn't discriminate on class they wouldn't have "A largely middle-class student body"

John S wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:48am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:43am: If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student? Because I had the required A Level grades for the course. Universities in Britain don't discriminate based on class. Well why have they got the following quote on their web site Quote: the University attracts "a largely middle-class student body" according to The Times Good University Guide If they didn't discriminate on class they wouldn't have "A largely middle-class student body"

Are you really this thick or are you having me on?

You can have a largely middle class body without discriminating.
More people from the middle class had better grades.

They discriminate on ABILITY and nothing to do without class.

For example you could be from a higher class than I, but you wouldn't be admitted because you don't have the necessary grades for entry into university.

The university (nor any uni in all of the UK) does not discriminate on any class, race or gender grounds.

The fact it has more middle to higher class kids is irrelevant and more a reflection of the fact working class kids don't apply.

Hicks = middle class.

To argue anything else is ridiculous.

Why you keep bringing up class is beyond me.

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:06am:

Hicks = middle class. .

On that we shall simply have to disagree.

We can put it to a vote, if you like.

Anyone else here think Hicks is working class?

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:14am:

We can put it to a vote, if you like. Anyone else here think Hicks is working class?

Why does anyone else's opinion matter?

Hold your own views and make your own decisions.

That is how leaders emerge, not followers.

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:14am:

We can put it to a vote, if you like. Anyone else here think Hicks is working class?

social class is irrelevant. BEHAVIOURAL class is not.

John S wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:48am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:43am: If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student? Because I had the required A Level grades for the course. Universities in Britain don't discriminate based on class. Well why have they got the following quote on their web site Quote: the University attracts "a largely middle-class student body" according to The Times Good University Guide If they didn't discriminate on class they wouldn't have "A largely middle-class student body"

Im with Andrei on this... are you really that dumb or are you just having us on?

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 9:27am:

Your father barely knew what manual labour was, and you wouldn't know one end of a shovel from t'other.

I bet if you ask Andrei to dig some post holes he would go and look for an old well to cut up.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:24am:

Please delete wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:14am: We can put it to a vote, if you like. Anyone else here think Hicks is working class? social class is irrelevant. BEHAVIOURAL class is not.

And? your conclusion?

John S wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:29am:

Please delete wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:27am: Your father barely knew what manual labour was, and you wouldn't know one end of a shovel from t'other. I bet if you ask Andrei to dig some post holes he would go and look for an old well to cut up.

thanks for answering my post. you actually ARE THAT DUMB.

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:31am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:24am: Please delete wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:14am: We can put it to a vote, if you like. Anyone else here think Hicks is working class? social class is irrelevant. BEHAVIOURAL class is not. And? your conclusion?

I dont think Andrei exactly fits into a simple category like that. Posts are notriously bad at defining a persons true identity and Andrei clearly plays a role here.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:25am:

John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:55am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:48am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:43am: If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student? Because I had the required A Level grades for the course. Universities in Britain don't discriminate based on class. Well why have they got the following quote on their web site Quote: the University attracts "a largely middle-class student body" according to The Times Good University Guide If they didn't discriminate on class they wouldn't have "A largely middle-class student body" Im with Andrei on this... are you really that dumb or are you just having us on?

If I went to Durham University i would be looked down on cause I am from a working class background.

No one is any better then me and I am no better then anyone else. We are all born the same and we all take the same when we go and that is SFA in both cases.

Longweekend, this is an argument about nothing, I acknowledge.

But someone of hicks' background and current circumstance, claiming he is "working class" - it's not a hard question for you.

He could not make the claim, but he persists.

John S wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:25am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:55am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:48am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:43am: If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student? Because I had the required A Level grades for the course. Universities in Britain don't discriminate based on class. Well why have they got the following quote on their web site Quote: the University attracts "a largely middle-class student body" according to The Times Good University Guide If they didn't discriminate on class they wouldn't have "A largely middle-class student body" Im with Andrei on this... are you really that dumb or are you just having us on? If I went to Durham University i would be looked down on cause I am from a working class background. No one is any better then me and I am no better then anyone else. We are all born the same and we all take the same when we go and that is SFA in both cases.

Well done ernie.

You have managed to collect the support of the village idiot.

John S wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:25am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:55am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:48am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:43am: If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student? Because I had the required A Level grades for the course. Universities in Britain don't discriminate based on class. Well why have they got the following quote on their web site Quote: the University attracts "a largely middle-class student body" according to The Times Good University Guide If they didn't discriminate on class they wouldn't have "A largely middle-class student body" Im with Andrei on this... are you really that dumb or are you just having us on? If I went to Durham University i would be looked down on cause I am from a working class background. No one is any better then me and I am no better then anyone else. We are all born the same and we all take the same when we go and that is SFA in both cases.

How's that chip on your shoulder working out?

John S wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

If I went to Durham University i would be looked down on cause I am from a working class background.

And you know this how?
Your intricate knowledge of the university and of the culture at Durham.

I am sure you're not just making a wide sweeping assumption.

I don't think people would look down on you because of your class. I think people would probably just think you were lost and direct you back towards the town centre.

Not due to your class, more to do with your IQ.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:36am:

John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:34am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:25am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:55am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:48am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:43am: If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student? Because I had the required A Level grades for the course. Universities in Britain don't discriminate based on class. Well why have they got the following quote on their web site Quote: the University attracts "a largely middle-class student body" according to The Times Good University Guide If they didn't discriminate on class they wouldn't have "A largely middle-class student body" Im with Andrei on this... are you really that dumb or are you just having us on? If I went to Durham University i would be looked down on cause I am from a working class background. No one is any better then me and I am no better then anyone else. We are all born the same and we all take the same when we go and that is SFA in both cases. Well done ernie. You have managed to collect the support of the village idiot.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:39am:

John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:34am: If I went to Durham University i would be looked down on cause I am from a working class background. And you know this how? Your intricate knowledge of the university and of the culture at Durham. I am sure you're not just making a wide sweeping assumption. I don't think people would look down on you because of your class. I think people would probably just think you were lost and direct you back towards the town centre. Not due to your class, more to do with your IQ.

Is it good Andrei can't debate anything so he has to put me down.

He think he is so smart cause he went to university and anyone that didn't go to university is dumb.

So tell me andrei why are you any better then me. I can add up numbers, you learn that in primary school

Andrei you want to get your head out of the book, you only learn the author side of things that way. Go and get some life experience looks like you have got any life experience at all.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 10:36am:

John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:34am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:25am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:55am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:48am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:43am: If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student? Because I had the required A Level grades for the course. Universities in Britain don't discriminate based on class. Well why have they got the following quote on their web site Quote: the University attracts "a largely middle-class student body" according to The Times Good University Guide If they didn't discriminate on class they wouldn't have "A largely middle-class student body" Im with Andrei on this... are you really that dumb or are you just having us on? If I went to Durham University i would be looked down on cause I am from a working class background. No one is any better then me and I am no better then anyone else. We are all born the same and we all take the same when we go and that is SFA in both cases. Well done ernie. You have managed to collect the support of the village idiot.

Mate, usually people from a particular class understand the issues that plague that particular class. Considering you don't believe in welfare support it is very hard to believe you are of "working class."  From what I've read from you, I'd say you believe yourself to be elite to most others, which is untrue, and will post anything in here to try and give your arguments some substance.  

As for public/private schools, as I've said, I, like you, believe it's ultimatley up to the student to gain themselves an education.  However, no one can deny that there are schools in our public system where no matter how hard you try, success always seems beyond reach. And it's for these type of schools, of which there are a lot of, that the current payment scheme doesn't work.

Not to mention that your argument doesn't really hold when you say there is no difference between public/private.  If that were the case, the federal government should support both equally, which is where the idea of the voucher system actually makes sense.  Or at least an idea of a review to make the system more equitable.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:36am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:34am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:25am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:55am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:48am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:43am: If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student? Because I had the required A Level grades for the course. Universities in Britain don't discriminate based on class. Well why have they got the following quote on their web site Quote: the University attracts "a largely middle-class student body" according to The Times Good University Guide If they didn't discriminate on class they wouldn't have "A largely middle-class student body" Im with Andrei on this... are you really that dumb or are you just having us on? If I went to Durham University i would be looked down on cause I am from a working class background. No one is any better then me and I am no better then anyone else. We are all born the same and we all take the same when we go and that is SFA in both cases. Well done ernie. You have managed to collect the support of the village idiot. Mate, usually people from a particular class understand the issues that plague that particular class. Considering you don't believe in welfare support it is very hard to believe you are of "working class."  From what I've read from you, I'd say you believe yourself to be elite to most others, which is untrue, and will post anything in here to try and give your arguments some substance.   As for public/private schools, as I've said, I, like you, believe it's ultimatley up to the student to gain themselves an education.  However, no one can deny that there are schools in our public system where no matter how hard you try, success always seems beyond reach. And it's for these type of schools, of which there are a lot of, that the current payment scheme doesn't work. Not to mention that your argument doesn't really hold when you say there is no difference between public/private.  If that were the case, the federal government should support both equally, which is where the idea of the voucher system actually makes sense.  Or at least an idea of a review to make the system more equitable.

I didn't say there was 'no difference', I said that the gap is not wide and that people often will use this as an excuse for their own failures.

The fact that of the management team I worked with in Melbourne I couldn't tell you who went to public and who went to private (aside from the head of legal who felt the need to drop in he went to Xavier College on every conversation) - pretty much highlights that it is people and not schools that succeed.

Whether LW likes it or not, my own family experiences underline this view.

By the way -

'welfare' support

and

'working' class

Hmmmmm.......

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 1:17pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 12:10pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:36am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:34am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 10:25am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:55am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:48am: John S wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 9:43am: If your family background is "working class", why did Durham University accept you as a student? Because I had the required A Level grades for the course. Universities in Britain don't discriminate based on class. Well why have they got the following quote on their web site Quote: the University attracts "a largely middle-class student body" according to The Times Good University Guide If they didn't discriminate on class they wouldn't have "A largely middle-class student body" Im with Andrei on this... are you really that dumb or are you just having us on? If I went to Durham University i would be looked down on cause I am from a working class background. No one is any better then me and I am no better then anyone else. We are all born the same and we all take the same when we go and that is SFA in both cases. Well done ernie. You have managed to collect the support of the village idiot. Mate, usually people from a particular class understand the issues that plague that particular class. Considering you don't believe in welfare support it is very hard to believe you are of "working class."  From what I've read from you, I'd say you believe yourself to be elite to most others, which is untrue, and will post anything in here to try and give your arguments some substance.   As for public/private schools, as I've said, I, like you, believe it's ultimatley up to the student to gain themselves an education.  However, no one can deny that there are schools in our public system where no matter how hard you try, success always seems beyond reach. And it's for these type of schools, of which there are a lot of, that the current payment scheme doesn't work. Not to mention that your argument doesn't really hold when you say there is no difference between public/private.  If that were the case, the federal government should support both equally, which is where the idea of the voucher system actually makes sense.  Or at least an idea of a review to make the system more equitable. I didn't say there was 'no difference', I said that the gap is not wide and that people often will use this as an excuse for their own failures. The fact that of the management team I worked with in Melbourne I couldn't tell you who went to public and who went to private (aside from the head of legal who felt the need to drop in he went to Xavier College on every conversation) - pretty much highlights that it is people and not schools that succeed. Whether LW likes it or not, my own family experiences underline this view.

The point still stands then that whether private or public the funding from the federal government should be equitable. Otherwise it defeats the idea that "each child deserves the same education support regardless of where they go."

I will also mention though that your "experience" is not exactly a great survey. Did you get a list of their schools? Otherwise, this small group of managers is hardly a great sample.  Not to mention that you are not some guru who can at the click of a finger distinguish who went where and did what; unless of course you have some stereotype of a public school educated person, in which case you do believe there to be a difference.  Like I said, I went to a public school which is considered a good public school.  There are however those schools out there that still lack the needed resources to actually get students to succeed regardless of how hard they try.

I know you think of yourself as someone who has struggled through life (just goes to show how loopy you really are) but there are people out there who just get closed doors, and no key will fit.  This needs to be fixed.

BTW, to save the extra reply, go re-read your own definition of 'working class' and perhaps understand that low-income earners still earn.

I didn't say I struggled.

I said I have faced tough times and decisions in life, like everyone else.

I find everyone at some point has struggles and the character of the person defines how they work through them.

Some hold their hands up, give up and then blame the deck of cards life dealt them. They are losers.

Others work through and roll their sleeves up.

Such is life, we all have it hard at times.

I simply say though that there are people who look at all private schools as the same and all private school children as 'rich kids' who get anything they want.
That attitude does exist.

As if to highlight the divide I remember a cricket match I played in back in the early 1990s - the local comprehensives were sledging all the time about 'daddy's car' or 'the toffs don't like this' etc etc.

From the other side, kids from our school started singing 'your dad works for my dad' etc etc

Now are you really going to deny that society doesn't have a view of 'rich kids get this, this and this'??

Because those comments above don't happen in a vacuum - society creates the background for it.

And still no-one here willing to back you up in your classist struggle, hicks.

"The Struggle To Be Working Class"

by Andre "I once saw a blue singlet" Hicks.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 1:33pm:

I didn't say I struggled. I said I have faced tough times and decisions in life, like everyone else. I find everyone at some point has struggles and the character of the person defines how they work through them. Some hold their hands up, give up and then blame the deck of cards life dealt them. They are losers. Others work through and roll their sleeves up. Such is life, we all have it hard at times. I simply say though that there are people who look at all private schools as the same and all private school children as 'rich kids' who get anything they want. That attitude does exist.

Well considering you sat there in Melbourne trying to work out who went to public and who went to private only goes to show you have some stereotype that you use to distinguish between the two, meaning you ultimately do believe there to be a difference.  And if that's the case then your entire argument no longer stands true and you've once again been shown to not be a swing voter, but someone who just has an allegiance towards the party who put together the private school scheme that isn't working as it should.  Bravo. Not to mention again that if you don't believe there to be a difference then ultimately what's your problem to a review to make the system equitable for both?  ESPECIALLY if there is NO difference?

As for the rest, I don't want to sidetrack to that only to say that again, from your posts here it is quite evident you don't understand how circumstances can affect a person, and you clearly haven't had a life where you had to face difficulty.  That's something you should be very proud off, and realistically I congratulate you for having a lucky life.  All I can say however is don't use your own experiences to judge how others should live.

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 1:37pm:

And still no-one here willing to back you up in your classist struggle, hicks. "The Struggle To Be Working Class" by Andre "I once saw a blue singlet" Hicks.

I am the son of a working class father and a mother from a race-based class system.

Thus, there is no 'middle' or 'upper' anywhere.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 1:39pm:

Well considering you sat there in Melbourne trying to work out who went to public and who went to private only goes to show you have some stereotype that you use to distinguish between the two,

Not true, I retrospectively did it and like I said, honestly couldn't tell you who went where.
I could have a guess but I wouldn't be 100% correct, I may not even get 50%.

Hence the point, there is no difference. It is down to the individual.

Some of the dumbest kids at my school were sons of very wealthy, very connected individuals.
In fact one outright plank was the grandson of a Tory MP and Minister in Mrs Thatcher's Government.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 1:40pm:

Please delete wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:37pm: And still no-one here willing to back you up in your classist struggle, hicks. "The Struggle To Be Working Class" by Andre "I once saw a blue singlet" Hicks. I am the son of a working class father and a mother from a race-based class system. Thus, there is no 'middle' or 'upper' anywhere.

Around and around we go.

Your father is the son of a working class man, who by stint of his education and perseverance, could honestly call himself middle class, like many post war english children

You are the middle class son of a middle class man.

Why does this horrify you so, hicks?

My father WAS working class, and I am middle class - I don't understand your inner struggle.

You want to be less than you are??

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 1:42pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Well considering you sat there in Melbourne trying to work out who went to public and who went to private only goes to show you have some stereotype that you use to distinguish between the two, Not true, I retrospectively did it and like I said, honestly couldn't tell you who went where. I could have a guess but I wouldn't be 100% correct, I may not even get 50%. Hence the point, there is no difference. It is down to the individual. Some of the dumbest kids at my school were sons of very wealthy, very connected individuals. In fact one outright plank was the grandson of a Tory MP and Minister in Mrs Thatcher's Government.

Ok...Ok... you did it "retrospectively."  Which just goes to show you have an image of what a public school student is, and what a private school student is.

BESIDE THE POINT HOWEVER, you are still not answering why you have a problem with a review to determine a more equitable system.  Differences are beside the point.  The point is the current scheme is put in place with the view of giving every child support for a good education.  Hence why do kids who go to public school miss out on this funding?

Quote:

Whether LW likes it or not, my own family experiences underline this view.

My point was that you ONLY use your family's experiences and opinions to form your own. For someone who sees so much of the world, you clearly dont absorb much at all.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 1:57pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:42pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Well considering you sat there in Melbourne trying to work out who went to public and who went to private only goes to show you have some stereotype that you use to distinguish between the two, Not true, I retrospectively did it and like I said, honestly couldn't tell you who went where. I could have a guess but I wouldn't be 100% correct, I may not even get 50%. Hence the point, there is no difference. It is down to the individual. Some of the dumbest kids at my school were sons of very wealthy, very connected individuals. In fact one outright plank was the grandson of a Tory MP and Minister in Mrs Thatcher's Government. Ok...Ok... you did it "retrospectively."  Which just goes to show you have an image of what a public school student is, and what a private school student is. BESIDE THE POINT HOWEVER, you are still not answering why you have a problem with a review to determine a more equitable system.  Differences are beside the point.  The point is the current scheme is put in place with the view of giving every child support for a good education.  Hence why do kids who go to public school miss out on this funding?

Public school kids DONT miss out on the funding. in fact, they get up to twice as much as private school kids.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:57pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:42pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Well considering you sat there in Melbourne trying to work out who went to public and who went to private only goes to show you have some stereotype that you use to distinguish between the two, Not true, I retrospectively did it and like I said, honestly couldn't tell you who went where. I could have a guess but I wouldn't be 100% correct, I may not even get 50%. Hence the point, there is no difference. It is down to the individual. Some of the dumbest kids at my school were sons of very wealthy, very connected individuals. In fact one outright plank was the grandson of a Tory MP and Minister in Mrs Thatcher's Government. Ok...Ok... you did it "retrospectively."  Which just goes to show you have an image of what a public school student is, and what a private school student is. BESIDE THE POINT HOWEVER, you are still not answering why you have a problem with a review to determine a more equitable system.  Differences are beside the point.  The point is the current scheme is put in place with the view of giving every child support for a good education.  Hence why do kids who go to public school miss out on this funding? Public school kids DONT miss out on the funding. in fact, that get up to twice as much as private school kids.

So I should be paid to drive a private car because if everyone left their cars at home and took public transport then the public transport system would collapse.
Fair enough their are poor private schools...so why not means test all private schools, same as they do for just about everyone else who wants a buck.

<<If I went to Durham University i would be looked down on cause I am from a working class background.>>


If you went beyond year six it was a miracle. Oh and my dog is better than you.

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 1:47pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:40pm: Please delete wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:37pm: And still no-one here willing to back you up in your classist struggle, hicks. "The Struggle To Be Working Class" by Andre "I once saw a blue singlet" Hicks. I am the son of a working class father and a mother from a race-based class system. Thus, there is no 'middle' or 'upper' anywhere. Around and around we go. Your father is the son of a working class man, who by stint of his education and perseverance, could honestly call himself middle class, like many post war english children You are the middle class son of a middle class man. Why does this horrify you so, hicks? My father WAS working class, and I am middle class - I don't understand your inner struggle. You want to be less than you are??

Andrei is quite correct.  Class has nothing to do with how much money you earn, it is about your ANCESTORS.

I am Middle Class dating back to the 16th Century.  The fact that I am not a millionaire is MY problem.  ::)

"Andrei is quite correct.  Class has nothing to do with how much money you earn, it is about your ANCESTORS.

I am Middle Class dating back to the 16th Century.  The fact that I am not a millionaire is MY problem.  Roll Eyes"

That is so bizarre I simply can't credit it.

For me, I will refer you to the sociological definition I cited earlier, from wikipedia. If you can cite anything that supports your contention that you are egyptian royalty because one of your ancestors was, I'd be happy to read it.

Too ridiculous.

16th century my ..... bottom.

FFS

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:57pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:42pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Well considering you sat there in Melbourne trying to work out who went to public and who went to private only goes to show you have some stereotype that you use to distinguish between the two, Not true, I retrospectively did it and like I said, honestly couldn't tell you who went where. I could have a guess but I wouldn't be 100% correct, I may not even get 50%. Hence the point, there is no difference. It is down to the individual. Some of the dumbest kids at my school were sons of very wealthy, very connected individuals. In fact one outright plank was the grandson of a Tory MP and Minister in Mrs Thatcher's Government. Ok...Ok... you did it "retrospectively."  Which just goes to show you have an image of what a public school student is, and what a private school student is. BESIDE THE POINT HOWEVER, you are still not answering why you have a problem with a review to determine a more equitable system.  Differences are beside the point.  The point is the current scheme is put in place with the view of giving every child support for a good education.  Hence why do kids who go to public school miss out on this funding? Public school kids DONT miss out on the funding. in fact, they get up to twice as much as private school kids.

If we include state government funding, yes ok.  I am referring to federal funding.

http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PolicyBriefs_Dowling07.pdf

whatsforme wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 3:21pm:

<<If I went to Durham University i would be looked down on cause I am from a working class background.>> If you went beyond year six it was a miracle. Oh and my dog is better than you.

Internet names.... hahahahaah!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 2:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:57pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:42pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Well considering you sat there in Melbourne trying to work out who went to public and who went to private only goes to show you have some stereotype that you use to distinguish between the two, Not true, I retrospectively did it and like I said, honestly couldn't tell you who went where. I could have a guess but I wouldn't be 100% correct, I may not even get 50%. Hence the point, there is no difference. It is down to the individual. Some of the dumbest kids at my school were sons of very wealthy, very connected individuals. In fact one outright plank was the grandson of a Tory MP and Minister in Mrs Thatcher's Government. Ok...Ok... you did it "retrospectively."  Which just goes to show you have an image of what a public school student is, and what a private school student is. BESIDE THE POINT HOWEVER, you are still not answering why you have a problem with a review to determine a more equitable system.  Differences are beside the point.  The point is the current scheme is put in place with the view of giving every child support for a good education.  Hence why do kids who go to public school miss out on this funding? Public school kids DONT miss out on the funding. in fact, they get up to twice as much as private school kids. If we include state government funding, yes ok.  I am referring to federal funding. http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PolicyBriefs_Dowling07.pdf

Referring to federal funding alone is hardly accurate then is it? If we just talk about federal funding you can happily and easily come to the wrong conclusion. we MUST include all levels of govt funding other wise the debate is ludicrous. And since state govt funding is merely fereal govt funding channeled thru the states it would be quite fair to include that in the same bucket. Bottom line is that excluding state govt funding from the debate is wrong.

Is the question really, "Should public money be used to help finance a profit making private business?"
Our house in North Sydney is only a few streets away from Shores and its unbelievable that a school as wealthy as that should be subsidised by taxpayers.
Howards welfare for the rich gone mad?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 3:51pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 3:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 2:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:57pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:42pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Well considering you sat there in Melbourne trying to work out who went to public and who went to private only goes to show you have some stereotype that you use to distinguish between the two, Not true, I retrospectively did it and like I said, honestly couldn't tell you who went where. I could have a guess but I wouldn't be 100% correct, I may not even get 50%. Hence the point, there is no difference. It is down to the individual. Some of the dumbest kids at my school were sons of very wealthy, very connected individuals. In fact one outright plank was the grandson of a Tory MP and Minister in Mrs Thatcher's Government. Ok...Ok... you did it "retrospectively."  Which just goes to show you have an image of what a public school student is, and what a private school student is. BESIDE THE POINT HOWEVER, you are still not answering why you have a problem with a review to determine a more equitable system.  Differences are beside the point.  The point is the current scheme is put in place with the view of giving every child support for a good education.  Hence why do kids who go to public school miss out on this funding? Public school kids DONT miss out on the funding. in fact, they get up to twice as much as private school kids. If we include state government funding, yes ok.  I am referring to federal funding. http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PolicyBriefs_Dowling07.pdf Referring to federal funding alone is hardly accurate then is it? If we just talk about federal funding you can happily and easily come to the wrong conclusion. we MUST include all levels of govt funding other wise the debate is ludicrous. And since state govt funding is merely fereal govt funding channeled thru the states it would be quite fair to include that in the same bucket. Bottom line is that excluding state govt funding from the debate is wrong.

longweekend, the debate has always been about federal funding and has never been about state funding.    States might get their funds from the government, but regardless they are responsible for public education.  Ultimately where their funds have come from is irrelevant.

And I am not suggesting we stop private school funding, I am suggesting we do a review to determine how else it can be done that could potentially make federal funding more fair to all kids.  I suggested, from just discussions amongst friends, a voucher based system on this forum. I don't know how realistic it is, but from my opinion it makes more sense than the current approach, and actually puts in place Howards "goal" of having every child's education supported, from the FEDERAL level.

http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/eduwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?cache=&media=students:r128515_422026.jpg

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 3:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 3:51pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 3:47pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 2:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:57pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:42pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 25th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Well considering you sat there in Melbourne trying to work out who went to public and who went to private only goes to show you have some stereotype that you use to distinguish between the two, Not true, I retrospectively did it and like I said, honestly couldn't tell you who went where. I could have a guess but I wouldn't be 100% correct, I may not even get 50%. Hence the point, there is no difference. It is down to the individual. Some of the dumbest kids at my school were sons of very wealthy, very connected individuals. In fact one outright plank was the grandson of a Tory MP and Minister in Mrs Thatcher's Government. Ok...Ok... you did it "retrospectively."  Which just goes to show you have an image of what a public school student is, and what a private school student is. BESIDE THE POINT HOWEVER, you are still not answering why you have a problem with a review to determine a more equitable system.  Differences are beside the point.  The point is the current scheme is put in place with the view of giving every child support for a good education.  Hence why do kids who go to public school miss out on this funding? Public school kids DONT miss out on the funding. in fact, they get up to twice as much as private school kids. If we include state government funding, yes ok.  I am referring to federal funding. http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PolicyBriefs_Dowling07.pdf Referring to federal funding alone is hardly accurate then is it? If we just talk about federal funding you can happily and easily come to the wrong conclusion. we MUST include all levels of govt funding other wise the debate is ludicrous. And since state govt funding is merely fereal govt funding channeled thru the states it would be quite fair to include that in the same bucket. Bottom line is that excluding state govt funding from the debate is wrong. longweekend, the debate is about federal funding. It has never been about state funding.  And I am not suggesting we stop private school funding, I am suggesting we do a review to determine how else it can be done that could potentially make federal funding more fair to all kids.  I suggested, from just discussions amongst friends, a voucher based system on this forum. I don't know how realistic it is, but from my opinion it makes more sense than the current approach, and actually puts in place Howards "goal" of having every child's education supported, from the FEDERAL level.

I understand what you are sayin but at the same time this artificial distinction between federal an state money distorts the argument quite crazily. for example state govts do give some private school funding altho it is ad hoc grant based rather than annual subsidies.  

As usual this debate centres on about 20 elite schools while totally ignoring the 4000 other private schools. as a point of principle it angers a lot of people but at the same time the amount of money is less than $100M out of a $40B budget. There needs to be some understanding that rich parents send their kids to high fee schools and at the same time are paying huge amounts of tax. these same parents are excluded from virtually every other govt benefit or subsidy. While I can see some peoples point of view, that view is still mainly nothing more than wanting to punish rich people which is a pretty lame position to hold. Im not opposed to means-testing per se but nor do I believe it should be applied at every level and to every benefit.

The real debate centres on value-for-money out of the govt's education dollare. the outcomes of private schools are significantly higher for half the money. no government is going to change a situation like that. it makes no sense to spend twice as much on a guaranteed lower outcome.  In the real world, outcomes and economics trumps ideology. And in most cases, that is the correct view.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

Is the question really, "Should public money be used to help finance a profit making private business?" Our house in North Sydney is only a few streets away from Shores and its unbelievable that a school as wealthy as that should be subsidised by taxpayers. Howards welfare for the rich gone mad?

Very few schools are actually 'profit making' businesses. in fact, i believe none of them are. Some do have investment portfolios for the purpose of future education an primarily capital expenses. most of the capital works of these elite schools that give so much angst to you is done by parental contributions. Why is that such a problem to you?

A bit of HISTORY ...


It was during the 1950s that Prime Minister Menzies, offered help to private schools in order to capture some of the Labour voting Catholics, whose allegiance had been weakened by political events at the time.

The aid took the form of interest subsidies, grants for science laboratories and libraries, and per capita grants

1972 saw the Whitlam government take power, having gained considerable electoral support from its promises to education, which included the funding of all schools, public and private on the basis of need.

This however saw some of the wealthiest schools gain from the aid under the freedom of choice arguments as well as the Catholic system using the grants to expand and extend their school systems and qualify for the higher levels of aid.

The Whitlam reforms led to a two tier system of publicly funded schools: state or government schools which are free and include 75% of the population, while private schools who represent the other 25% of the population receive between 40% and 90% of their running costs from both state and federal government

One of the problems arising from this 30 year debate is the ability to create rational policy on the drift of students away from the public system at the national and state levels.

One of the other clear outcome’s of this debate is the pressure for public schools to generate larger proportions of their operating costs from other sources.

This then puts pressure on the ability to deliver the basics and blurs the division between the basics and extra curricula activities.

The division sets school systems against each other.
To compete over resources and encourages ideological differences to emerge.
The social and class division becomes more obvious as private schools are said to “skim the cream” by attracting the smarter students, wealthier and more influential parents, better teachers whilst creating a “fear” among parents and teachers of public schools

The Australian Bureau of Statistics points to the fact that the fastest growing category of non-government schools is low-fee, independent (non-Catholic) schools.
This suggests that it is not the fee component to private schools, but perhaps the other income sources, primarily federal funding that is the source of capital to keep non-government schools functioning.

However when it comes to funding, small one and two teacher country schools have had to close and children in country areas are expected to travel long distances.
This is due to the constraints of available funding, resources and teacher numbers.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=post;num=1295767242;title=PostReply

Quote:

The Australian Bureau of Statistics points to the fact that the fastest growing category of non-government schools is low-fee, independent (non-Catholic) schools. This suggests that it is not the fee component to private schools, but perhaps the other income sources, primarily federal funding that is the source of capital to keep non-government schools functioning.

and yet these low fee private schools provide significantly higher outcomes on LESS per pupil (in both fees and govt subsidies) that public schools. And remember than public schools dont have to buy their buildings as they are provided free by the govt. and on and on it goes... Any way you look at it, the private sector is providing better outcomes for less money and HALF the government money.

maye the real solution is to outsource the ENTIRE public school system to the private sector. They could still provide zero fee 100% govt funded education but run in the private sector model.  Certainly worth a try.

Please delete wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 3:45pm:

16th century my ..... bottom. FFS

Can you prove otherwise?  

In the 1800's some of my ancestors lived on large properties in the UK with immense  "staff". I have a copy of the Census which indicates 60 "staff" for Hubby and wife with 3 children.  This IS MIDDLE CLASS. :D

Shores has money pouring in from their "old boys" who just happen to be the countries elite billionaires and millionaires so why does the taxpayer give money to this school?
I have no problem with taxpayers money going to most of the countries private schools but there needs to be a cut off point somewhere.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 25^th, 2011 at 5:13pm:

Shores has money pouring in from their "old boys" who just happen to be the countries elite billionaires and millionaires so why does the taxpayer give money to this school? I have no problem with taxpayers money going to most of the countries private schools but there needs to be a cut off point somewhere.

I dont see why.  Given that you are just talking about a small handful of schools there is little money actually involved. why must there be means testing if there is very little to be saved?

To have a unified institution, funding is really indeed needed. With a public school crying for an additional funding is a serious thing to consider not only to the school but as well as the students.

Fhaye Jones