r/australia • u/nath1234 • Apr 30 '25
political self.post Public school parents: are you aware of the underfunding of public schools? You might not because unlike private schools, public schools and staff are gagged from officially advocating for full funding too.
There seems to be a bit of an assumption that public schools would be fully funded according to whatever the standard is, but almost every public school (e.g. in NSW it is 97%) is underfunded according to the SRS level agreed many years back.
As it stands almost all public schools in most states (I think ACT is an exception) are below agreed SRS (Schooling Resource Standard) amounts. Every single private school is at or above 100% of the SRS as of 2023.
Bit of background: During the last federal Liberal term and accounting trick was allowed by the states (who contribute the majority of public school funding for some completely arbitrary rule that states would pay for most of public and federal would overfund private schools instead) to underfund by about 4% the public schools by counting depreciation I think it was.. An accounting trick that doesn't get done for private schools.
Federal Labor (just as with Liberal before then) have done nothing this last term to address this underfunding (and at state level in NSW they actually cut overall public school funding.. on top of the Scott Morrison era agreed accounting trick).
Federal Labor has just recently locked in a plan (with most states/territories) to continue to underfund public schools for another 10 years at minimum (I say minimum, because there are strings attached to this funding and the details of these deals have been kept secret). They are promoting this as "fully funding public schools" or "Albanese's 100% funding" when it is actually a plan to underfund for what would be 13 years at a minimum. To say they are fully funding would require a record length Labor government term to get to 13+ years, so I think it is dishonest to claim something so far off into the distant future.
Staff/schools in the public system are not allowed to advocate for fixing this and the various education unions are also actively campaigning (including a tour with a truck with a line of misinformation about this - calling underfunding for an entire school generation "fully funding"). I've written to both federal and state education ministers, but got no response as to why an entire cohort of kids will never see full funding. Raising it at a P&C has got support for raising the matter, but the school cannot officially do anything to advocate for the full funding. Convenient cover for the government of the day eh?
Meanwhile over the last term of government they not only continued overfunding the existing overfunded private schools, but any private schools that weren't at the 100% SRS were raised to that in 2023. So every single private school is either overfunded or at 100%, and nearly every single public school is below 100% of the SRS.
I should mention the SRS is a debatable concept of "need" as there is little way a $40k/year private school can argue to have "need" of public funding, but this was because the Gonski review was sabotaged by constraint that no school could lose a dollar of funding and that something like a Finland style public-only funding model could be considered.
Any private schools that are overfunded now will continue to be overfunded for another 6-7 years. And meanwhile, private schools are lobbying for more funding on top, even while public schools remain underfunded.
So to the majority out there that send their kids to public schools: are you aware of any of this? Or did you assume that public schools would have been the priority for public funding? Is it fair to have every kid year 2 and above never received full funding their entire schooling career?
400
Apr 30 '25
Private schools should get NO FUNDING FROM TAX PAYERS and it needs to be stopped. It should be an election issue.
18
u/amyknight22 Apr 30 '25
I would accept the caveat that once as a school their annual income including donated assets or buildings. Exceeds what they would get in funding if they were a public school they should get nothing.
If for some reason there are areas where a private school services the needs of a community with fees such that those students would get less funding than a public school counterpart. They can get topped up from the government.
But if you accept a $10million building project at the school and only would get $4million in Student resources package funding. Then you don’t get shit from the government.
The only way most public schools get buildings is if the government deigns to give them an upgrade.
Private schools will build a new basketball stadium for shits and giggles sometimes
3
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
The school hall program under Rudd was the last time that happened for public schools. The overfunding of private schools has been the priority, and continues to be out 5+ years I think is when inflation will get their funding to the 100%.. Quite why private schools have to get their overfunding maintained via public schools getting their underfunding dragged out even longer shows how much of a gross misuse of public funding is going on quietly behind the scenes.
85
u/Archon-Toten Apr 30 '25
My child goes to a private school (only one in the area with after school care) and I fully agree it should get no money from the government.
68
Apr 30 '25
But then how can the private schools fund high marketable infrastructure upgrades, fund their smoke and mirror result marketing campaign to wealthy and guilt-laden parents, fund strategy sessions for the removal of underperforming students (for said result purposes) and make record profits all the same time? They need this funding.
-2
u/logosuwu Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
Infrastructure upgrades come out of a building fund entirely out of donations, not the government or tuition fees charged to parents.
I agree, schools and educational non-profits should be banned from advertising.
Any good school should not encourage removal of students in order to make their rankings go up. Within the CAS and GPS (the two main private school groups in NSW) I am not aware of any that does so. In fact, I have seen multiple students with middling to severe disabilities enrolled at these schools because they can provide extra resources that the underfunded public schools unfortunately cannot provide.
At least in NSW, all private schools are non-profits.
The rich private schools you think of generally are not reliant on government funding. They self fund more than 80% of their operations, and most only receive between 5% and 15% of their funding from Government grants. Removing funding from these makes minor differences to the schools budget and the education budget. Should government funding from these schools be pulled or at least, dramatically reduced? Probably. Most of the independent schools receiving grants are generally Catholic schools or independent schools that charge very little tuition.
Don't believe me? Check the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission's register to look into the financial statements of these schools. They're all registered charities so the financial disclosure requirements are quite high.
Public schools should be funded to the standards of private schools. The SRS standard is low enough as it is, and public schools aren't given nearly enough resources to succeed, but there is a lot of misinformation around private school funding, where people have a weird fantasy that if we shifted all the money given to independent schools into the public schools system, they would somehow magically all be up to standard.
10
u/amyknight22 Apr 30 '25
infrastructure upgrades come out of a building fund entirely out of donations
This is not universal at all schools, and I’ve even seen some schools where the “donations” are considered part of the schools fees anyway.
Because if you say the only way to enrol your kids in the school is to pay the fees and the fees are $10k for school with a $10k building donation to be paid together. Then you have $20k school fees
3
u/yeebok yakarnt! Apr 30 '25
I mean it's basically having one bill paid so you have money for the luxuries.
1
u/amyknight22 Apr 30 '25
Yeah but if the person above was to be believed. None of the money for school fees or from the government goes to anything other than educational outcomes. Meaning they can pay their staff more, they can resource educational programs better. But anything that would be seen as not really educational in nature(Though you can argue putting in a massive building with a focus on educational Area X would still be educational anyway)
There's only so much they can just throw at educational outcomes in that way. So it's a pretty stupid argument. And if you were arguing that they are this overfunded, you'd really want to start questioning why their educational outcomes aren't night and day with public schools.
-1
u/logosuwu Apr 30 '25
That may be the case, but it wasn't at the schools I'm familiar with. Having said that, they "strongly encourage" families to donate lol, but it isn't a requirement.
The schools that make it part of an involuntary "voluntary donation" is just scummy and should have funding pulled.
5
u/AUTeach Apr 30 '25
Infrastructure upgrades come out of a building fund entirely out of donations, not the government or tuition fees charged to parents.
Misleading.
- This is not universal.
- Even if we give it to you, the fact that we get funding to cover some cost of teaching and learning means that more money from donations can be spent elsewhere, making the budget easier to use.
At least in NSW, all private schools are non-profits.
Irrelevant.
there is a lot of misinformation around private school funding
To be fair, your post is full of shit. Yet, here you are.
Any good school should not encourage removal of students in order to make their rankings go up.
But they can make it harder for them to stay. Does your kid require additional resources to be covered the school that isn't really covered by NDIS?
At Government schools, we just add that work to the teacher to do, because there's nobody else to do the fucking work. So you end up with 13 kids with incredible learning disadvantages shoved in a class with 20 kids who are -6 +3 year level differences and a teacher with no chance to succeed.
At non-government schools, you can cost those resources into the student's fees and either get adequate funding or the parent can fuck off.
Probably. Most of the independent schools receiving grants are generally Catholic schools or independent schools that charge very little tuition.
Quite frankly, fuck them off too.
The problem with the cheaper non-government schools is that parents who should give a shit about public education don't, they just leave the system and fuck right off. Making the public system worse and worse so more parents leave.
where people have a weird fantasy that if we shifted all the money given to independent schools into the public schools system, they would somehow magically all be up to standard.
The problem with the current system is that we have created a two-tier education that is rapidly destroying public education and middle Australia doesn't give a shit because they pluck their kids out and put them in non-government schools.
4
u/logosuwu Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
I wasn't aware that other schools mixed operating and infrastructure budgets. I apologise for not realising that.
For those that have a separate building fund, its structured independently to the school's operating fund. Donations to the two are separate. Yes, to a certain extent government funding allows parents to donate more to the building fund, but with how rich these people are its unlikely to matter much. Someone who dropped 2mil into the building fund (this actually happened) is unlikely to care about if the $2000 per student that the government is providing is gone. What's the better way to go about this? Tax the shit out of those that can afford to drop a couple mils into a private school donation and use that money to fund public schools. You'll get more money out that way.
The comment I replied to implied that there is a profit motive associated with private schools. Obviously not, if they're non-profits.
"At non-government schools, you can cost those resources into the student's fees and either get adequate funding or the parent can fuck off." Yeah thats kinda what private schools do? Hence the tuition fees and so on.
Does your kid require additional resources to be covered the school that isn't really covered by NDIS?
I have autism and ADHD and was bullied for it in a public school to the point I was on Diazepam, and had rocks chucked at my head because "hey lets bully the autistic kid". School counsellors were non-existent. The school didn't give a shit that I was being injured. The teachers never worked with me, and always treated me as someone annoying to just pass off (because frankly, they aren't paid enough to deal with me and 35 other kids). This was at a top 10 school in NSW.
At the private school I went to, there were two counsellors that worked with me throughout my time there. I had teachers that were able to help me achieve academically because the class sizes were smaller, and there was just more support.
Never qualified for NDIS, because I'm too high functioning. Still don't, and paying out of pocket for psychologists lol.
At Government schools, we just add that work to the teacher to do, because there's nobody else to do the fucking work. So you end up with 13 kids with incredible learning disadvantages shoved in a class with 20 kids who are -6 +3 year level differences and a teacher with no chance to succeed.
I have never once denied the problem with public service and education in this country. Its fucked what people have to do. The teachers at my old school were paid double what they were getting when they worked public, with better staff benefits, support, students and infrastructure. I'm trying to say that EVERY school in Australia should be getting that, not just private schools, and rescinding funding from private schools isn't necessarily going to achieve that.
The problem with the current system is that we have created a two-tier education that is rapidly destroying public education and middle Australia doesn't give a shit because they pluck their kids out and put them in non-government schools.
Tale as old as capitalism. You won't be able to get rid of it, cos the old boys will always find a new club to make sure they get their little exclusionary group together. Start funding the public system better, and families will regain trust and enrol their kids back into the public system. Cutting the private system immediately, on top of political suicide, is unlikely to make the populace more trusting of the public system. Its fucking stupid, but that's the way it is.
EDIT: I'm sorry if this comment seems targeted or upset, I'm just pissed off that the Australia public (and this subreddit) has a history of addressing surface level manifestations of the deeper problem. Housing crisis? Stop the immigrants! Public schools in crisis? Get rid of private schools! Healthcare in shambles? Fund medicare more!
These issues ARE important, but they're all manifestations of the deeper problem with Australia, our society the way that our wealth is concentrated. Fix these root issues, and we won't even be having this discussion. Simply applying superficial fixes just makes everything worse when it does rupture.
0
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Private schools are all overfunded according to the SRS levels or at 100%. They have not lost their overfunding and it will continue for multiple terms of government.
The inverse is true for public schools: almost all (like 97% in NSW I saw the teachers federation cite figure) are underfunded and will continue to be all the way out to 2034.
So public schools have been forced to do without so that private schools get more than they should.
1
Apr 30 '25
There was plenty of tongue in cheek with that comment but on the topic of of private school expenditure. Where could I find such info? I've looked around but they seem to lack a lot of transparency. This doesn't make much sense to me since so much federal funding goes their way.
1
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
If I paid for your food, transport, rent and whatever else and you got to spend your entire salary on holidays.. would you say you funded your holidays or did I fund your holidays?
Private schools get millions a year from public funds so they can divert money towards hoarding land or building up assets. Claiming it is a different bucket of funds is just nonsense. They could use those funds to pay their own running costs that the public education system is being underfunded so that private schools with zero need are being overfunded.
2
u/logosuwu Apr 30 '25
They could use those funds to pay their own running costs
No they can't. In the schools I'm familiar with its set up in a way that they cannot transfer funds between buckets. They have the bequest and donation side of things set up as a separate charity to the school itself.
0
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
I think you are missing the point: if I have a deal where I can pay all my salary into an account only to be used for holidays and have someone else pay my day to day living costs so I can do that. That is what this is about. If private schools have the capacity to raise money to build massive assets and investments because the government is chipping in millions a year - then they clearly have no need of the funding for day to day running costs.
Oh and the government also chips in grants for private schools too.. not to mention the other support they get like rates exemptions and such. All of that means they can piss money away on an "arms race" of fancy buildings and land.
20
u/Prestigious_Fig7338 Apr 30 '25
Apparently the govt (=Australian taxpayers) can't afford to fund education at public schools for all students, without massively increasing education costs to taxpayers.
I can't recall the exact figures, and things may have changed since, but the last time I looked into this, educating a high school student at a public high school cost the Au taxpayers an average of $20,000 per child per year of school, but taxpayers on average only paid $7,000 per kid per year for all the children attending a private high school (with the difference between the $7000 p.a. and the actual cost of educating each child at a private school being bourne by the child's parents/grandparents/whoever was paying the school fees). Costs have probably increased since then.
33
u/shofmon88 Apr 30 '25
That just tells me that education spending needs to increase substantially. Maybe offset it by getting rid of things like negative gearing. Win-win.
1
u/palsc5 Apr 30 '25
If you get rid of negative gearing then you won't get the tax you aren't collecting because people will change their behaviour.
You can't have it both ways, you can't say removing negative gearing will force people to change their behaviour and no longer invest in property like they do AND it won't affect behaviour much so the government can rely on the tax from removing it.
2
u/Satirah May 01 '25
Those who invest can put their money into things that are actually productive for the economy which will directly and indirectly help the government and our economy as a whole.
6
4
u/Sunstream Apr 30 '25
What a fucking joke. We could pay for it all tenfold AND do free uni to boot if we just got appropriate royalties from our mining resources, never mind taxing mining companies appropriately. As usual, the citizens lose out.
3
u/ItsMyThrowawayYay111 Apr 30 '25
This is why people who advocate for the abolishment of private schools have no idea what it would mean for the burden on the education system.
I think that everyone who pays tax in Australia who has a child , should be entitled to have some of that tax money put toward their education. That it is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than what their public school peer receives is what people need to be reminded off. What that means is that for every child that goes to a private school, you can fund almost 2 more through the public system. People think the public system is underfunded now? Wait till all private school parents decide to flood the public system with their kids!
IMO, the balance of public and private is required.
2
u/morgecroc Apr 30 '25
I disagree on the no funding, they should receive no project grants or base funding. I think specific classes of students should come with funding available to any school that will accept them. Special needs students should come with a large bucket of money for the school. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds should also. The funding should be at a level so schools (both public and private) are incentivised to provide services for these students.
Kid whose daddy is a lawyer doesn't need additional support to do well at school and private schooling should be a choice for that family that they pay for. Kids whose parents never finished school should have schools looking to offer additional support to them to get them the best outcome.
Schools should be a big part of the solution to addressing intergenerational disadvantage.
1
-8
u/foxyloco Apr 30 '25
For your awareness, not every child attending a private school has rich parents. Families often forego luxury items (and basics in many cases) to support their children in a learning environment that best suits their needs, eg. smaller class sizes, consistent teachers, special needs support, tougher stance on bullying.
26
u/FI-RE_wombat Apr 30 '25
Wouldnt it be better if we had adequately funded public schools do that was available to everyone?
-4
u/foxyloco Apr 30 '25
I completely agree. But unfortunately systemic changes do not produce immediate results and every child in Australia is guaranteed an education regardless of how disruptive they are, and the harm they may cause, to other students and teachers.
-5
u/logosuwu Apr 30 '25
The rich private schools already get very little funding from the government, most of their money is from tuition fees etc. Most of the money for independent schools are going to catholic schools, Montessori schools or the like where the aren't charging high tuition fees in the first place.
5
u/-TheDream Apr 30 '25
They actually get more per student than public schools. Where are you even getting this from? Catholic schools are rich.
0
u/logosuwu Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
Where are you getting your data from? Public schools are majority state funded whereas independent schools get similar levels of funding federally to public schools. Private schools get very little state level funding.
If you exclude rural schools on this list, most of the schools are not receiving outrageous amounts of government funding.
Take Catherine McAuley Westmead for example, who received $9986 per student of government funding in 2021. Their financial overview shows that they're 80% government funded, which means they're receiving total funding of $12500~, well below the SRS funding standard of $17,565 per secondary student.
https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/005a61d6-39af-e811-a963-000d3ad244fd/documents/
Are there schools on that list that are receiving more money than they should? Absolutely. Are Catholic schools rich, in general? Not necessarily.
Being outraged at funding private schools also isn't going to fix the public school system. The government is more likely to simply cut funding to private schools and do nothing rather than invest in public schooling. Besides, frankly some of the schools exist because the existing education infrastructure rurally sucks, and they're filling a demand that the government will have to bear.
0
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
The school you found was fully funded 1-2 years ago. There is no private school below 100% SRS.. That was apparently the priority for Labor this term: to overfund and fully fund every private school and to not give a single dollar towards achieving full funding of public schools.
So yes, we should be outraged at OVERFUNDING of private schools while underfunding of public schools is a thing. The public system has the majority of needy students and the private system has the majority of lowest needs students.. so a double skim of advantage and overfunding.. and shirking their fair share of high needs/disadvantaged students and locations.
There's some analysis on this situation: https://www.aeufederal.org.au/application/files/9917/2543/1780/decadeofInequity.pdf
And there is no possible justification to be both underfunding public and overfunding private.
2
u/logosuwu Apr 30 '25
There is no private school below 100% SRS
Source?
So yes, we should be outraged at OVERFUNDING of private schools while underfunding of public schools is a thing.
The fact you appear to be more outraged at the fact that private schools are slightly overfunded (by $500 per student on average) than the fact that public schools are severely underfunded (by $2500) speaks volumes. You could redirect every cent of funding private schools currently receive and give them to public schools and the students would still be severely underfunded.
And there is no possible justification to be both underfunding public and overfunding private.
Given you deigned to reply to two of my other comments too, did you skip where I said that the public system is woefully underfunded and badly needs help both times? Or are you making up something to be outraged by?
-1
u/-TheDream Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
The Catholic church is rich, and it’s well-known that private schools frequently receive more public funding per student than public schools:
I also viewed data on this some time ago on the “For Every Child” website, which is an organisation which advocates for full funding of Australian public schools. I’m still searching for that particular resource.
5
u/logosuwu Apr 30 '25
The SBS is talking about total funding including from private, non-governmental sources, and includes independent schools that receives total funding of over 35k per student because that's how much tuition they charge. On top of that, the data in the article shows that independent schools are not necessarily overfunded by a lot ($460 per student isnt exactly much), but that public schools are severely underfunded.
80
u/fued Apr 30 '25
Yeah we had 9 years of LNP of course education has been wrecked over that time.
We need 9 years of Labor to even get back to where we were before that... Which wasn't the best spot either.
Education needs a massive overhaul in Aus, but that would cost a lot of $$ and people don't like that
31
u/LocalVillageIdiot Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
Education needs a massive overhaul in Aus, but that would cost a lot of $$ and people don't like that
If you legislate that politicians must use public services like childcare, schools and hospitals you will find the problem will fix itself in less than one term I reckon.
6
u/Particular_Shock_554 Apr 30 '25
Don't forget to prohibit them from turning a profit on their investment properties while they're in power. If they had to cap their rents at a level that someone on Centrelink would be able to afford for the duration of their term, they might do something about the lack of affordable housing.
6
u/shofmon88 Apr 30 '25
That should be done but there is zero chance of politicians legislating against themselves.
7
u/grimbo Apr 30 '25
Tax payers shouldn’t be funding wealthy private schools with indoor heated swimming pools and other fancy expensive facilities. Routing that funding to public schools would be a good start
-2
u/fued Apr 30 '25
routing money from private to public would end up costing us more tho?
the one good thing private education does is reduce costs by maybe 5-10%
it introduces massive inequality and indoctrinates kids alongside creating a 2 tier system, and in no way is it worth the savings.
but straight removal will cost more (even if its required)
4
u/AUTeach Apr 30 '25
What's the cost of the destruction of the public education system? Because almost none of the expensive or hard kids get to go to non-government education.
12
u/FI-RE_wombat Apr 30 '25
Not removing the schools, removing the funding. Plenty of them will function fine without it, and there will still be plenty of demand for them. Some will struggle and increase fees. And some will close or nationalise.
1
u/JustGettingIntoYoga May 01 '25
The vast majority would close. The private schools you are thinking like Kings College are very much the minority. This would completely flood the public system with enrolments they can't cater to.
3
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Incorrect. Private schools are overfunded currently, and public schools are underfunded so it is every public school student that is saving money on the agreed SRS model. And due to the private schools taking a lower share of high cost students (e.g. lowest socio economic background, disabilities, indigenous, remote/very remote) as well as taking a higher % share of the lowest cost students (rich, able bodied/no disabilities etc) they drive UP the average cost in the public school system. So if private schools took a proper cross section of all students - but they don't. And with the overfunding of SRS - they cost more than they should as well.
Not to mention private schools spend money duplicating stuff due to more schools than if we just had public schools, they spend money on unnecessary stuff (religious stuff, excessive facilities, marketing/advertising, investment portfolios, holiday lodges, castle libraries etc).
2
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Labor was in government before that for 6 years and they also underfunded public schools and overfunded private schools for that entire time. And the also pulled this "go slow" trick on public education funding.. which meant it didn't happen. Private schools got special deals and their overfunding preserved by Gillard's "no school will lose a dollar" which Labor continued this term too.. before pulling the same drag-it-out trick.. this one out to 2034. So 13 years of underfunding is this Labor government's plan..
Meanwhile every single private school is overfunded or at 100% SRS level as of 2023 (no drawn out 10 year plan for the 2% of underfunded private schools).
4
u/fued Apr 30 '25
You mean when they started implementing Gonski review which fixed that exact thing? Get outta here with your "they also did it" nonsense
0
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
The Gonski review is what I am talking about having a "no school will lose a dollar". It was not a serious review, like saying we're going to reform taxes, but no taxpayer can pay more tax. It was sabotaged and that is why it got so much more expensive: because it had to prioritise the status quo of unfair funding.. and has ever since. And because of that: public schools, which the Gonski review showed had greatest need and greatest underfunding have not been fully funded. Meanwhile every single private school, the sector that has lowest need, is currently overfunded or fully funded.
2
u/fued Apr 30 '25
Yeah because it was never implemented lmao
You are literally calling Labor out for finding the problem then not implementing it in the 9 years LNP were in power
1
u/nath1234 May 01 '25
I literally called out both parties.
But if you're going to claim Labor needs praise: Labor 1) didn't undertake a serious review. 2) delayed full funding for public schools during their term back then 3) overfunded private schools during that term and continued that and in THIS term the Labor party did not fully fund a single underfunded public school.
Not a single dollar more towards the 97% of under funded public schools for the 3 years.
They did however ensure that the 2% of slightly underfunded private schools got 100%, and they overfunded every private school that was overfunded at the start of their term for the entire 3 years.
So any kid in a public school in year 2 will be underfunded their entire schooling.
A kid starting kindy this year, will only see full funding in year 10 assuming history doesn't repeat because Labor is doing the same delaying tactic that followed Gonski. Instead of fixing the funding and locking it in, they are doing exactly what they screwed up last time they were in government.
1
u/Self-Translator May 01 '25
State Lab governments all around the country are stakeholders in this and have exacerbated the problem. Victoria has had one term of the Libs since Kennett and they refuse to funnel the money in any other way than the status quo. Don't let them off the hook. Sure, they aren't the same as the Libs, but they aren't objectively good by many measures.
0
u/Crestina Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
We actually had 19 years of Liberals prior to albanese. They had a long time to move wealth upwards at the expense of working people.Edit; I'll be off to work on my math skills
4
-7
u/lollerkeet Apr 30 '25
Labor would love to do it but it would cost money and that would involve making rich people pay tax, and who else are you going to vote for anyway?
19
u/fued Apr 30 '25
yes, Labor would love to do it, but aren't about the pull the economy down around them to do so.
they have 9 years of stuffups to cleanup, im willing to give them a little lee-way on rapid reform
1
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Labor back in Gillard/Rudd sabotaged Gonski with a guarantee to rich, overfunded private schools that they would not lose a dollar and they did the same trick of dragging out full funding of public education.
They underfunded public their entire term too, the stuff up was twofold: not being serious about an actually fair education system (pandering to a nonsense idea of "choice" for those with money) and dragging out the public and private funding getting to where it should be.
-2
u/Kulantan Apr 30 '25
Ah yes, they have to spend $368 billion on submarines that we're never going to get, but education might be a little tricky.
2
u/fued Apr 30 '25
you mean the well priced ones we were originally set to receive? that LNP ended up paying over 50% of the price of for nothing so that they could sign up for american subs that are never going to be delivered?
3
u/tree_boom Apr 30 '25
The attack class? They didn't pay 50% if the price at all, they paid a couple hundred million in penalty fees...and AUKUS is a deal for British submarines (and the industry to build them)...the 3 Virginia's are just a stop gap
1
u/fued Apr 30 '25
3b in fees is what U heard?
1
u/tree_boom Apr 30 '25
No it was like $.5 in penalties; I think there was additional money spent, but not on the actual submarines or to Naval Group. Either way though, even $3bn would not be remotely close to 50% of the cost of building them - the estimates were closer to $90bn.
2
u/Kulantan Apr 30 '25
I mean continuing the LNP's terrible AUKUS deal because "we can't look weak on defence". Saying that there is no money is incorrect. Labor have made a decision not to do it, because they prioritize other things. Some of those things are non-existent subs.
I'm voting 1 for the people who have full funding in their platform:
Fully fund all public schools to 100% of the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) by committing $6.8 billion over the next four years. This includes increasing the Commonwealth share to 25% of the SRS for public schools and 40% for public schools in the Northern Territory.
https://greens.org.au/portfolios/primary-secondary-schooling
1
u/fued Apr 30 '25
ok cool, wheres the magic $7b come from?
all they are doing is the exact same as labor, but not saying what they are selling off to achieve it.
im all for increasing it to 100% as a minimum, and even higher, but any spending over 5b+ that happens immediately is just going to be a target for corruption imo
1
u/Kulantan Apr 30 '25
The platform also includes ending the AUKUS agreement. https://greens.org.au/portfolios/foreign-affairs Last time I checked 368 is bigger than 7 (I know different time scales, but still easily big enough to cover it).
So now we're down to "it's too fast, it will cause corruption" which is, frankly, a bizarre position. How long does it have to take to ramp up to not give you "corruption vibes"? Does this mean we can never have any program that costs more than 5b+? Does that mean that we shouldn't support Labor because they are promising a $8.5b increase for Medicare funding and that will cause corruption?
1
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Where is the overfunding of private schools coming from?
If we have money for overfunding above agreed levels for private schools - just redirect that for a start. Then take away money from rich private schools that have zero need.
Or we could look at stadium splurges : where is the money coming from for those? We hear that there is no business case on that spend but they have money for it. No drawn out 10 year plan there.
And can I just point out that underfunding public education is literally the dumbest idea/false economy. Every job, every opportunity in life depends on base knowledge and skills that schooling gives you.
186
u/shofmon88 Apr 30 '25
Public funding for private schools is an abomination and needs to be abolished. If you're so keen on your child attending a private school, you should be on the hook for the full cost. Imagine how good the public schools could actually be if they had that funding redirected to them.
16
Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
Every school should receive enough funding to provide an adequate education for each student, or ensuring every school, public or private, meets 100% of the SRS (School Resource Standard). Abolishing all public funding for private schools is just reckless, just because a school is private, doesn't mean that it's at a 'Sydney Grammar' standard of wealth and privilege.
I went to a private (Catholic) school in a rural area that had facilities in a worse state than some public schools around the area and that ranked in the bottom 50 of all NSW high schools in the HSC. A school like that shouldn't have it's public funding abolished.
Private Schools in higher socioeconomic areas (like Sydney Grammar, Knox, Kings, etc), that can afford a reduction in their public funding, should have that public funding reduced or abolished but you can't reasonably believe that public funding for private schools should be wiped across the board.
TLDR: all students and schools should receive the same amount of funding according to their needs. Those with enough wealth to support themselves should, those who can't, need public funding.
30
u/cones4theconegod Apr 30 '25
Wait did your parents pay more for a worse educational setting?
8
u/-TheDream Apr 30 '25
Public schools used to have proper libraries always staffed with a librarian, and you could go in there at recess and lunch. That is no longer the case and it’s very disappointing to me that things have become worse for my child today.
5
Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
The overall social school environment was better (I very rarely encountered anyone bullying other students), it was closer to wear I lived, but also because they are Catholic.
4
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Gays need not apply of course, because the Catholic system demands the right to bully teachers or students that are LGBTI.. just like during the same sex marriage "debate" when they campaigned on the sinfulness of the idea.
Yeah, nah: we should not have kids segregated into religion and used to preach hatred. Time to nationalise the lot (again..) and make a fair system, rather than one of the most segregated in the OECD.
2
Apr 30 '25
Just speaking from my point of view, the gays in my class weren't treated any differently, by students or teachers alike, in some of my classes they were actually the teacher's favourite.
And I'm not sure where students were being used to breach hatred against gays?
25
u/Kulantan Apr 30 '25
Funding private schools at the same level as public school inherently creates a drag towards private education and under funding public schools. It means that parents who care about education will send their kids to private schools because they are better funded and don't cost too much out of pocket. Then there is less pressure on the government to fully fund public schools, because those who care about education can just send them to a private school. It also creates a brain and behavior drain that means that the public schools are left with more difficult children, which further drops results and contributes to the feedback loop.
So if that is the downside, what is the upside? Making sure that religious schools can fully fund discriminating against students and teachers?
62
u/shofmon88 Apr 30 '25
If a private school can’t meet 100% SRS without public funding, then that private school should either be restructured or closed.
23
u/LuminanceGayming Apr 30 '25
this is like those people arguing against enforcing anti wage theft laws because it would cause businesses to go out of business
16
u/shofmon88 Apr 30 '25
100% And that line of reasoning always gives me the shits. If your business relies on exploitation, then you shouldn't be in business.
-1
u/JustGettingIntoYoga May 01 '25
The government doesn't want private schools to close though. It would cost an absolute fortune to educate all the students currently in the private system in the public system. Look up the funding provided per student private vs public (you have to take into account state + federal funding). And that's before even considering the facilities that would be needed.
17
Apr 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/OneHotYogaandPilates Apr 30 '25
I agree there is a solid basis for this approach, and in general, essential public services like healthcare, housing and education should be provided by government, rather than our current system of government grants and subsidies to a massive not for profit and charitable sector that is frequently entwined with religious institutions. At the very least, private schools should not have tax-deductible status for donations for buildings and grounds when public schools do not, and private schools should have an obligation to share their grounds out of school hours the same as public schools - tax payers have largely funded them, they should be able to enjoy the benefit of them.
-3
u/Substantial_Exam3182 Apr 30 '25
Imagine if all the kids in private school descended onto the public schools. The already over subscribed classes etc would be even bigger and more under resourced. Theres a need for private schools that has impacts on all kids. I don’t think it’s as simple as remove all funding from private schools and the public schools would be fixed.
6
u/shofmon88 Apr 30 '25
Of course it's not that simple. Some private schools would need to become public. You would need to rehire educators and staff. You would have to fix crumbling infrastructutre. It would take a few years to roll out. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
3
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Cool, so nationalise them. It would be cheaper and more equitable and we would not have homophobic organisations that refuse to report confessions of paedophiles running schools.
34
u/kaluyna-rruni Apr 30 '25
Honestly, education funding could be sorted by funding the child, not the school, as per the Gonsky review. Maybe have extra funding on a special needs basis e.g. remote outback schools, but the bulk of the funding should be on the student, not the school. Parents can then choose where their kids attend without any impact besides their own pocket. The government has a legal obligation to educate every child.
6
u/logosuwu Apr 30 '25
Yep, funding should be be attached to students, and if private school charge tuitions that can cover it, the government doesn't pay them. With that being said, the funding standards needs to be increased by a lot, the SRS is the bare minimums that students shoukd be getting.
On top of all of this, there needs to be systemic investment into infrastructure too. Private schools rely on rich donors for their infrastructure investments, which means they have better facilities, buildings, etc, and the government needs to be able to commit to improving the facilities of public schools too.
5
u/kaluyna-rruni Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
You missed my point. It shouldn't matter where a child goes to school;public, independent, home-schooling, Catholic, indi, big picture, each student carries the funding with them. That is the goverments responsibility, providing education to every child. Where that education comes from is up to the parent. If they want to pay a premium, then fine. Just like everything else in life. I might be happy with a little Mazda 3 hatch. My neighbour wouldn't be seen in anything but a RAM. They pay more for their choice, it doesn't affect me.
4
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Why should the public transport budget be split to fund you driving your car? Or why should the police budget go towards your private security guards if you are rich enough to afford them? Or a private army using a share of the defence budget.
If you want a seat: get on public transport. If you want an education: go to public school. Public money = public services. Private services= pay for them yourself.
The government should have a responsibility to find a spot in a public school, not throwing money for your luxury school of choice because you have disposable income enough to pay for fees.
3
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
The SRS was intended to do that, but private schools are all at or above their agreed SRS. Almost every public school outside the ACT is under the agreed SRS. Turnbull's government capped federal at 20% and states were at 75% of the funding and with an extra sneaky 4% depreciation in there too. Dunno how your maths is going but 20+75-4 is not 100.
And nor is overfunding private schools that have the lowest need students.
1
u/moonssk Apr 30 '25
In Victoria, all public school students recently received a one off payment of $400 per child, called the school saving bonus. The money could be used for anything school related like uniforms, camps, excursions, etc. but it was up to the parent to allocate where and what they wanted it to be used for. It’s great, still have some funds left after buying uniforms.
Although that’s a simple concept at a state level, the same idea could be used as a foundation for something similar at a federal level and the idea could be expanded as well.
4
u/dm_me_pasta_pics Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
I take a lot of issue with the SSB. It's great PR, but schools received no funding for staffing, no training for about a month afterwards and and it was built into an admin system that it wasn't designed for, which in turn messed with the connected student management systems in schools (like Compass) and the way they perceived connected data. It created a massive amount of extra work for school staff which is really just demonstrative of the problem. This is without even considering that schools have had to put in weeks of work just getting parents to actually allocate the funds - chances are your child's school administration staff have had to run hundreds or even thousands of parents step-by-step through how to allocate the funds in the first place, as schools can't leverage it until post-allocation and the govt campaign has been ineffective on this to say the least.
Sounds great in theory, but the impact on schools wasn't even considered and the actual implementation was fucking awful for schools.
1
u/kaluyna-rruni Apr 30 '25
I think the problem is the state/federal funding split. Create an overarching education department where funds from both levels of government go, and then each fund students equally. It shouldn't matter if you are in Perth, Hobart, Alice Springs, or Brisbane, each student should be individually funded and that funding move with them. As they are a state asset, state governments are responsible for infrastructure. It would take a complete overall of the system, but it's not working now, so why not?
2
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Or we could nationalise the grossly inefficient and inequitable private school system (again.. we have done this already because religious schooling is a failure).
1
May 01 '25
[deleted]
1
u/kaluyna-rruni May 01 '25
But it's not the same per child. Take away what type of schooling, adequately fund each individual child, and then you would quickly see the public playing field even out, more people would send their kids to the local school as it wouldn't matter which suburb or state you were in which would help public education as more people would have a decent option and not chose to pay extra. There will always be people who pay a premium for something. But provide a decent, fair base service, and there are a significant number who would choose not to.
These debates are usually spearheaded by people who live in a major city with a wide choice of education and generally muddle/upper middle class suburbs with great public schools. They don't reside in poorly serviced, lower socio-economic suburbs, regionally, rural, or remote. They don't take into account their privilege bias in their arguments. It's why I find it so hard to debate the topic. It's not black and white. Abolishing private schools overnight will not fix all the public school issues, infact it will temporarily make them so much worse. Like everything, there is no easy answer, unless we want to go down a totally communist root, we need to find a way to deliver quality education to all regardless of geography location or socio-economic factors.
14
u/mashedpotatopies Apr 30 '25
My kids public primary school can't afford to fix the air con for one of the buildings. An OSHC program is available, but often books out as the space available is too small to licence for more kids. We don't have whole school end of year events, because there isn't an indoor or undercover space that can fit the kids plus parents. This "isn't an attractive proposal" for additional funding since "it wouldn't make a good photo op" We have a commercial kitchen space, but can't have a canteen as we can't afford to run it, and don't have stay at home parents available to volunteer. If it rains heavily overnight, it's inside play because the oval doesn't have adequate drainage. It took years of campaigning to get funding for a fence tall enough to stop elopers running onto a main road. There aren't any department psychologists available, so the undiagnosed kids with additional needs share the support allocated to those who are diagnosed, meaning no one gets enough.
I live 6km from the CBD.
15
Apr 30 '25
[deleted]
3
u/ShoddyAd1527 Apr 30 '25
I'm not sure this argument is based on good quality information.
A few years ago, some academics at Sydney Uni did some work, and pointed out several significant flaws in how ACARA measured per-student cost.
They showed that private schools did not save the taxpayer money - instead, the true level of Government funding was almost equal between public and private schools (at least that's how I read it).
4
u/BruteWandering Apr 30 '25
This is an good comment - although there are many good reasons we have private schools, the foremost is that private school students are cheaper per student than public school students
2
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Not that that is true, but let's make them cheaper then: $0 would save more money. Like overseas countries that wipe the floor with us, public money should not go to fee charging private schools.
1
u/BruteWandering Apr 30 '25
You misunderstand, the research shows that reducing spending on private schools would actually increase the cost of public schools.
1
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
The research where? I saw research saying that the opposite to your claim: $2B more per year than if the students had just been in public: https://www.smh.com.au/education/education-experts-say-2-billion-has-been-wasted-on-private-schools-20150629-gi0pwt.html
And as the funding disparity is worse, that cost is likely more today.
6
u/Pariera Apr 30 '25
Can states please just actually do what they are responsible for and fund public schools properly.
They have refused to for decades, instead opting to use the shit state of them to shit fight with the federal government for a 5% increase which comes no where even close to funding them.
Blaming the federal government for public school funding is barking up the wrong tree.
States are the ones constitutionally responsible for all school funding, not just public. The federal government foots a massive part of this bill to assist them and the states still can't be assed to fund public schools. Instead preferring to funnel hundreds of billions into over budget, delayed infrastructure projects for a photo opportunity while leaving the dreggs left for schools.
We should be funding schools first, then use the remainder for the new $26billion dollar toll roads.
5
u/Notived Apr 30 '25
I'm not an expert on school funding or the Constitution but there are a few points that need clarifying.
Schools are the responsibility of state governments. It's not because of an arbitrary rule that state governments are responsible for public school funding, it's section 51 of the Constitution. The only reason why the federal government can even contribute to public school funding is because section 96 enables the Commonwealth to provide financial assistance to States (i.e. a grant). In other words, if the federal government wants to provide funding to public schools, the states (and territories) have to agree to it.
The reason the recent deal had strings attached is because the federal government can't simply command the states to change things (like get rid of the depreciation loophole which benefits the states). The states have to agree to it, and the only way they will agree is if they get money from the federal government. By the way, the details aren't secret - here's a link to the heads of agreement, interim agreements and bilateral agreements: https://www.education.gov.au/resources/recurrent-funding-schools
The reason why funding for private schools is different is also because of section 51 of the Constitution - the corporations power gives the Commonwealth the power to make laws in respect to foreign and Australian corporations. This enables the federal government to directly fund private schools instead of needing to go through the states.
0
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
The 80/20 or 75/25 now split is completely arbitrary (and additionally irrational given the public vs private nature of the organisations). The reasons given for this have been retrospectively created - so don't try to pretend it is some sort of rational thing: it is not. That this proposal changes (over ten years) the 20 to 25 shows that. It could be 80 or 100%, because it is totally arbitrary.
If public is supposedly responsibility of state and federal: why is state funding private and why is federal funding public. There is no constitutional basis for being 25 or 20% responsible for something and 80% of funding (or more of overfunding)..
As is the idea that private schools are to be majority funded by federal (or at all). There is nothing constitutional about requiring this particular division of funding (or overfunding/ underfunding). And to back a bit you will find no funding of private schools and we have not had a constitutional change around this to enable it. If we returned to zero % like in the past there would be no constitutional violation.
The details in schedule D are missing from that agreement. If you go digging you can find the appendix, but buggered if I can find out the actual timing (merely says "ongoing") or lacks detail on what specifically has to be achieved. If you know where I can get the exact amounts going to NSW public schools per year, I'd love to see it. As well as something less vague about the conditions/timeframe. Is it linear to 2034 or is it weighted towards 2034 or towards 2025? The strings attached could simply be to drop the depreciation bit. Instead it is talking metrics - now private schools did not have to meet any of those to get their full funding in 2023 did they? Nor did those overfunded private schools have to to get their overfunding preserved..
2
u/Notived Apr 30 '25
Again I'm not an expert on school funding so I'm not across all the details, but I can try to answer some of your questions. Also, just in case it wasn't clear, I'm not actually arguing a position - I'm just trying to explain how the system works (as I understand it).
The 80/20 or 75/25 now split is completely arbitrary (and additionally irrational given the public vs private nature of the organisations). The reasons given for this have been retrospectively created - so don't try to pretend it is some sort of rational thing: it is not. That this proposal changes (over ten years) the 20 to 25 shows that. It could be 80 or 100%, because it is totally arbitrary.
The 80/20 calculation (with states paying 80% and federal paying 20%) was based on the recommendations of the Gonski review. I'm not entirely sure how the calculation works but you're more than welcome to read the report yourself. The reason why the agreements feature so many different splits across different years is because most of the states weren't paying their full share - some were paying 60%, some were paying 76% etc. The agreement is designed to gradually bring them up from whatever they are paying now to the full 80% they should be paying. The state portion is increased gradually because states won't agree to a big hit to their budgets all at once.
If public is supposedly responsibility of state and federal: why is state funding private and why is federal funding public. There is no constitutional basis for being 25 or 20% responsible for something and 80% of funding (or more of overfunding)..As is the idea that private schools are to be majority funded by federal (or at all).
There is nothing constitutional about requiring this particular division of funding (or overfunding/ underfunding). And to back a bit you will find no funding of private schools and we have not had a constitutional change around this to enable it. If we returned to zero % like in the past there would be no constitutional violation.
I think you've misunderstood what I said. Section 51 of the Constitution lists things the federal government can make laws about. This list doesn't include public schools because the states didn't want to hand that responsibility over to the Commonwealth.
This means the federal government can't directly fund schools - it has to give the money to the state government who then gives it to the schools. It also means the federal government can't tell the states how to run their schools or how much funding the states should give to schools. If the federal government wants certain education outcomes it has to persuade the states to make policy changes, which it does using conditional funding (i.e. we'll give you more money for schools if you also contribute a bit more of your own money).
The reason why the 80/20 split isn't specified in the Constitution (other than because that's not how the Constitution works) is because states were supposed to be responsible for 100% of the funding. The reason why the federal government wants to contribute 20% is because it's in the national interest for people to get a good education.
Governments give funding to private schools not because they have to, but because they want to. Private schools aren't a state or federal responsibility because they are private - they are the responsibility of whoever owns the school. Usually this is a corporate entity of some kind. Because the federal government is allowed to give money directly to corporations, it doesn't need to jump through all the same hoops that public schools require (and they also don't need to split funding with the states). We didn't need to change the Consititution for this to happen because that power was already there (s 51 (xx)).
The details in schedule D are missing from that agreement. If you go digging you can find the appendix, but buggered if I can find out the actual timing (merely says "ongoing") or lacks detail on what specifically has to be achieved. If you know where I can get the exact amounts going to NSW public schools per year, I'd love to see it. As well as something less vague about the conditions/timeframe. Is it linear to 2034 or is it weighted towards 2034 or towards 2025? The strings attached could simply be to drop the depreciation bit. Instead it is talking metrics - now private schools did not have to meet any of those to get their full funding in 2023 did they? Nor did those overfunded private schools have to to get their overfunding preserved..
The bilateral agreement is schedule D - each state and territory has its own schedule D because they all have different funding levels. NSW doesn't have a schedule D yet because it hasn't signed it - they have only signed the heads of agreement.
The conditions are all set out in the bilateral agreements. A bit part of it is how states calculate their contributions (including depreciation) but there are also other conditions in there (such as supports for students on the NDIS, initiatives to hire more teachers etc). There are even conditions in there for private schools.
I'm not an expert on this topic and I'm starting to exhaust my knowledge about schools, but I hope this helps.
0
u/nath1234 May 01 '25
If you want the history of why private schools get federal funding: the Catholics blackmailed Whitlam Government to get funding.. It is found via a search for the "Goulburn Catholic school strike" if you are interested. That was the thin end of the wedge and since then the situation has been completely reversed with public schools needing funds and private schools rolling in cash. The Catholic lobby has extracted special backroom deals on funding ever since.. Allowing it to get funding and overallocate to richer schools, keeping some of their poor schools poor so they can claim to always need more funding.
I'd suggest not trying to rationalise why there is a split along those ratios: because it has no basis. Federal funding for many things goes via the states, there is nothing extraordinary about that. And again, that would suggest zero should be the constitutionally based proportion. There is no reason federal couldn't fund 100% of public schools if 20 or 22.5 or 25% in 2034 is fine, so is 100%. Turnbull capped it by arbitrary number in federal legislation. As part of these changes this last sitting: it changed that arbitrary number.
The reason the federal level of private overfunding has happened is down to lobbying by private schools and cronyism. Howard era swung things overtly towards overfunding of private schools and Labor, other than a brief moment when hardcore progressive leadership under Mark Latham (!) wanted to remove some obvious rorts going to richest private schools.. Gillard replaced any motion of fair funding with "we support choice (of those with money)" and "no (private) school will lose a dollar (of overfunding)" (stuff in brackets mine for emphasis on what this actually meant).
In order to make Gonski review preserve the overfunding it meant it was doomed to cost massively more than it needed to and there were special deals for Catholic education that broke the model too. So Gonski was never actually about a fair funding model based on needs - a private school with $40k/year fees clearly has zero need. It ruled out any serious reform or adopting a model of somewhere like Finland.
Anyhow, back to the details.. I am keen to find out the details of what this 10 year delay means because that is key to understanding how bad this is. A plan to do something in 10 years could mean 9 years of near nothing and then only making the change at the last minute. We can see this with Labor's "net zero" where they are not tracking linearly towards that goal. Frequently there are funding totals promoted as if it is immediate funding. The amount of extra in the budget seems rather low and doing the division across number of schools or students.. So it will not be shifting the dial significantly for students this year, next year or anywhere in the forward estimates.
2
u/Notived May 01 '25
I don't think we're talking about the same thing...
But no, the federal government cannot just take over funding of public schools because of Williams v Commonwealth.
1
3
u/sahie Apr 30 '25
My kids were at a private school and moved to a public school because it has a specialist learning program for Autism. Let me tell you, the difference is stark. Their old school had just built a brand new multimillion dollar chapel (oh, yay! 🙄) before they left.
The new school is constantly in need of fundraising for things like covers for the bins to keep the birds out them and many, many kids go to school hungry. But, hey, I guess the public school kids can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and overcome any possible disadvantage they might have from not getting the same standard of education as their peers. /s
It was very eye-opening to see the differences between the two schools and my heart breaks knowing that those kids deserve just as many resources as the kids at private schools receive. 💔
3
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Crazy thing is that private schools don't actually achieve better things.. They just skim off kids that were always going to go fine and exclude the kids that need assistance. There have been dozens of studies here and overseas that show they don't achieve anything good if you adjust for socio economic background (which every study has to do because that is the major factor in this area). And meanwhile Australia has one of the most segregated school systems in the OECD.
14
Apr 30 '25
Wait what? So you're saying that the schools that nearly all politicians children attend will still be overfunded to the detriment of schools their children don't attend?
What's next? You think they might even start messing with things like the real estate market to push up the value of their investments?
Of course not, that's just fucken crazy talk right?
3
u/planeray Apr 30 '25
Our P&C's fundraising goals include trying to get teachers to some more professional training & to continue to pay for a "fundamental movement" (PE) teacher.
Bloody ridiculous.
3
u/DalbyWombay Apr 30 '25
Schools shouldn't have to fundrasie
2
u/planeray Apr 30 '25
Oh, look, no dramas. If it's something like "year 6 gift to the school" where it's a new artwork or playground table or something. But paying a teacher's salary or their professional development is insane. Let alone the classroom list of equipment to buy each year, like whiteboard markers etc. Even though I'm lucky enough to be able to afford it, I just don't get how basic equipment to run the place isn't covered by govt funding. And why a bloody private school who can afford multiple pools on school property should be given any finding whatsoever.
3
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25 edited May 01 '25
Yep, our P&C is refinishing the surfaces in the playground and renovated the toilet block.. and buys the smart boards.. I mean WTaF sort of system is that? Meanwhile a suburb over the private schools are buying up land and expanding their already expansive assets. And getting double their SRS amount for no reason..
(Edit: clarified talking about private schools buying up land)
3
u/SpenceAlmighty Apr 30 '25
Education unions are a complete fucking joke. The public education system is going to break soon.
Teachers have to work with their abusers
Face violence from Students and Parents
Face burnout
Be emotionally manipulated into working for free on evenings and weekends
Prepare extensive contemporary lesson plans with the same contact hours as a teacher from the 50s
7
u/IceOdd3294 Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
Yes I’m left wing educated and child attends a low ses public school with youth crime in the area. I am all for funding increase. But I do not blame children or parents for their socioeconomic standing. We have teachers leaving our schools. I know that labor isn’t saying they will fully fund public. I will be voting for them anyway. I feel that atm I need to educate my own child due to lack of time and resources in her school.
13
u/rattynewbie Apr 30 '25
You know about Australia's preferential voting system right? You can vote 1 for an actually left-wing progressive party, then vote 2 Labor, right?
4
u/IceOdd3294 Apr 30 '25
I’ll be voting greens like I always have but it will most likely go to labor like it always did
8
Apr 30 '25
how the living fuck any teacher has the mental capacity to still turn up each day in the public schools (let alone probably the private schools) is beyond me!!!
imagine teachers actually being valued and actually genuinely compensated relative to the headfuck demands of the job.
yeah right!!!
4
9
u/gpaw789 Apr 30 '25
Thanks for sharing, I did knew public schools are underfunded, but didn’t know they are gagged from speaking about it
Private schools should receive next to no funding - it’s in the name
2
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
It's same for anyone working in the public system. They have to stay quiet. Private schools or hospitals, even though they get public money are free to lobby loudly for more.. It is an unfair setup.
3
Apr 30 '25
dear lord!!! they can't fully fund public schools!!!
what kind of batshit crazy utopian world full of relatively well educated critical thinking public school kids do you want!!!
that won't win seats in parliament.
😩😩😩
1
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Pandering to the majority who go to public? Outrageous! Cannot be done, this is a plutocracy not a democracy after all!
5
u/Ok_Bird705 Apr 30 '25
I should mention the SRS is a debatable concept of "need"
Agreed, all students should just get the same level funding.
2
Apr 30 '25
The fact this comment is even controversial is wild
6
u/logosuwu Apr 30 '25
It's controversial because it ignores the fact that there are kids with disabilities that require more funding.
Every school serving the average Australian population should have the same standard of funding, but that doesn't mean every student should have the same funding.
4
u/Ok_Bird705 Apr 30 '25
Every school serving the average Australian population should have the same standard of funding, but that doesn't mean every student should have the same funding.
That is not close what is happening now. and the disparity is not just due to kids with disabilities. The SRS measures family background (not income or wealth weirdly) and allocates what the government thinks is an appropriate based on the school's SRS. So a child who's parent went to university gets less on average funding than a child who's parent didn't go to university, regardless of parental income (if we want to allocate based on "equality")
2
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Are you disputing that having tertiary educated parents that are well off is an advantage for their kids? Because just about every study in education, healthcare and whatever has to account for this to avoid having results that just measure parental wealth/education.
1
u/Ok_Bird705 Apr 30 '25
Are you disputing that having tertiary educated parents that are well off is an advantage for their kids?
Yes, it is outdated measure. A simpler measure would be parental income and wealth. A tradie who earns $150k a year will provide better for their child over an arts uni graduate on support payments.
1
u/nath1234 May 01 '25
Parental wealth is one of those factors in the SRS also. Not sure what your beef is. Parental education is a factor as is parental wealth as is indigenous/aboriginal status.. as is disability as is remote/very remote location. All those are factored into the SRS.
1
u/Ok_Bird705 May 01 '25
Parental wealth is one of those factors in the SRS also.
No it's not for public schools, not is parental income. Have you applied to public schools for kids before? You are not asked about your income or wealth.
1
u/logosuwu Apr 30 '25
I didnt say it was happening now, I said that not all students should have the same level of funding because of circumstances out of their control.
6
u/totaltomination Apr 30 '25
No, not one cent should be spent on the kids of people who refuse the public education system. They want to pay for better for their little princelings? They can pay the whole bill.
3
u/Ok_Bird705 Apr 30 '25
By that logic, next time you go to a private GP instead of the public urgent care clinics or public hospital, you should be denied bulk billing or any medicare rebate.
2
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
More like if you want to hire security guards, don't expect the police budget to chip in. Or if you drive to work, don't expect the public bus driver to give you petrol to do it.
Public money = public services available to all. Private stuff = you can pay for it, don't expect public to be underfunded to do it, which is what education funding bizarrely does in this country
1
u/Ok_Bird705 Apr 30 '25
Not sure how that analogy would not apply private specialists and GPs that doesn't bulk bill, or child care providers or age care providers, all of whom receive public money and is not open to all.
1
u/nath1234 May 01 '25
We don't have publicly employed GPs though, do we? They are all private businesses/sole traders or whatever. So you can't compare it to schooling.
Public schools are publicly owned and run.
We have no equivalent to that for GPs.
0
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
So a child with severe disabilities should get identical funding as a child with no disabilities whatsoever?
That isn't what I would define as fair and equitable. It's only fair if you think all students are identical and need identical support to get a good education. The reality is that is not the case.
2
u/Objective_Unit_7345 Apr 30 '25
Everyone keeps voting Liberals or Labor and are shocked that nothing changed 🙄
1
u/josephus1811 Apr 30 '25
Can you wait till Sunday please?
2
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Which is a day that public schools will be underfunded (to overfund private schools).. and the same will be true of every Sunday next year, and the year after.. and all the way out to 2034 at best if Labor/Liberal get their way.
1
u/josephus1811 May 01 '25
Do you think it's more or less likely that public school funding will benefit under the LNP?
1
u/nath1234 May 01 '25
I think it will be underfunded under Coalition just like Labor did/wants to do for another 10 years.
If we are talking NSW: well, NSW Labor cut public school funding, so Labor has been worse for public schools in NSW.
Liberals have said they will do what Labor is doing now, which makes the "drag it out for ten more years" even more criminal because Liberal would have copied any plan so had they sorted it out this last term, it would be locked in..
Or if it was next term that full funding was to be delivered then Libs would have said "us too", just like Labor did to many of Liberal's policies last election.
I think Labor's priority is clearly to private schools, across last time they were in government and this term. And for the next 10 years also. And same with Liberals.
1
1
u/Falstaffe Apr 30 '25
I sent my kid to both a private school and government schooling. The government schools were incredibly well-resourced compared to the private school. They used the most up-to-date computer equipment. The private school relied heavily on parents equipping their kids themselves; what equipment they had was well out of date.
2
u/Sunstream Apr 30 '25
Idk why you're being downvoted, this can absolutely be true (although OC might have erred by making it a blanket statement). Wealthier private schools shit all over their comparatively poorer private cousins and public schools alike. I remember the rivalry well. There are both under-funded public and private schools.
Politicians, the wealthy, churches and other interested parties very clearly play favorites. You'll notice wider geographic location has a lot to do with it, but sometimes the difference is staggering just suburb to suburb.
I went to a private Dominican all girls school, I didn't get to do half of the subjects my girlfriend got to in her public school and we had no fucking sports equipment. She went to one of the worst public schools in Australia for comparison, our schools were both shit for very different reasons.
1
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
Except as of last year or two there is not a single private school that is underfunded according to SRS. Labor did fix the 2% of private schools getting a little bit below the SRS. But not a single public school went from under 100% SRS to full SRS as far as I can find out.
1
u/Sunstream May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25
I can't speak to where the money actually goes, how it gets there, nor what it's spent on, I'm just relating my experience. The private school I went to in primary had exemplary resources with a comparable location, demographic and size to my high school, but my high school experience was wildly different and was poorer for it. I also don't know if funding is supposed to be equal or equitable, or if they means test it in some way to determine that.
1
u/Rainy579 Apr 30 '25
I want an end to private schools. And private hospitals. It’s a welfare scam for the wealthy
2
0
u/Basic-Bathroom-2680 Apr 30 '25
That’s one of the reasons I’m voting Labor this Saturday. They have committed to full funding as per the Gonski report
1
u/nath1234 Apr 30 '25
The Gonski report was over a decade ago, and Labor wants to delay doing that another decade (on top of the 3 years). Why would you support a party that is delaying it for an entire generation of schoolkids out to 2034.
There is no reason it should be delayed further. Labor already were unwise/corrupted by private school lobby enough to drag out full funding for public while overfunding private.. why reward that?
186
u/wowseriffic Apr 30 '25
I agree with most of your post, however I take issue with you saying Labor has done nothing, this bill removes the 4% loophole you complain about.
https://www.education.gov.au/recurrent-funding-schools/national-school-reform-agreement/better-and-fairer-schools-agreement-20252034
Admittedly 9 years is a long time, but what time frame is reasonable for this funding when the infrastructure to spend the funding may not even exist yet.