Schools move to bankrupt parents

[Teebs]

What did they think would happen, ffs? The school's just going to wear the cost of educating their kid for nothing?

Having been to a private school and being a current Oxford student I know a lot of former private school students and their parents. An attitude that seems to be held by at least half of them is that private schooling is a necessity/right for people. It was illustrated nicely when in a debate on university tuition fees I proposed that fees could be based on an average of any school fees paid for a student in the last x years (with some mechanism to protect against change in circumstances). The immediate reaction was "but what about the people who struggle to send their children to private school, they wouldn't be able to afford to anymore!" (It's hard to get the level of outrage at the idea of having to give up private schooling down in textual form). Luckily not everyone thinks like this.

[Twoyboy]

I can't see any circumstance under which general government funding of private schools looks like a good idea (I say general because I think the assisted places scheme the UK used to have - government pays full fees for certain poor but talented students - was not a bad idea). It's a subsidy for rich parents, who are the ones that least need the money.

If state schools are as good as private schools then there's no reason to subsidise the private ones because it brings no benefits to education and just makes rich parents better off. If state schools are not as good as private schools, then why the hell is the government not spending the money on them?!

I absolutely agree that the money should go to public schools before it goes to subsidise the wealthy. However, my point was that I can understand IN THEORY why they do it.

Lets say it costs $20k per child per year to fulfill all the requirements of education. By sending your child to a public school, you pay nothing and the government pays $20k for your child. But, if you want everything above the normal standard of education... choice of more languages or sports for example, then you send your kids to a private school. Lets say the extras cost $5k per year per child.

If you have to pay the whole thing, that's $25k up front, which I certainly wouldn't be doing anytime soon. If the government still pays $15k, then I'm only left with $10k, which makes me want to do it. The government saves money, and I pay $10k to get a bunch of things outside the realm of a normal education. Everybody wins.

However, as I said, that's the theory, in real life there does not appear to be any kin of check that this is how things are working. Which is why I called for some kind of regulation in my first post, to make sure the schools aren't just price gouging everyone.

[Fr33ze]

Here I'll roughly make 3 categories:

1. Private schools: Run as a business = Incoming is tuition fees and/or donations;
2. (Half) private schools: Receive subsidies from the government + tuition fees and/or donations;
3. Public schools: Totally rely on government funds.

As far as I see in this thread, Australia doesn't have category 1 type of schools, is that so?

Second question is, regarding category 2, is the government a "shareholder" or an representative in school boards? Or let me put it this way, "Does the government get anything different by funding category 2 schools from category 3?

[Teebs]

Here I'll roughly make 3 categories:

1. Private schools: Run as a business = Incoming is tuition fees and/or donations;
2. (Half) private schools: Receive subsidies from the government + tuition fees and/or donations;
3. Public schools: Totally rely on government funds.

As far as I see in this thread, Australia doesn't have category 1 type of schools, is that so?

Second question is, regarding category 2, is the government a "shareholder" or an representative in school boards? Or let me put it this way, "Does the government get anything different by funding category 2 schools from category 3?

Supporters would argue that people can then get a better quality of education and take pressure off the state school system. I would argue that rich parents get a subsidy and state schools are left as the preserve of only the poorest. That may in fact be a desirable outcome from certain perspectives...

[thejester]

Here I'll roughly make 3 categories:

1. Private schools: Run as a business = Incoming is tuition fees and/or donations;
2. (Half) private schools: Receive subsidies from the government + tuition fees and/or donations;
3. Public schools: Totally rely on government funds.

As far as I see in this thread, Australia doesn't have category 1 type of schools, is that so?

Second question is, regarding category 2, is the government a "shareholder" or an representative in school boards? Or let me put it this way, "Does the government get anything different by funding category 2 schools from category 3?

Pretty sure that most private schools would survive as '1', it's just they get a bonus from government because...er...yeah. That model also leaves out Catholic schools, which are a pretty major part of the education system.

[bobalot]

Last time this debate flared up it was pointed out that per student, the subsidy for Catholic schools is about the same as government schools. Which is why nobody has ever really made a stink about them.

The big problem is the millions of dollars going to schools like Kings College, which spent much of their subsidies on useless bullshit like extra rifle ranges, rowing sheds and swimming pools while the infrastructure in public schools falls apart.

There is no oversight on how billions of dollars of taxpayers money is spent at these schools. No transparency at all, no regulation of fess, no laws against excluding 'undesirable' children (And yes, they do this), etc.