Should we fund public schools in Australia?
65Why fund them?
I read today in the Sydney Morning Herald that it’s likely the My School website will reveal that children from wealthy families are more likely to attend a public school. So Geoff Newcombe, the executive director of the Association of Independent schools NSW, is quick to raise the issue that wealthy parents should fund public schools because “why offer free education to those who can afford to contribute?”
First of all, what does wealthy mean? In Australia, it is usually the middle class who are liberally accused of being wealthy. The truth is they can’t afford to hide their income like the truly wealthy can in companies or trusts.
Secondly, free education means exactly that. Not means tested, not dependent on your income or assets. It’s also not free. We pay for that education through taxes. And guess who pays the most taxes? Yes, the middle class (lower income individuals pay less as do the rich through creative accounting.)
Thirdly, what does he mean “contribute”? Not only do we pay the annual contribution payment, but we also help with the fundraising. At our school those fees and fundraising add up to about $200,000 per year.
Lastly, if not the wealthy, who sends their kids to private schools? I, for one, couldn’t afford $20,000 yearly fees and I don’t think many of my friends could.
But here is the interesting thing, private schools get government funding. In fact, about 20% of all funding goes to private schools.
One argument is that private schools have to fund their own building costs, whilst the government pays for buildings for public schools. Really? I challenge anyone to tour your typical public school and compare the state of the buildings to those of private schools (Manly west’s toilets are 80 years old!) In fact, a number of private schools posted large profits for the last financial year.
Another argument is that if the government didn’t fund public schools the fees would drive parents to public schools. Yes, so? “Oh,” they say, “that will overcrowd the public system.” Ah, well no. That implies there would be an exodus. Doubtful. Besides funding can be re-directed to public schools to help them expand if needed.
We choose the public system because the level of teaching is great, there is no competition as to who has the latest IPhone or is making the best fashion statement. My daughter enjoys the relaxing but stimulating environment and I can drop in and see her teacher whenever I want.
And yes, we are lucky we can help the school buy smartboards and computers unlike parents in other areas. Perhaps that’s where the funding currently given to private schools should go to.
Ella Quirk 2 weeks ago
No, we should not be funding private schools. Every school should be a good school and there should not be a two-tiered system. Let the wealthy pay themselves for the privilege of elitism. As for the middle classes - if government funding were directed into state schools and not diverted elsewhere, there would be no need to send your children to a 'better" school.
Finland, which funds only government schools, now leads the world in education, whereas Australia has been steadily slipping for decades. The proof is in the pudding.