Jim Kable: I agree with your comments. I could never understand why most taxpayers supported their taxes going directly to the wealthiest Private Schools when their own kids could never have attended those schools. Particularly when it is Public Schools who take the kids who need special attention, e.g. kids who hardly speak English and special needs kids. As for private enterprise in schools; I can only see this step limiting kids' outlooks for a career. The mining company's interest is only in their further profits - not in the kids.

The rich and privilaged in society always feel that they need more privalige, they will always cry about how unfair it is, how bad public schools are - but instead of demanding we fix public schools for everyone they demand that we fund private schools for their benefit exclusively, the irony of it all

Governments tend to be poor managers of large bureaucracies and in recent years they have tended to offload these responsibilities to the private sector. The education sector is no exception. Given the current trend I would expect to see a much greater involvement by the private sector, even to the extent of the more wealthy sending their sons and daughters to totally independent (no government involvement) schools on the model of the prep schools in the USA. The contrast in educational opportunities is so vast it's bordering on immoral. Redirecting funding is very short sighted and dangerous. The public education system has to be fixed in order to attract students from the private schools.

You support "For-Profit" Schooling? there are some services that shouldnt be privatised like the fire department, the police, national security, education, prisons

Lets jst look at private prisons cos its the most straight forward example - they make money by keeping people in jail, without citizens in jail they dont make money - so it is not in their best interest to rehabilitate criminals, nor is it in their best interest to release prisoners who have served their time.

This has lead to large lobby groups for private prisons that encourage via money, governments to pass "Tough on crime" laws which increase sentences which the politicians love because they can claim they are taking criminals of the street when in reality they jst increase sentences for non violent crimes such as marijuana possesion, America now has more people in prison per person than almost any other country in on earth.

These are things we need to think about as a society rather than "The governments dumb lets give it to private industry"

Also - Government in and of itself is not a problem, even in the business world we have governance groups, governance is what happens when you have multiple individuals working together in a community or to achieve a common goal.

The point of government is to provide oversight and make sure all stake holders have their expectations met

Government in and of itself is not the problem

Michael, You are missing the point. I am dead against "For-Profit" schooling, and I agree some services should not be privatized. However if you want to live in democracy you have to provide the citizens with a choice. If you are suggesting that the population accept what the authorities offer and chisel that in stone, I submit you create more problems than you fix. One of the problems that you would generate (by removing government funding) is "For profit" schools. Any while I am at it. If you do not take a serious look at how the governments run things you will see much more private enterprise in prisons and fire services and all kinds of utilities.

Don, you're getting confused, I think. By not funding private schools nobody is removing choice from anybody - merely making them pay for it.

exactly, everyone can attend a public school. public funding for private schools who are free to discriminate as to whom attends the school is IMO not appropriate, particularly when it deprives public schools of much needed operational income.

my business supports local public schools by constantly donating to sports activities, excursions etc etc.

I dont try to influence what they teach or how they teach or insist my business name is plastered all over it. I do it to support the kids and my community.

Thats awesome, you are a really good person....are you suggesting the mining companies are good people as well?

Good for you Robert so I believe then that you would not oppose a new tax on your business so our public schools can have the resources that people like you are already providing

"But the teachers’ union is concerned about the company’s influence on the curriculum (think climate change, for example) "
While I share concerns about outside private industry influences on High Schools, I cannot believe the chutzpah of the NSW Teacher's Federation (or AEU) to express "concerns" over "influences on the curriculum"
THE main concern about nefarious influences on the NSW curriculum is the influence of the NSW Teacher's Federation! Fancy the government school teacher's unions being 'concerned' about ideology in the classroom. But unfortunately, the NSW government school system has shown us for too long is does not have what it takes to teach High School Maths and Science at an appropriate level and standard required for industries like mining. This is why half the parents in NSW have fled the public system.
Given how many public school kids are taught Science, and especially Maths, by poorly qualified teachers, and often teachers who do not even have majors in Science or Maths, on this occasion the students Narara Valley High School should thank their lucky stars the Mining Academy of Education and Nucoal might actually teach them Maths and Science, and skills that will benefit them in the grown-up world.

David
Your left wing zealotry and class envy are front and centre as usual.
You say two thirds of society are on the basic wage of $15 per hour ($15 x 35 hours a week = $525 x 52 weeks = 27,300 per year). You imply that the other third are on $1,500 per hour (1500 x 35 x 52 = 2,730,000 per year) and then further imply that these rich people are a typical profile of private school parents. And so given this, private schools should be defunded and all the subsidies given to the public sector.
As you well know, having been a principal at an elitist Jewish school yourself, the majority of parents sending their kids to private school are in the main middle class people in earning less than $150,000 per year and where often the mother has decided to go out to work to pay the fees. I am sure those families would appreciate being called rich. The mega rich comprise less than 5% of parents in private schools. But then you knew that already.
You also failed to mention that for every kid you force from a private school into the public sector you will save the $2,500 in school subsidy but you will have cost the taxpayer an extra $11,000 to educate that child in the public system. The taxpayers you claim to protect are therefore worse off. But then you knew that too didn't you David.
I agree public schools should be adequately funded, but taking it from the private schools is economic lunacy.
If you disagree with me David, I welcome your response.

That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at the figures between the cost of public and taxpayer-subsidised "private" schooling, Ken:

The lack of transparency in private school management leads to potentially corrupt and / or financially costly actions (did you notice that THREE private schools in Melbourne went belly up last year?), for a start.

The other substantial taxpayer-funded subsidies and grants that private schools receive are never mentioned in the sums that you and other similar commentators provide.

The long-term cost to society of such a stratified system can be measured in many terms, including economically, and we are subsidising it.

Strong public systems in other countries are not questioned by the lucky people who benefit from them. They are not having this argument!!

One minute opponents of private schools are arguing against taxpayer funding of private schools. Then when that is shown to be a flawed economic argument where the taxpayer will pay even more if private schools are wound back, the real agenda is revealed, ENVY.

The 3 schools that went out of business last year did not cost the taxpayer any money by going out of business. They will cost the taxpayer this year when all the kids end up in the public system. You should be focused on that cost.

"Other taxpayer funded subsidies". Exactly what are these and why would an ALP government conceal them?

I agree more money should be put into public education. if the current private school subsidies are maintained, all extra money will go a lot further and help those who need it.

I reiterate that the cost to educate a kid in the public system is $11,000. The subsidy given to each kid in a private school now is $2,500. In the private system the difference of $8,500 is currently being paid by the parents. If you force those kids into the public system, that $8,500 will then be borne by the taxpayer. In other words, $8,500 per kid will be lost to the system. In a way it is a tax by stealth on private school parents. There would be no no way of raising this scale of revenue to offset public education costs under any other circumstances.

"The 3 schools that went out of business last year did not cost the taxpayer any money by going out of business."

**gag*** ... WHAT?!?! One of them was given a million dollar bail out from the STATE GOVERNMENT a couple of years before it went under. What happened to that money? What happened to the millions of dollars from government that was obviously being mismanaged?

Your _theories_ about how much it would cost are all very nice, Ken, but your hypothesis can actually be tested with REAL dollar amounts:

There has been an increase in the proportion of students enrolled at taxpayer-subsidised "private" schools compared to the proportion enrolled in public schools over the last, say 15 years. During that time the largesse doled out to taxpayer-subsidised "private" schools has been substantial, thanks to the kickstart from Mr Howard. According to your hypothesis, there should obviously be a lot of financial evidence around showing how much has been saved in dollar terms, correct?

Show us where that evidence is and maybe your hypothesis will have legs. If you're not sure where that evidence might be, I'm sure experts like David Zyngier will be happy to help.

"Envy"? Oh, please ...

I also have absolutely no idea where you are getting this $2500 figure from. A quick check of MySchool of the Catholic secondary up the road shows a combined expenditure of $8000 per student from federal and state coffers in 2010. It also shows a federal capital expenditure of over $400000. Time to check your figures more assiduously.

I am talking about annual recurring expenditure John not one off capital contributions like the school halls. Otherwise we are not looking at an apple for apples comparison.

Read a referenced paper at this web site entitled "Funding Myths" http://www.independentschools.vic.edu.au/

Having read this summary I find that my figures are out of date. The cost to taxpayers of funding public schools annually is $13,544 per student per year, more than the $11,000 I originally quoted.

The cost to the taxpayer of funding a Catholic School is $7,395; the cost to the taxpayer of funding an independent school is $6,051 (these are averages, the school for which I serve as a Council member is $2,500 per student per year).

Therefore the extra cost to taxpayers if children are forced from a Catholic School is $6,149 and for an independent school $7,493.

The figures vary slightly, but the argument is still as strong, if not even stronger.

Enjoy

I have read that bit of propaganda before.

I'd be interested to know exactly how they come up with the rubbery figures of $1.85 billion per year "saved".

Maybe they're not willing to take on my challenge detailed above - as you have not, either.

Mowbray actually made the news today. Read it and weep to think where our taxpayer dollars are going:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/former-mowbray-directors-to-face-court-20130218-2endq.html

Ignore the private school ideologues who insist that their government subsidies are quarantined and restricted. As you can see, they do WHAT THEY WANT with our tax dollars.

The taxpayers dollars have gone to educate the 1200 students at the school.

When the school was open that would have saved the taxpayer $8,991,600 (1200 x $7,493) per year. Money paid by the parents and not by the taxpayer. If all those kids have now found their way into the public system look at the extra cost burden it has created for taxpayers.

The difference John is that private schools are subject to corporations law and if they transgress then the directors get it in the neck like what is happening at Mowbray.

If a public school is badly run, no one takes the wrap. No accountability, it just disappears into the big bureaucracy and gets buried, Like Julia's school halls, where one got built at a school that got closed a month later.

Andrew you must be joking, no complaints about privatisation of TAFE , please do some research. The whole TAFE sector has been casualised to prevent protest. You take away tenure and you remove complaints and this is exactly what the Liberal Government is attempting to do now in the school sector through what it calls Local Schools Local Decisions and by putting only those principals that are compliant in charge of schools, and this of cause takes us back to our original conversation - the cross pollination of public education and business

I meant the international sector, which may have underpinned a lot of domestic growth (which I know has been hit in recent years), but understand your point.

Worked at a university many years ago where future advancement from temp to permanent(ish) centred round not being a union member (though most permanent managers probably were), keeping your mouth shit and having a mortgage. This tended to ensure discipline.....

whoops typo. meant "shut" :)

"It's all about power and control".
You betcha. Wresting power and control away from corrupt, inefficient, and incompetent government. Face it, 50% of parents take their kids away from government controlled schools.
"Why don't the mining companies just pay more tax to government so they can then use this money to fund a better public education system and teacher's salaries."
Why would they do that, when they are much more likely to achieve their aims by doing it themselves? Why don't YOU write the government checks every time you want to achieve something in your life?

Was it just yesterday where I read in one of the week-end newspapers that this country is quite literally wasting some $16 billion and counting on weapons of mass destruction from the US - in this case some breed of fighter 'plane locking us into further US military compatibility - the profits - heading into the coffers of "private" US shareholders - and thereby robbing from this nation the birth-right of its children of proper public education funding.