Not sure if it's true but a friend of mine who teaches in the UK said they have no government funding at all for private schools and approx 5% of the population attends them, making them very elitist and very expensive , here in Australia approx 40% of the kids go to non government schools, so if we are anything like the UK if the government stopped finding private schools the fees would absolutely go up and a lot of parents would have to pull their kids out
I hope I'm not too presumptuous when I say that it seems like you see the economy through the lens of a public school advocate, but there's obviously so much more to it. For example, if the government did cut funding to private schools why do you assume it would end up in the public school coffers? Given that one is primarily funded by the federal government and the other by state, it seems highly unlikely. More likely that it would go towards some shiny new submarines
By all means, champion public schools and fight for more funding... but why is the obvious place to take it from always private schools?
As I said earlier, and in the other thread? I get confused as there are a few going at the same time lol - I support funding to private schools for the same reasons I support funding for PHI. It takes the pressure off the public system. We have had an increase in 3 years of about 30% at DD's school, many coming from the private school bc we have better remedial and accelerated programs than them. But the big non religious schools - no one is going to convince me they need the funding they receive They are using those funds as the cream on the cake (as opposed to using it to stay afloat like many little catholic schools bc fees are low) to build swimming pools and huge libraries. All while public infrastructure is falling apart and teachers are paying for supplies from their own wages trying to give the kids what they need.
People have said that if someone really wants to afford private school to avoid sending their child to the horrible local public school, they would do it. Perhaps wealthier people could make sacrifices in other areas of their life to continue to send their children to private schools, if that's their priority!
Last edited by BigRedV; 20-04-2012 at 21:13.
I think like me, Bigred is only against funding to the big schools. Ones that charge 10k+ a year and clearly don't need the funding.
Yes govt funding to public should be increased. Sadly I think part of the issue is public can be seen as the poor person's alternative and particularly the libs, don't want to put more funding into public when most of their voters go private. But then that's just my take on things.
I asked a few pages ago how you thought about 'rich' parents using their money for private tutors to get their kids ahead. Assuming you have removed funding from those nasty elitist private schools and kids whose parents can't afford them any more move to public.
Let's take a public school in a high socioeconomic area. The first thing I would do if I were a parent would've to use my money to hire a private tutor, so my kid could get ahead. Even better, because all the other parents have money too, we can organize group tutorials so all of the kids benefit.
Then the school down the road. Low socioeconomic, parents have no money for things like tutors or other extracurricular activities. They go on as before.
Does that seem better to you? Do you really think that forcing kids to go to public schools will remove the advantage that rich kids have?
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!