Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: 2001: Federal funding of public and private schools: is the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act equitable?
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
private
school
funding
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
2005/01: Should those private schools charging the highest fees have their Government funding significantly reduced?
What they said ...
'It is galling when elite private schools fritter away money on glitzy promotion when the paint is peeling from the walls of the local state schools'
Christopher Bantick, a Melbourne writer and education commentator
'We treat schools fairly and equally and we regard private schools as a very important choice available for Australian parents'
John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia
The issue at a glance
On September 14 2004 the leader of the Labor Opposition, Mr Mark Latham, announced his party's education policy in advance of the October 9 federal election.
As part of this policy under a Labor Government the federal funding to be received by 67 high-fee-charging private schools (predominantly in Victoria and New South Wales) would be cut back over a period of three years. A further 111 private schools would have their funding frozen at current levels. The $520 million saved in this manner would be redistributed among more needy private schools. A further $1.9 billion would be given to State schools on a basis of need.
The aim of the policy is to ensure that all students at primary schools are funded to a level of $9000 per annum, while secondary students would be supported at a rate of $12,000 per annum. Where school fees already mean this level of funding has been met a Labor Government would either cut back or freeze the Government support such private schools received.
The policy has met with a mixed response. The Australian Education Union has welcomed the policy. A number of principals of affected private schools have opposed it.
Further, the Catholic and Anglican Archbishops in Sydney and Melbourne have warned the policy is potentially divisive. However, the Primate of the Anglican Church in Australia, Dr Peter Carnely, has distanced himself from what he describes as personal criticism of federal Labor's education policy by Anglican and Catholic archbishops.
Background
ALP Education Policy Summary
The ALP will introduce a national resource standard across all schools that will set the level of funding per Australian student at $9,000 in primary schools and $12,000 in secondary schools by 2012 (2004 prices). Schools with income from fees over this level will be eligible for a basic grant from Commonwealth and state governments set at 15 per cent of the national standard.
There are 67 'high fee' schools in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia that have been named by the ALP as already operating above the national standard based on their fees.
For these schools, funding will be phased down over a three year period from 2006 to 2008. At the end of this period the schools will receive the basic grant of $1,550 per primary student and $2,066 per secondary student.
Some 111 independent schools operating above the national standard through funding from a combination of all sources - federal, state or territory, and private but not listed as being 'high fee' will become 'funding guaranteed'. These schools will have the Government funding held at current levels until their resources drop to the level of the new standard.
$520 million of Government grants will be re-distributed from the 178 named independent schools to other non-government schools through a range of targeted programs. This includes a redirection of $378 million to Catholic schools.
There are no additional funds for the non-government sector as a whole.
An additional $1.9 billion will be invested in government schools.
The history of Government aid to private schools (1871 to 1973)
Between 1871 and 1895 each colony passed 'free, compulsory and secular' Education Acts that stopped most financial assistance to church schools and made primary education a state responsibility.
Australia was seen as a new country with a mixed religious legacy which would not have an established church or a state-funded system of religious education. Education was a fundamental entitlement not to be based on wealth and, it was argued, citizens should not have to pay fees to send their children to government-funded schools.
Not until the 1950s and 60s did the Liberal and Country Parties, under the prime ministership of Robert Menzies, relax their opposition to government assistance for church schools. In 1951, private school fees up to a certain amount were made tax deductible; gifts for school buildings were made tax deductible in 1954.
The Commonwealth first began direct funding to non-government schools in 1964, largely in response to the problems of overcrowding, inadequate buildings and poorly trained teachers in Catholic schools at that time. The Federal government gave private schools special purpose grants to address particular needs, such as the building of science laboratories, and supplied merit-based student scholarships.
In December 1972 the Whitlam Labor government was elected federally with a policy of funding all schools on a needs basis. Wealthy private schools were to receive no assistance, while the majority of Catholic schools, which were still poorly resourced, would receive most of their running costs plus assistance with capital grants. State schools were also to receive major assistance with the guarantee that 70 percent of the new Commonwealth education funding would be directed to them.
However, the Liberal and County Parties (who controlled the Senate) threatened to block Labor's education measures unless all private schools, including the most wealthy, received some government assistance. Thus, all private schools became eligible for aid based on a formula that assessed their resources. The most needy schools (mainly Catholic) obtained approximately 80% of their costs from State or Federal Governments, while the wealthy received about 33%.
Both sides of politics now supported state aid in part pragmatically, as each wished to attract the substantial Catholic vote. Thus by the 1970s state governments were funding state schools alone, but, the Commonwealth's role in funding education had become less clear.
The rationale for the Commonwealth's changed role in education funding was mixed. From the Labor perspective state aid was predominantly a social justice issue. Aid was to be needs-based to allow impoverished Catholic schools to catch up. For the Liberal and National Parties, respecting parents' freedom of choice was important. Thus, they pushed for funding to private schools not on a basis of need but rather as a direct entitlement.
All parties' policies marked a fundamental change from the initial position that government funded only free, secular and non-exclusive education. Also, the needs-based principle meant that the Commonwealth now funded some Catholic schools to approximately the same degree that the states funded Government schools. Over time the percentage of Commonwealth funds directed to non-government schools grew and the funds to government schools correspondingly declined.
In 1973, 70 percent of Commonwealth education funding went to government schools. By 1980, 50.8 percent of federal funds were directed to public schools. By 1996, this had declined to 41.5 percent.
Government aid to private schools (1996 to 2003)
The Howard Government, which was elected in 1996, made two immediate changes to Commonwealth funding of state and private schools.
One change was to abolish the New Schools Policy. (The New Schools Policy had been introduced in 1986. It attempted to ensure that any new private school was economically viable, had a substantial enrolment base and would not become too large a burden on the budget.)
Since the removal of the New Schools Policy private schools may be established without the former restrictions on size, location and curriculum.
This change was introduced as a means of making it easier for special interest groups to establish new schools and so for parents to choose a suitable school for their children. It is anticipated that this policy change will result in a significant growth in new private schools.
The other change was to introduce the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment (EBA) The EBA obliges the states to repay the Commonwealth 1,700 dollars of education funding for every student who leaves the public system for a non-government school. In 1999 the federal government took $26.74 million from public school entitlements because of a growth in enrolments in private schools.
This deduction from public school entitlements is intended to compensate the Commonwealth, which contributes far more to funding private school students than do the states. However, these deductions occur even when the overall number of students in the state system has risen.
These changes have been praised by some as likely to promote further growth in private school enrolments. They have been criticised by others as undermining public schools.
The Howard Government also introduced the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000. This Act resulted in a new model for funding private schools - the SES (socio-economic status) Model. Under the SES Model private schools are funded according to the supposed income of the parents of students. This is assessed by using the socio-economic status (SES) of the areas from which schools draw their students. This means that the addresses of each student are matched against census figures giving the average income of those living in that area.
Supporters claim that this is a fairer measure than the previous emphasis on the assets and income generating ability of the schools. Critics claim the SES is a very imprecise measure of parent wealth as the average income of those living in a particular area does not have to correspond to the income of parents sending their children to a particular private school.
Whatever the accuracy of the measure, the 2000 Act has resulted in a dramatic increase in federal Government funding to all private schools, but especially the wealthiest private schools.
Between 1997 and 2002 private school per student grants increased in real terms by over 40%. Over the same period per student grants to those attending public schools increased by less than 20%.
Internet Information
A summary of the Australian Labor Party's (ALP's) education policy can be found on the Party's Internet site at http://www.alp.org.au/policy/education/ausschools.php
The response of the Education Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, to the ALP's education policy can be found on the Minister's Internet site at http://www.brendannelson.com.au/speakfrank/article.asp?ID=284
Dr Nelson is highly critical of the policy.
The Australian Education Union has come out in support of the ALP's education policy. The Union issued a supportive media release on September 14 2004. The media release can be found at http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Media/MediaReleases/2004/1409.pdf
This is a pdf file which can only be read using Adobe Acrobat Reader. The Reader can be downloaded without charge.
The Independent Schools Council of Australia (ISCA), formerly known as the National Council of Independent Schools Associations (NCISA), represents the interests of the independent school sector on a national basis.
The ISCA has produced a detailed summary and analysis of the ALP's proposal. This is a genuine critique of the proposal which asks a number of useful questions of clarification.
It can be read at http://www.ncisa.edu.au/election2004/election2004.htm#analysis alp (When you get to this page, you should click on the words "Analysis of ALP policy")
Arguments against a significant reduction in Government funding
1. The parents of children attending private schools pay taxes for government services
It has been claimed that all parents who pay taxes should have their children's education supported by the Government. According to this line of argument, one of the main reasons citizens pay taxes to governments, state and federal, is so that those governments are able to fund community services, including education.
This point has been made by Mr Michael Urwin, the principal of Brighton Grammar School. Mr Urwin has stated, 'After all, parents choosing schools like Brighton Grammar School are taxpayers . . . and they are contributing to the education of other children ... Every child deserves support from government, and clearly that's not going to be the case under this model.'
2. Children educated at private schools save the taxpayer money
The funding currently supplied by the federal Government toward the running of private schools meets only a relatively small percentage of their running costs. Many of the expenses associated with running these schools are met through the fees paid by students' parents.
This point has been made by the federal Minister for Education, Brendan Nelson. Mr Nelson has stated, 'Every child who attends a Catholic or Independent school throughout Australia receives less public money for their education than if they attended a local State school ... By way of example, local public high schools receive approximately $11 580 in tax-payer funding per student while Knox Grammar School receives approximately $1 950 per student in tax-payer funding.'
In an article published in The Herald Sun on September 17 2004, commentator Andrew Bolt stated, '... every student in a non-government school saves taxpayers money. Scotch College, for instance, gets just $3.5 million a year from governments, although it has as many students as Balwyn High, a state school that gets $19.8 million. On average, a private school student gets half the grants of a state school student.'
3. Private schools whose Government funding is reduced are likely to increase their fees
A number of private schools whose funding would be cut under the Labor Party's proposal have indicated that such a loss of Government monies would be likely to compel them to increase their fees.
For example, the Principal of Brighton Grammar School, Mr Michael Urwin, has indicated that Labor's policy could result in higher fees, a move he said would make schools like his even more inaccessible to some families.
The same point was made by Ruyton Girls School principal, Carolyn Anderson. Ms Anderson has claimed that Labor's policy would be likely to result in an increase in tuition fees or a reduction in services.
'The reality is that the quantity of fees is tied to our total resources,' she said. 'The less government funding we get, the higher our fees will have to be. And that's why our fees are so high, because we don't get much government funding.'
4. Many parents of children attending private schools are not wealthy
It has been repeatedly claimed that many of those children who attend private schools do not come from wealthy families. It has further been claimed that these children are only able to attend private schools because of the hard work and sacrifice of their families. Finally, it has been claimed, the cutting back of federal funding to 67 private schools is likely to mean that those finding it difficult to meet the fees currently charged by these schools will find it even more difficult to pay any increase these schools may feel compelled to announce.
In an opinion piece published in the Brisbane Courier Mail on September 16 2004, Mr Christopher Bantick, an education writer who has taught in private schools, claimed, 'I have taught children [attending private schools] supported by a father who worked dangerously long overtime in a factory to ensure his boy was given an opportunity he did not have.
I have taught the children of parents who had to use public transport to get to parent-teacher evenings. I have taught the children of Vietnamese boatpeople who lived in high-rise flats.
Under the Latham plan, it is these parents and their children who will be affected.'
Methodist Ladies College principal, Rosa Storelli, has claimed that Labor's policy targeted and penalised families who chose to send their children to an independent school. She has stated that the assumption that all MLC parents had the capacity to pay was a 'gross misrepresentation' of the school community.
Ms Storelli went on to claim, 'They (Labor) aren't taking into account the family sacrifices that a great number of our community make. They may forgo a holiday; they may work three jobs. Why should they be penalised for that?'
5. Parents should be able to choose which school their children will attend
This principle has been very strongly supported by the Howard Government. Mr Howard himself is a particularly staunch supporter of as many parents as possible being able to send their children to the school of their choice. He appears to consider that parents should be able to send their children to the school which they believe best suit their values and aspirations for their children.
In an interview conducted in April 2001 Mr Howard stated, 'Private schools are very strongly supported by my Government and it provides an enormous amount of choice and opportunity for people, including people in the Greek Orthodox Community. We treat schools fairly and equally and we regard private schools as a very important choice available for Australian parents ... because of the assistance the federal government provides, low income Australians now have greater opportunities to send their children to independent schools and that's a good thing.'
6. Some parents send their children to a particular private school because of religious or cultural considerations
It has been claimed that for some parents the decision to send their children to a particular type of school is all but unavoidable as their religious or cultural beliefs dictate that their children have to be given a form of education not available within the State education system.
In this category could be placed many Catholic parents, many Muslim parents, many fundamentalist Christian parents and many Jewish parents.
Referring to the position of Jewish parents who feel compelled to send their children to Jewish schools so that they can be instructed in their faith and culture, The Australian Jewish News wrote in its editorial of September 24, 2004, 'Jewish religion and culture promote a communal commitment to private schooling far beyond that justified by socioeconomic considerations ... A community that wants to fulfil the religious injunction "and you shall teach your children" in its own way should not be penalised in multicultural Australia.'
According to this line of argument parents who feel compelled by their religious and cultural beliefs to send their children to a particular type of school should not be automatically excluded from the financial support other parents receive in educating their children.
7. The Labor Party's policy re private school funding is politically motivated
It has been claimed that much of the Labor Party's motivation for its current school funding policy is to win votes in those middle class aspirational suburbs where the majority of children attend State schools. It has further been argued that the Party is likely to have calculated that the vast majority of the parents who send their children to the 67 private schools who would have their funding cut already vote for the Coalition. Thus, it has been claimed, the Labor Party believes it can only gain electorally through this policy.
In a commentary published in the Age on September 16, 2004, Shane Green noted, 'Labor's education policy will win votes in key marginal seats despite alienating the wealthy.
Mark Latham's "eat the rich" schools funding policy plays the political odds ... the 67 high-fee schools on its funding cut "hit list" ... educate only 5 per cent of children. And in the main the votes of the parents of those children are already locked up by the Coalition.
The winners under Labor's policy are the smaller Christian schools in the marginal seats, the Catholic sector and government schools. In addition there is also the list of 111 independent schools, including Jewish schools, that will have their funding frozen.
This is a policy aimed squarely at the overwhelming majority, reinforcing one of Labor's strongest hands - its electoral dominance over the Coalition in education.'
It has also been claimed that the policy is an attack on the elite private schools which is intended to placate the Australian Education Union which supports the Labor Party.
8. The Labor Party's policy re private school funding promotes social and religious divisions
It has been claimed that the Labor Party's policy re education funding is socially divisive. Many of the newspaper commentaries made puns on 'class warfare', suggesting that the policy would promote hostility between the different social groups or classes who sent their children to the two different types of school - state-funded and private.
The implication was that Labor's policy is fostering the belief that only the wealthy attend private schools and that these schools are receiving unnecessary Government funding at the expense of poorer State schools. Labor's policy has been condemned as prompting 'class envy' and causing disharmony between different social groups.
In a letter published in The Age on September 17, 2004, Len Fehlhaber stated, 'Mark Latham's school funding farce makes it perfectly clear that the Labor Party is intent on dividing Australian families and turning education into class warfare.'
It has also been claimed that the Labor Party's policy will promote hostility between the different Christian denominations. In a commentary published in The Herald Sun on September 17, 2004, Andrew Bolt claimed, 'Mark Latham's new education plan ... takes from Anglican schools to give to the Catholic ... It's ... striking that just one of the 67 schools on Latham's list is Catholic. Not even Xavier makes it, which should make Catholics forgive Latham for his slurs on their church. But the remaining 66 of the 67 schools are almost all Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist or non-denominational ...
Even more striking is that Latham says two thirds of that $520 million he is taking from these Protestant schools will be given to Catholic ones. Talk about setting the churches at each other's throats.'
Arguments in favour of a significant reduction in Government funding
1. Those private schools charging the highest fees do not need substantial Government funding
It has been claimed that the 67 private schools whose funding will be cut if the Labor Party is elected to government in 2004 do not need the federal funding they are currently receiving.
According to this line of argument, these schools are so well equipped and charge fees at such a high level that they have no need of additional funding.
In a letter published in The Age on September 16 2004 a 14 year old State school student presented the following point of view, 'Among the facilities that taxpayers' dollars are paying for in these schools are rifle ranges, horse stables and swimming halls - hardly educational necessities, I'd think.
Of course, not all students at these schools are from wealthy families, and I doubt they would complain much if the stables or the rifle range was shut down instead of raising fees. And the wealthy families? If they want rifle ranges or horses for their children, go out and buy a membership in a club. Taxpayer money shouldn't be paying for luxuries.'
Dom Padden made a similar point in a letter also published in The Age on September 17, 2004. Mr Padden stated, 'As a parent who made the difficult decision recently to send my child to one of the 67 schools on Mark Latham's "hit list" next year, I agree wholeheartedly with the Labor policy. While accepting that it will adversely affect my wallet, education is a basic right, and anything that improves the minimum standard while still providing funding to all schools is a good thing.
I have read the policy - not just the media reports - and the school that I chose has received a more than 100 per cent increase in federal funding since 2001, while government schools have averaged around 20 per cent. I can't justify this to myself.
A minimum standard of education should be the prime factor in federal funding, and schools below that standard should receive funding before schools well above it. How can anyone honestly argue otherwise?'
2. Many State, Catholic and Independent schools need additional funds
It has been claimed that it is inequitable to have many State, Catholic and independent schools underfunded and struggling for adequate facilities while the federal Government continues to give large and increasing amounts of money to wealthy private schools.
This point was made in a letter from Kirsty Chugg published in The Age on September 17, 2004. Ms Chugg stated, 'Mark Latham's school funding policy puts the interests of children first, while John Howard's policy puts the interests of wealthy parents first.
It is fine for parents with a lot of money to give their children the best education by enrolling them in high-fee private schools, but what about the rights of children whose parents cannot afford to do that? Children can't help it if their parents are poor, so they should not be punished by being given a sub-standard education.
The Government should ensure all children receive a good education, regardless of their parents' income.'
In an interview given on September 21 2004 Mark Latham stated, 'A school ... that needs extra classrooms, upgrading of information technology - that's where the priority lies for Labor. We've had criticism from schools that have got the boatsheds and the rifle ranges - well, we'll always be working towards a fairer system, upgrading school standards, upgrading resources for schools ... that have the greatest level of need.'
Mr Latham has also stated, 'I'll never apologise for pursuing needs-based funding and fairness in the school system. All parents want the very best for their children and I believe in that happening for the many, not just the few.'
3. Unlike private schools, State schools are required to supply an education to all students
It has been argued that State or public schools are inherently inclusive, as they are required to supply an education to all comers regardless of their level of wealth, their religious belief, their ethnic origin or their academic ability.
It has further been argued that State schools educate the preponderance of students with disabilities or special needs.
In contrast, it has been claimed, the major private schools are socially exclusive, primarily educating the wealthy and primarily offering bursaries or scholarships to the academically or athletically gifted.
Thus, it is claimed, the public education system has a greater entitlement to Government support as it offers an education to the children of all Australian taxpayers, including those with the greatest need for support.
In an article published in The Age on September 29 2004 Ross Gittins stated, 'The private schools are able to pick and choose which kids they take, thus allowing them to take the ones that are less expensive to educate.
Private schools aren't obliged to take kids they don't have room for, they're not obliged to set up in outer suburbs or remote towns where costs are high and teachers hard to attract, they can decline to take the handicapped and they can expel kids with serious behaviour problems.'
A similar point was made by the Australian Education Union in a press release issued on January 30 2004. The AEU stated, 'Public schools ... accept all comers, regardless of their background or their means.
Yet the Prime Minister's funding policies see 70% of the Federal Education Budget allocated to elite private schools - schools that account for just 30% of students, and which have values very different to the public system, notably elitism, exclusivity, and autocracy.'
4. The Government has no obligation to subsidise parents who choose to send their children to private schools charging high fees
It has been claimed that those who send their children to private schools, especially those charging high fees have chosen to do so when they could have decided to send them to either State schools or independent schools charging lower fees.
It is further argued that having made this choice they have no right to expect additional Government support, particularly when many of the parents of children at poorly equipped State schools have no choice about where their children are educated.
This point was made by Jim Round in a letter published in The Age on September 16 2004. Mr Round stated, 'Mr Latham has also rejected the specious argument of "choice" that is so often raised in defence of high levels of private school funding.
According to exponents of choice, people should have the right to choose which school they send their kids to. I assume that this only applies to the small percentage of people who can afford to send their children to elite private schools. This ignores the fact that the greater majority of taxpayers are subsidising schools that they could never choose to send their children to.'
5. Most of the parents of children attending private schools which charge high fees can afford to pay these fees
It has been claimed that the majority of parents who pay fees of between $15,000 and $17,000 for their children to attend one of the most exclusive private schools can generally afford to do so. It has further been claimed that those who attend these schools generally come from a small and financially exclusive section of the population. This point has been made by Mark Latham who has stated, 'Only 5 per cent of students attended schools that operate above or at the level of funding Labor plans to introduce.'
An analysis by the federal Department of Education, Science and Training, based on 2001 census data indicated that a third of those parents who send their children to private schools earn more than $78,000 per annum. It has been suggested that a majority of those parents who send their children to the most expensive of the private schools fall within this group of high income earners.
Ms Gillian Trahair, a wealthy 61-year-old former Liberal voter who has attended private schools herself and whose children and grandchildren have done so believes the current funding arrangement is wrong. In an article published in The Age on September 29 2004 Ms Trahair was quoted as saying, 'We're fine, we can do what we want to do, but there are so many people in this society that are struggling and they are the ones who need help.'
6. Private schools offering substantial scholarships and bursaries will retain their level of Government funding
The Labor Party has exempted a number of Jewish schools from having their funding cut because they offer substantial bursaries and scholarships. It has been claimed that such schools are behaving in a more socially equitable manner and so will not be penalised by having their federal Government subsidies reduced.
7. Those private schools charging the highest fees could choose to lower them
It has been argued that if the 67 highest fee charging private schools wish to receive a higher level of Government funding they have only to lower their fees. It is argued that the Labor Party's policy is intended to ensure that all primary students are funded to at least the level of $9000 a year and that all secondary students are funded to at least $12000.
Those schools that have had their funding cut are those whose fees mean t students are having more than these amounts expended on their education. If these schools wished to qualify for higher levels of Government support under Labor's proposed funding scheme they would need to reduce the fees they charge parents.
This point has been made in a letter from Mike Poate published in The Age on September 17 2004.
Mr Poate proposes, 'Could I suggest that there is a very simple remedy to the concerns of the 67 schools on Labor's "hit list": simply cut the fees they charge to a point that they again qualify for enhanced government funding.
This would do two things: it would reduce the dreadful burden on the parents of their pupils and simultaneously allow a broader section of the population to participate in the educational experience of which they are so proud.'
8. Some private schools use their funding for purposes unrelated to education
It has been claimed that a number of private schools have used part of the funding they have received from the federal Government for purposes unrelated to education. One of the principal accusations made is that money has been used for promotion. According to this claim these schools have been concerned to promote an exclusive and successful image so as to increase enrolments and thus profits from fees paid.
This claim has been made by Christopher Bantick, a Melbourne writer and education commentator. In an opinion piece published in the Brisbane Courier Mail on September 16 2004, Mr Bantick stated, 'It is galling when elite private schools fritter away money on glitzy promotion when the paint is peeling from the walls of the local state schools.'
Christopher Bantick goes on to point out that such use of federal and state funds by private schools indicates that unlike State schools, these bodies are not held accountable for how they spend the monies they receive. Mr Bantick has stated, 'Independent schools do need more regular checks on how they spend their funding - both state and federal.'
Further implications
Should the ALP win government in October 2004 their education policy will have significant implications for both the private and public education systems.
The ALP's pledge to attempt to equalise expenditure per student across the public and private systems of education cannot possibly produce equal outcomes in the two sectors. There are two many disparities in terms of respective facilities, family expectations and the variety of students taught.
The ALP's policy is, however, a significant vote of confidence in the public system which is likely to result in improvements in that education sector. At the very least it should result in major improvements in resourcing in the State system.
It is unlikely that the 67 private schools to have their funding cut back over three years will suffer significantly as a result. They may well increase their fees, however, it seems a little disingenuous to suggest that such fee increases are likely to occur solely as a result of the ALP's policy.
A survey conducted by The Sydney Morning Herald in January 2004 found fees for New South Wales private schools were to rise by an average 6 per cent from January - and some by up to 15 per cent - following above-inflation increases every year for the past decade.
The survey of fees at more than 30 private schools showed most intended to put them up in 2004 by at least double the inflation rate of 2.6 per cent, with rises of $1000 a year at some wealthy schools. This despite the dramatic growth in Government funding to all private schools under the SES allocation system.
It is possible that some students currently attending the most expensive private schools may have to transfer to either the State system or more probably a less expensive private school. It will be interesting to see if an improvement in the resourcing of State schools halts or even reverses the drift of students away from the public education sector and into private schools.
Sources
The Age
13/9/04 page 13 comment by David Kemp, 'Beware class warriors in our schools'
15/9/04 page 7 comment by Shane Green, 'On education - Labor has the Coalition's number'
16/9/04 page 12 analysis by Shane Green, 'Is it just a matter of class?'
16/9/04 page 16 editorial, 'Gains outweigh pain in schools policy'
16/9/04 page 17 comment by Gregory Hywood, 'Forcing private schools to eat their own'
16/9/04 page 17 comment by Kenneth Davidson, 'A small step toward equity'
The Australian
15/9/04 page 1 comment by Dennis Shanahan, 'Radical shift for education'
15/9/04 page 6 comment by Jennifer Buckingham, 'Parents paying to go private penalised'
15/9/04 page 14 editorial, 'Low marks for Latham on school funding'
16/9/04 page 6 comment by Matt Price, 'The bottom of the class war'
21/9/04 page 15 comment by Phillip Adams, 'More power to Labor's school policy'
The Herald Sun
15/9/04 page 22 editorial, 'The ALP's class war'
16/9/04 page 20 comment by Kevin Donnelly, 'Punished for wanting the best'
17/9/04 page 21 comment by Andrew Bolt, 'A policy to punish'