Latham - education (1 Viewer)

[Skillo]

Oh please. Aspirations of sending a child to a private school?!? As if it's some kind of social statement or 'quality' that is desirable?!?

I've tried the public and private systems...however, Public schooling has dominated my life. I go to a public school and if I have kids, I'll be sending them to a public school. The differences I have found is that public education exposes you to greater share of society, it teaches me about life as from day to day I meet people that have all come from different backgrounds. I'm not saying that Private schools don't have diversity, they do. I'm saying that public schools have a greater scope and are less 'exclusive'. I am not sheltered from the truths of society, I see and learn with the people behind the figures.

We are taught with relatively substandard facilities and resources yet our school, Albury High School, achieves results that challenge Albury's largest private school 'The Scots School'. I have friends that attend boarding schools and Scots and as a generalisation...they are spoon fed the work.

At least with my results and other public educated children I'm able to say that I achieved them through staff empowering me to use my mind creatively, to think beyond the square, to challenge, to debate and to learn through experience. I doubt that many privately educated students would be able to state that if they have experienced public education in their junior years. And if they say they can, I suggest they are strongly disillusioned

Big_Ticket, have you looked at the rate of students dropping out in the first year of university? You'll find that privately educated kids have a lot more difficulty because they've been thrown into a situation where they have to think independently...something they rarely did at school.

Big_Ticket, to help my arguements of the qualities of public schooling I'm going to quote Shane Maloney in this arguement. These following are extracts from a speech he gave students at Scotch College Melbourne in 1999 (I think...not sure about the date). Maloney was asked by the school to be a presenter...and obviously got more than they bargained for...

"I think of your old boy, David Kemp (who was education minister back in the late 1990s), the (then) federal education minister, giving millions of dollars of public money to enhance the marketbility of schools like this one - justifying his actions with statistics and arguements that he refuses to apply to the needs of the 70% of Australian families who choose to educate their children in the democratic and equitable environment of government schools.

Students, it is not your fault, after all, that your families have chosen to institutionalise you. It is not your fault that your parents lacked sufficient confidence in your personal maturity and ability to respond to the opportunities offered by government school education - and Australia has one of the best systems in the world by the way, despite the relentless propaganda to the contrary by the vested Private school lobby. Right now, you are the victims. Later of course, society will be your victim, and will suffer from the attitudes with which you are indoctrinated here.

But who knows? Just as a prison does not always break the spirit of all who are incarcerated there, perhaps you will not turn out to be a burden to society. Perhaps when you leave here, some of you will even manage to contribute to the wellbeing of this country.

I certainly hope so.
But just to hedge my bets, I will be donating part of my fee today to the campaign of public education..."

And with that, I raise my glass to Mr Maloney, Ziff, and Public Education.

(Don't worry Asqui, you're still my hero too... )

 

[blahzz]

its a shame that parents round here always seem to believe that private schools are better... my bro's in year 6 now and my parents have been looking everywhere from grammar to trinity to some dodgey christian school down south... but they havent even the public schools an option =P

yes i def. think that public schools should receive more funds =( we use history textbooks that belong in a museum - and thats not a good thing =P

 

[paper cup]

i thought i was your hero

aawww asqy of course you're my hero. I mean, you gave me custom status didn't you? I can have two heros, can't I?

 

[Lorie]

I think it's a great policy by Latham. It's finally re-directing funds to where they are needed most.

I think it would be much better for the smaller, lower resorced schools to get funding for basic schooling needs like clean rooms, text books, etc. Rather than going towards a 3rd olympic pool, or 16th rugby field at Kings.

 

[Ziff]

This is kinda a move to eliminate all private schools.. and even if it turns out the majority likes that, think of all the people that like sending their kids to a private school (even if the reasons aren't legitimate).

Basically this move will mean that the only difference between a private school and a public school is that you pay more for the same facilities...who would accept that deal? It will simply eliminate alot of private schools..

Lets take this idea a little further... You save up $20,000. Another person saves up $10,000 to make it 'fair' you both get $15,000... where's the point? I know i wouldn't bother saving up the $20,000 when i know that I'll end up with the same as if i was a person saving up $10,000.

One of my teachers told me our school might be getting some extra funding , but somehow it doesn't feel right to be taking it from the pockets of others... even if they are better off than me.

You are still advocating that public schools should have sub-par education...

The difference between the top Catholic, Independent and State schools is in general these things:
- Networking/Contacts
- The religious aspect
- "Prestige"

In general, on a lower level down the chain where the poorer Catholic, Independent and State schools are, the only real difference is the relgious aspect. This policy is allowing the Catholic and Independent schools to remain, brings up their standards and allows parents to still choose to send their children to these schools for that religious aspect.

Why shouldn't a poor, disadvantaged child in the middle of Campbelltown not get at least the same level of education (e.g. through competent teachers and adequate resources being taught the same things as a kid from say Sydney Grammar) and hence opportunity as rich children from a well-off school?

It only makes sense to educate the everyone in the same way to the same standard, give them opportunity and allow them to put into society as much as they possibly can no?

Not everyone is born with a pocket full of gold...

 

[withoutaface]

Latham's idea is fucking stupid. Every school child should be entitled to the same funding for education, and if the parents wish to top it up then that is their business.

 

[Generator]

Public education all the way. Inclusive education for all.

I could go on, but most points have already been debated.

Not-That-Bright, reread Ziff's last post (the prestige point in particular). Oh, and don't generalise... 'These schools' is just as bad as 'rich kids'.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

How's about... the government pays the same ammount to send me to school, as they do every other student.
And then, my parents pay for the rest.

Isn't that fair? I think it is..In most cases with private schools, you're not just talking about kids from families in the top income brackets, it often has nothing to do with that, it is the preference of the parent to spend a little extra to give them a better education.

I'm sorry for the generalisation.

My school's in for some money too.. it has high fee's (8g) but i guess since its in western syd its considered under-resourced.

 

[Generator]

Once again, why is it a better education?

 

[Generator]

Ah, but they aren't forced to pay anything...

 

[Generator]

The Labor policy is allowing people to make a proper choice through the provision of an equitable education system. They are merely reorganising the system, not taking away any sense of choice that may exist.

 

[Generator]

http://campaign.democrats.org.au/media.asp?id=4107

Ah well, at least they have an interesting leader.

 

[Skillo]

This is going around in circles.

 

[jeff0511]

A major issue

I know that this will be a major issue which will affect the number of votes a party will gain!

it could either give labor the winning edge or be labor's downfall

interesting...

 

[AsyLum]

A decreasing of the ever widening social class wars would be nice.

 

[Lorie]

Labour is kinda anti-choice.
Labour is about the government providing, Liberal is about people providing for themselves.

They're taking away the choice of parents to spend more money on their kids than others...

Yeah but the liberal party doesn't take into account those who don't have a choice. Why should a child, who's parents can't afford to sent their child to an expensive school, have be placed with litmited resources and spearating the diffrence between the haves and have nots.

This isn't right to introduce a user pays system, when there are parts of Australia who can't pay.

 

[Lorie]

well if all the schools were up to a certain standard, it wouldn't really matter about which school to send your kid to. Instead, we schools that are massively over-resourced and schools that have little if anything

 

[Lorie]

i'm talking basic standard. Like clean rooms, enough text books for every student, computers, sporting fields, and experianced staff

 

[tWiStEdD]

"Dr Hawkes said there was plenty of money available from other sources to fund needy schools, without resorting to funding cuts for private schools. "

its a foolish approach, because of what Dr Hawkes has pointed out.

he'll cause great instability in the private education sector, if "a further 111 schools with high fees ... have their funding locked at current levels." Its okay to say that it needs to be done, but to be done s quickly as he wants to do it is dangerous, at best.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
its an excellent idea.

"He said Labor wanted to ensure that all children, no matter what school they attended, received the best education available."

the idea is excellent... but its scary to think that he's talking about doing this tomorrow... maybe its just election talk, but i dont think he really should be talking about it as he is.

that's all the comment available on this article.

 

[paper cup]

Yea.. but there's still going to be people that want more.. what's wrong with that?

From my experience going to a school.. that I think on the huge listing that I saw was ranked 3rd last (I don't think they include every school.. still pretty bad tho) the teachers are the same as the school that I'm currently at (a private school, much much higher) generally they were the same teachers.
There was adequate funding.. the computers were a little old and we had to share sometimes, also there wasn't always enough books to go around... but the main reason for that was all the graphitti & window breakages that had to be paid for.

like you I didn't go to all that flash a school, and I agree with you, there are crappy teachers in good schools and good teachers in crappy schools. I've been to a whole range of schools - some ranked in top 50, 150-ish, and I think my current school isn't on the list for some reason, no not because we're that crap, we have a fair amount of distinguished achievers...don't know...some of the teachers I have now were better than some of the teachers I had at a high ranked school.
man I need to study. fuck internet procrastination.