Public spending on private schools

2007-03-29T11:18:00.000+10:00

It's time to say goodbye.

Wait!! Don't panic. This is not a siucide letter (intentional misspelling!) or anything similar. It's just a post to say that this is the end.

Of the blog? Yes.

Of petal's online identity? Yes, also.

Why?

Because petal has come to some important decisions, one of which is that spending time on forums - or TOO MUCH time on forums - is really time wasted. Well, that's how I feel. Others feel differently, I know. But I have realised that my intellectual energies are best directed in the "real world", as well as writing as my "real self", which is an area I want to pursue in the near future.

Yes, I did say last year that I was writing under my real name. That was a lie - well, a diversion. I was trying to put people who MIGHT have guessed my online identity (or who were chasing for clues) off the track. And while we're on the subject, will I be revealing my real name now?

Mmmmm ... no. And I probably won't at any later stage, either. However, there will be people to whom I'll be posting a private email at some later stage, after the dust has settled - "Hi! It's me!!!" Bruce, check your inbox regularly! And notallright - I'm sure I'll bump into you sooner rather than later anyway. You'd be hard to miss with six aboriginal offspring trailing after you, and we live fairly close to each other.

And MrLefty, of course. He actually knows more about me than he realises. My initiation into the world of blogging was via a search for criticism of Andrew Bolt, as I was getting angrier and angrier at the idiocy he insists on columnising. I came across BoltWatch ... and haven't looked back.

Until now, that is.

This blog was my small attempt at carving my own opinions into the virtual rockface, as well as a diversion from ... other things. In 2004 I was suffering from depression. Quite badly. In fact, it's something I've lived with from the age of around eleven, when I started to experience shocking bullying that lasted five years or more. Of course, there's more to the causes of my depression than just bullying, but it certainly made a considerable contribution. It was around that time that I was acting out my sickness (which is what it was) in harmful (to myself) and destructive ways. I was distracted and acting compulsively. When I found BoltWatch and other blogs, I was able to channel my distraction into something that was at least more constructive.

Since that time I've tried incredibly hard to keep myself increasingly focussed and drag myself out of the depression. I should point out that no drugs or therapy were involved in this "cure" (relatives of mine, also suffering from depression, were not so lucky and it took them years to get off the stuff), but a lot of exercise, meditation, self-reflection and reading. It also helps when you know that the depression is getting closer again - somehow you get over it more quickly. Last year I suffered a very nasty shock in my workplace which ordinarily would have flattened me, but thanks to my nutrition, exercise and self-awareness, I bounced back incredibly quickly. AND got an even better job into the bargain!

I really know that I'm getting there. The advantage of getting older is that you are also getting smarter - sorry to all the young folks out there, but at least you have something to look forward to. And for the record - I'm in my late 30s. I'm continuing to make changes to my life, along with the amazing new job that I have. Some of these changes, if they occur, will be tough but I know they will be worth it. I have started going to the gym again, after 16 years, and I think that has also helped.

Which brings me back to my first point - I'm leaving the world of blogging altogether. It has helped me through a very rough patch but I want to stick with the real world now. I think the same will happen with many of the people who read the same blogs - even MrLefty. His "coming out" late last year was the first step in helping me to come to the decision I have made. I just know that preselection and running for parliament will be the next step for him, and/or a serious writing career.

Thanks to all those people with whom I engaged in lively on-line conversation and discussion, some more than others. Let's hope that maybe we meet again in the real world sometime.

Love, petal

2006-08-22T21:16:00.000+10:00

Great article on school vouchers at Online Opinion.

2006-08-16T20:10:00.000+10:00

Sorry about the lack of action here of late.

I've actually been busy - doing "real" writing. As my "real" self. My "real" real self.

Some of my work (OK, there's not much of it, yet) has already appeared on line with my real name.

Why not try to find it? Go on!!

2006-07-25T10:26:00.000+10:00

By the way, can I make my position known?

I am not outrightly opposed to government money reaching private schools. There's no way to stop that happening, anyway.

I am opposed to more money than is necessary being unconditionally granted by government to non-government schools, many of whom do not even need the money. I think we can all guess which schools those are.

I am not opposed to the creation of what are known as "community" schools (and I know that some schools refer to themselves as community schools when in fact the reality is very different), as long as they remain community-oriented in nature and provide a true alternative (in terms of alternative learning environments, special cultural programs and the like) that cannot possibly be recreated in a public school. Often these community schools provide a crucible for public schools to learn from - Fitzroy Community School is a classic example.

I am opposed to the "privatisation" of the public system in terms of vouchers, public-private partnerships (which are anything but) and outsourcing to organisations which are beyond public scrutiny.

Does that clear things up?

2006-07-25T10:19:00.000+10:00

The public-private education debate appears to have hit a new intensity.

Are people now feeling the hip-pocket pinch, thanks to higher oil prices and interest rates?

From Monday's Age.

Plenty of other articles on this issue in the Age over the past week. What do you think?

I'll reserve my opinion for the moment.

2006-07-18T09:53:00.000+10:00

More taxpayer funds spent on fancy private school overheads.

It is not the job of this site to "name and shame" schools and I'm not about to start now. I don't think it's fair on kids who attend any school to have its name mentioned in a way that might unfairly (and possibly unintentionally) influence people to think the wrong thing about their school and the students and teachers in it. The closest I have come to this is a link to the Daily Flute cartoon about a school in Sydney.

Therefore, I will just say that I have noticed a private school advertisement in Melbourne's Child announcing the latest gidgit that is supposedly essential for any child's classroom learning:

The prep classrooms are equipped with technology that makes it possible for every child in the room to hear their teacher "as though she were right behind them", no matter where the teacher is standing in the room. Of course. Why didn't it happen years ago?

Be aware that this is YOUR MONEY at work. Not for essential capital works, but frilly (and expensive) gadgets that really, if the research is done properly, don't do the job any better than a good teacher, a well-designed classroom and an interesting curriculum.

2006-07-13T12:56:00.000+10:00

You may have noticed that Bruce has set up a new blog of which I will also be a contributor. Stay tuned.

2006-07-06T21:14:00.000+10:00

Sesame Street rulz!

I have been thinking a lot lately about the role of Children's Television in the public education debate. While I greatly limit the amount of TV my kids watch, I realise that for the vast majority of kids out there, the television (for better or worse) plays an equal or more important role in the development of children's imagination and knowledge.

That's why keeping kids' TV tightly regulated is so utterly, utterly important. And stupid comments from media commentators (you couldn't call them "journalists") accusing the "thought police" of coming down on kids' TV producers are so utterly, utterly wrong. Neil Mitchell's comment a year or so back on the change in Sesame Street's Cookie Monster, in that he now refers to cookies as "a sometimes food", as being yet another triumph for the "thought police" is so far right you need to get out the telescope to see where it came from.

Sorry I don't have a link for the article but I'm probably doing you a favour anyway.

The CTW Producers (who make Sesame St) have always had their audience in mind, and have made some bold decisions that can now be seen as landmarks in children's television. Take the (caution: video link) death of Mr Hooper (the actor playing him really did die suddenly) in 1983 - instead of quietly writing him out of the show, they wrote his death INTO the script. And Big Bird, when asking over and over about why he's gone and what death is, is told gently that "He's dead; he's not coming back; but we're lucky to have known him and we have wonderful memories of him."

Not "He's gone to heaven" or "He's in a better place, now". Nope - he's dead, Big Bird. And the episode is one of the most moving I've ever seen.

A couple of years later Big Bird's friend, Mr Snuffleupagus, who previously would disappear just before anyone else (besides BB) came on the scene, suddenly stayed on set and was seen by the other characters who responded happily and told BB that he was "right all the time!" I remember my cousins watching this episode and in spite of being almost out of my teenage years, was close to tears at finally seeing Big Bird proved right.

And why the sudden change in plot in 1985? Because of the sudden media attention towards child sexual abuse, and the realisation that little kids wanted to be believed by adults, particularly if their story was "difficult to believe". It was another bold move, not motivated by the "thought police" but by the desire to do the right thing.

Long live Sesame Street. It's one of the things I HAVE let my kids watch.

2006-06-23T13:57:00.000+10:00

UK Trust schools are deliberately being run down, according to the Guardian. And these are the models that the Victorian Bracks ALP government wants to follow.

Imagine a similar thing happening to a state school here - four weeks notice given to students, allowing the school to run down, etc. Then imagine the hue and cry from those on the right:

Parsons Mead school for girls in Ashtead, Surrey, would close next month after trustees said dwindling student numbers meant the school was no longer viable. More than 200 pupils have only been given four weeks' notice to find another school.

Parents believe the trust deliberately ran down Parsons Mead so that its assets could be used for the benefit of a nearby preparatory school, Danes Hill in Oxshott, the Times reported. Parents have asked the Charity Commission to investigate, claiming that the governors failed to act in the best interests of the school.

Former Conservative education minister Dame Angela Rumbold is the chairwoman of the Parsons Mead trust, which operates under the umbrella of VET. Dame Angela said the remaining assets would be put in a trust to provide financial help to local families seeking independent education for their children, the Times reported. She denied Danes Hill would benefit from the closure.

As many as 60 private schools close each year due to falling pupil numbers, financial problems or proprietors wanting to sell.

2006-06-07T10:51:00.000+10:00

From my comment to Des Moore's posting at Online Opinion:

Just how is the financing of private schools a "saving" to me? If I can't afford to send my kids to one, then I'm paying double in tax - first for the subsidies to the private school I can't afford, and second for the state school that I hope will be able to provide everything my kids need when they attend.

UPDATE: Otonoko has made the following reply to my comment:

Let's not forget, Petal, that parents of private schoolkids pay taxes too. If you are paying double, then they are paying triple:
1) Paying to send their kids to a private school
2) Paying taxes to fund the private school
3) Paying taxes to fund the state schools.

And MY reply:

Two points, otonoko:

1. How many of those private school parents actually DO pay tax?
2. If a private school parent decides to change their child's school to a state school, then they can do so with no difficulties whatsoever.

I don't have that option, so I'm paying for something I can't AFFORD to use.

2006-06-05T14:40:00.000+10:00

The Catholic Church has no money.

Well, at least that's what our Catholic Archbishop is trying to tell us. "Melbourne Catholic Archbishop Denis Hart has attacked last week's state Budget for failing to help his church's schools ... (he) said he was disappointed with the lack of money for Catholic education."

Maybe he should look at what he's getting from the Federal Government before opening his mouth.

"In Victoria, the church covers most capital costs and about a quarter of recurrent costs, such as wages, Archbishop Hart said. "In other words, it is cheaper for the Victorian Government to have Catholic schools," he said."

Gosh ... where have I heard THAT line before?

"Catholic education has a proud tradition of preparing people to serve the community."

We'll prepare you as long as you're Catholic. Oh, and if you're unsure as to your opinion regarding abortion and contraception, we'll make your mind up for you.

As long as the funding for public schools continues to increase, and private schools receiving government funding are made accountable, no one should be complaining.

2006-05-05T14:29:00.000+10:00

Kev's at it again.

In Online Opinion, Kevin Donnelly frequently laments what he sees as the "leftist" takeover of school curriculums. Evidently he has a cure for it - via his consultancy, "Education Strategies" (step right up, step right up!). No doubt this is another company hanging in the wings, waiting to pounce on the first tenders when the public school system is finally privatised.

Thankfully, in this recent article, he refrains from the "Vouchers = Good" mantra. Mind you, the "leftised" English curriculum takes a bit of a bashing. Pity he tends to contradict himself at least once per paragraph (note my comment about "Othello").

2006-05-01T11:28:00.000+10:00

So THIS is the Blair that Bracks and Howard are so keen to follow?

An excellent article by Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian last week outlining exactly why Tony Blair does the outrageous things that he does to public education:

there is the enduring Blairite faith in the magic of the private sector. If a man has made a mint selling cars or carpets, he will automatically, says Blairism, be better at running a school than a local education authority. So much better, in fact, that in return for less than one thirteenth of the capital budget - a mere £2m compared to the £25m invested by the government - this business wizard gets control over the curriculum, the ethos and even the name of his chosen academy.
Now, I'm all for philanthropists doing their bit for public institutions like schools. I also like the idea that not every common good has to be provided the same way: academies run by, say, a university or a charity have some appeal. But that's not, predominantly, what the government has in mind. When it says it wants to look beyond the traditional providers, it means business.
The same logic applies in both the party funding and city academy cases. The Labour party, the public sector and the civic worthies of local education authorities are, in the eyes of Blairism, all of a piece. They are members of a single tribe, best pushed out of the way, since their various roles - whether funding election campaigns or running schools - are bound to be performed better by the geniuses of private enterprise.

In Australia, one of these businesses could be ABC Learning Centres. And the process described is exactly what the DOGS have been warning, week in week out, will be happening due to the machinations of Kosky and Bracks.

2006-04-24T11:59:00.000+10:00

My worst nightmare ... "Lantana" is on the VCE English Syllabus!!

**looks for the nearest vomit bag**

2006-03-21T15:14:00.000+11:00

Philip Beadle - a guy talking sense.

Here's another commentator on the public / private issue whom I'll be keeping a look out for over the coming months. Today's Guardian article makes for interesting reading.

And for Herald Sun readers - interesting that Beadle is talking about the ultra-exclusive Eton, as they also get a mention in today's Hun (can't find the link, unfortunately). Notice that the school uniforms were copied for the fictional boarding school in the Malcolm McDowell movie "If".

2006-03-07T09:48:00.000+11:00

Sloppy attempt at knocking down a teacher goes pear-shaped.

I first heard about the recording of World Geography teacher Jay Bennish here; predictably, on a conservative blog (in this case by Mike Jericho). I suggest you read the comments at Jericho's site first, then return here.

The summary of the case is as follows:

- a 16 year old boy records his teacher's class (in which the teacher is mostly talking about Bush's State of the Union speech, heard only the night before) on an mp3 device. I haven't worked out whether he did this with permission or not.
- the boy obviously disagrees with his teacher's point of view and is heard a few times politely challenging his teacher. The teacher's response and general discourse between the two is good-natured.
- the boy publishes the audio of the class on a conservative blog.
- the School District discovers the existence of the tape and the teacher is investigated.
- the teacher is removed temporarily from teaching while the matter is being investigated but receives no reprimand.
- the boy appears on a talkback show on conservative radio station KOA.

Jericho's post and those of his commenters would appear to suggest that the matter is easily summarised: the teacher's comments were beyond the pale and the frustrated student has been vindicated.

Unfortunately, the truth is much more complex than that. Both sides (including the boy's family) have suffered as a result, and the teacher's comments and the boy's intentions have been exaggerated in a wide range of media.

What exactly are the reactions? The conservative media (formal and informal) have pronounced his comments "seditious" and completely inappropriate in an classroom setting. Whilst there may be truth in the latter comment, to accuse him of making seditious comments is just taking advantage of the situation. The majority of students at the school have rallied to support him; the Nine (American) News report showed a clip of a student saying that "2/3 of the teachers at our school are anti-Bush" (but interestingly stopped the clip before she was able to indicate whether she thought this was a good thing or not); the parents of the boy don't want the teacher to suffer any sort of court action or loss of his job; the school district have not placed any reprimand on him; and if you listen to the entire recording, you will notice that he does not belittle any students and frequently engages in dialogue with him - he also encourages them to think about it and to make up their own minds.

Bottom line? It was a bad idea to post the recording in the first place. The kid is entitled (with permission) to record the lesson, but that is where it should end. I used to record things like kids' oral presentations and so on, but did not use the recording against them. Unfortunately technology has made the opportunity for such a thing ubiquitous - you can record on your mobile phone, for goodness' sake.

Let's see where this case ends up - I would lay money on the fact that the conservative opinions will be proved wrong.

UPDATE: Mike Jericho appears to be concerned that the teacher isn't teaching "geography". To quote the subject curriculum (which is in fact a preparatory course for college):

In his course syllabus, Bennish explains that his course will “look into the geographical—or spatial—relationships between human societies and cultures,
the natural environment, and historical changes that have shaped the contemporary world. More than answering the question ‘what is where,’ this course adopts a conceptual approach to understanding and explaining the dynamic human and natural features of the earth’s surface.”

For another comment on the situation, see here.

2006-02-27T15:24:00.000+11:00

Why privatisation of education works like a DREAM.

Just check today's Age:

FOREIGN companies operating education businesses in Australia should pay a
bond to ensure students aren't left out of pocket and without qualifications if
things go wrong, according to a peak industry body.

The call from the Australian Council for Private Education and Training
follows the collapse of two vocational education institutions within the
past three months.

Ahhhh, the free market.

2006-02-24T14:35:00.000+11:00

It's all in the percentages:

From today's Age

enrolments at private schools nationally growing at more than five times the rate of government schools

the number of students attending private schools has jumped by 22.2 per cent over the past decade, compared with 1.7 per cent growth for government schools.

Victoria ... still has the highest proportion of students at private schools of any state, 35 per cent.

Since 1995, the proportion of students attending government schools has slipped from 70 to 67.1 per cent nationally.

During the same period, Victoria has stemmed the flow of students from government to private schools, recording less than half of the national decline.

Uhhhh ... OK ... I'm assuming it's bad ... or maybe good. Maybe it's bad Australia-wide but not so bad in Victoria. In any case, Michelle Bluett got it right:

You haven't got a level field when the resources to the non-government sector are so proportionately greater, both in government funding and fees.

Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

At least the editorial is speaking some sense: Not all benefit from a private education.

2006-02-22T13:16:00.000+11:00

Does Kevin Donnelly have an "off" button?

Right now he seems to be set on "repeat": witness the final paragraph:

the way forward, as in the US and England, is with innovations such as
charter schools and vouchers. Empowering local communities by allowing parents
to establish charter schools improves standards and builds the types of values
embedded in social capital.

I'll comment more on this soon.

2006-02-20T16:20:00.000+11:00

Tutor or not tutor

In the parents' magazine Melbourne's Child there was an article in the last issue (not viewable on that link, but you can pick up the magazine for free at most libraries) about private tutors. The summary was that there is almost no regulation in this area and rip-offs occur very easily.

But the fact is that private tutoring can make all the difference for a massive number of kids, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. In many cases all it takes is a fellow student to take them through their work at a steadier pace outside the classroom environment; I certainly remember friends of mine at school benefiting from that experience.

Unfortunately, those who need tutoring the most are generally unable to afford it. And that's why I have the perfect solution: make it free.

What?

I said: make it free. All tutoring - totally free. How? I don't know, but it is possible. If they can manage to fund preschools, playgroups and private schools, they can create a government-funded tutoring system.

Currently the only "free" tutoring available is via things like homework clubs at libraries and PYCs, but it's very ad hoc, and offered out of charity rather than the desire to create a stronger society.

What do you think?

2006-02-16T18:25:00.000+11:00

I'm expanding my horizons and have investigated the Common Dreams website. I have included a link at the side - by clicking you will create a search of articles on public education from that site.

I have read one article already, from which I quote here. :

So again, how would we know if public education is working or not? Probably the most reliable, broad-based, long-term tool for measuring the quality of public education is the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

So what do the SAT's tell us about the performance of public education in America?

Last year's SAT scores were the highest in 30 years. English scores were the highest in 28 years. Math scores were the highest in 36 years. The scores were at record levels for all ethic groups: whites; Asian-Americans; African-Americans; Native Americans; and Latinos. And they were achieved by the broadest test-taking pool in testing history. Forty-eight per cent of the nation's 2.9 million high school seniors took the test--a record. Thirty-six percent of the test takers were minorities, another record.

Thirty years ago, only the most elite 15 percent of students took the test. And remember, elites usually test better than averages. So the fact that scores have gone up while the test-taking pool has gotten both larger and more diverse may be the most powerful performance indicator of all. These scores are a huge victory for those who have believed in and fought so hard for public education.
Read the article for yourself and see what he also says about vouchers and charter schools.

2006-02-08T07:50:00.000+11:00

Marsden's new school.

The writer John Marsden has created a school of his very own, Candlebark, just to the north of Melbourne. It's actually on the Tye Estate, which he has owned for some time and on which he has held a number of writing courses.

So what's to be made of this? It appears to be a community school, like so many others that have been created over the last few decades. My own lecturer at uni had tried to do the same in Nimbin in the 1970s, back in his hippy days (understandably, he prefers not to talk about it now). However, it's likely that Marsden's fame will help to spread word about the school fairly quickly.

Do I mind that Marsden is receiving money from the government in order to do this? I don't mind his receiving money for this project. What I do support, and what I intend to write about in a subsequent post, is that innovation in education does need to be encouraged in an equitable manner by the government. What I don't like is the method in which this money is distributed, about which I have written on previous occasions, and which is, essentially, the object of this blog.

I think that Marsden will do a good job of it, and I'm hoping that Andrew Bolt will be encouraged to send his own kids there.

2006-02-06T10:50:00.000+11:00

Even the Greens support public funding for private schools!

This is a surprise - a few years ago I remember the Greens' policy being that all government funding should be removed from private schools completely. But now it seems they've changed their tune. Check their education policies (taken from their website):

3.13 support the maintenance of the total level of Commonwealth funding for private schools at 2003–04 levels (excluding that re-allocated under 3.10), indexed for inflation, with a review at the end of the 2005–08 quadrennium

However, we shouldn't forget that it is the Greens, after all:

1.7 funding models for education that:

do not disadvantage public education to the benefit of private schooling

**phew!**

require accountability frameworks for private schools receiving public funding

Even better!

There is so much that is good in this policy. And if you bother to read Bob Brown's "memo for a saner planet", you will see that a vote for the Greens is in fact NOT a wasted vote. If they were to achieve significant numbers in the Upper and / or Lower House, you would most likely see a number of these policies, or something like them, appearing soon afterwards.

2006-01-30T08:43:00.000+11:00

The Age "Odd Spot" not exactly spot on.

And not exactly funny, either. Did anyone notice what it was today?

Monday January 30, 2006
Pupils have been stopped from putting up their hands to answer questions because their school in east London believes it leads to feelings of victimisation.

See why I don't like The Age either?

For a start, it's not funny.

Secondly, a little background information would have helped, rather than forcing us to make a judgment on something that may be different at first glance.

Thirdly, it's pretty well known that east London has a lot of kids from pretty sad backgrounds. Most of them are refugees or kids in poverty; many of them are orphaned and had to run for their lives (from places like Sierra Leone). I like a laugh, but not at these kids' expense.

2006-01-27T15:38:00.000+11:00

I am here!!

How busy one can get with a new project ....!!

Without saying too much, I'll be on and off for a few months but stay tuned as I will attempt to make a proper post at least once a week.

I suggest you make use of the links here as they are the best sources re financing of private education that I have been able to find. The DOGS in particular are highly recommended (you can even listen to them on 3CR!)

2005-12-06T14:33:00.000+11:00

Meanwhile, from the other end ...

How hypocritical of Kosky to lambast public schools by insisting that the government is giving them enough.

It seems evident that state governments (not all) in Australia are starting to follow the US line of allowing state school facilities to decay in order to accelerate the push towards private schools.

2005-11-29T14:11:00.000+11:00

It seems that the Blairite changes in the Victorian Education system have begun. According to the article linked below, mass migration from particular schools occurs because the government is allowing the facilities to wither.

How interesting, however, that The Age does not seem to be questioning the tying of student results to future grants for facilities (see later in the article).

From The Age

The father of a prep child at Albert Park Primary School says resentment is growing against the State Government because many parents feel it has let the school wither. They believe the school's under-performance is forcing them to consider more expensive secondary school options for their children.

"We're not all Macquarie Bank millionaires in Albert Park," Mr Maloney says. "Many of us are small-business people who want to send our children to the local government school. The sense of community that has carried on from kindergarten to primary school should be allowed to continue to secondary school."

He and a group of other fathers from the primary school meet occasionally for social outings. The six men, who have 13 young children between them, have calculated the cost of private secondary schooling, using this year's fees at St Michael's Grammar School, a nearby private school, as a price guide. They estimated the group would spend more than $1 million in tuition fees, without including the extra money for camps, uniforms, laptops and other expenses, if each family sent their children to St Michael's.

2005-11-28T10:38:00.000+11:00

Don't believe the Age!

The Age in its regular Education reporting would like to have us believe that the AEU is supportive of PPPs (Public Private Partnerships). However, as reported on the DOGS program last Saturday (link to this site here and on this page), this is not the case. Below is an excerpt from the winter edition of the AEU magazine.

MYTH 1. BY REDUCING THE CALL ON PUBLIC FUNDS, THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES IS INCREASED.
There is little evidence that the ‘savings’ are actually spent on increased services. They are more likely to be used to retire debt. In fact, because the private sector requires a higher rate of return on investment, private financing of infrastructure can often end up costing more than if the public sector financed the project itself.
MYTH 2. PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT ACCELERATES THE AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY GOODS AND SERVICES.
While there is some short-term attraction in the argument that goods and services are available sooner to the public, it does not take into consideration the long-term financial liabilities that accumulate with this strategy. What it also assumes is that there is no alternative method of raising public, sector funds for investment, which is not the case.
MYTH 3.THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS INHERENTLY BETTER AT PROVIDING SERVICES.
Private sector failure is too well documented to argue that the private sector is inherently efficient and effective. It is very difficult to compare the two, because the public sector has responsibilities to equity, access and the community that are not part of the private sector’s essential motivation.
There is sufficient evidence of efficient public-sector provision, where the objectives are clearly stated, to show that the statement is myth. The failure of PPPs in the UK, where services have dropped since their introduction, indicates that there are serious problems with private provision.
MYTH 4. PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROVISION OF GOODS AND SERVICES IS FREE OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE. Removing the provision of services from the public sector does not eliminate the potential for corruption, poor resource allocation and inefficiency. In many cases the growing interdependence of government and business caused by partnerships increases the risk of influence and interference on a political level.
MYTH 5. PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT REDUCES THE LEVEL OF FINANCIAL RISK TO GOVERNMENT. While, in the short term, PPPs reduce the financial risk to government and improve the balance sheet, the risk to government is that they fail to maintain control. When public projects funded by private enterprise go wrong, governments still end up underpinning the outcomes. Though the risk is not accurately reflected in government accounts, it is still maintained by government despite the involvement of a private partner.
MYTH 6. PPPs REDUCE TAXATION. PPPs don’t provide free goods and services, as users of the increasing amount of toll roads will attest. There is a long-term impact of 20 to 30-year leases that the government is required to maintain along with the real cost, and therefore tax liability, of maintaining PPPs.
MYTH 7. THE USER PAYS PRINCIPLE IS INHERENTLY A FAIRER WAY OF PAYING FOR SERVICES. The cost of using services provided by a PPP is not fair because it does not take into consideration the user’s ability to pay. When a PPP exists, the government tends to close or incorporate into the PPP its own services, forcing the user into relying on pay-per-use services regardless of their financial situation.
MYTH 8. PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT CAN INJECT WORLD BEST PRACTICE INTO SERVICE PROVISION. While partnerships often do result in an exchange of information and skills, it is often out of the public sector and into private business. The existence of a web of PPPs in public service provision can also create a level of unnecessary complexity that requires its own maintenance. A good example is the privatisation of British Rail, which has gone from one organisation to 43 contractors and approximately 1,500 subcontractors, increasing costs without increasing service.
MYTH 9. THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLAYERS WILL INCREASE EMPLOYMENT AND IMPROVE CONDITIONS.While new investment in infra-structure will create new jobs, it may not increase overall employ-ment. Experience suggests that if a PPP takes over service provision the result is often a net reduction of jobs as a result of reducing expenditure. In addition, when employees are transferred from the public sector to the private sector there is most often a reduction in pay and conditions.
MYTH 10. PPPs IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY. While performance contracts are often used in PPPs, in practice they are often not used to terminate a contract. It can be difficult to assess performance when the data must be provided by the contractors themselves and many mechanisms can be used to inflate or deflate statistics. Also, in practice, the cost of terminating a contract and renegotiating with another partner makes the likelihood of real accountability improbable.

2005-11-24T15:09:00.000+11:00

OFF TOPIC

A letter to The Melbourne Times written by Pamela Curr:

Since the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) has gone silent, we have collected the following information and reports from witnesses.

The facts are:

- No asylum seeker was involved in lighting the fires.
- Asylum seekers suffered loss of personal possessions and effects.
- One man, an artist with pictures in readiness for an exhibition in Port Augusta, lost his entire collection.
- Some Chinese men lost their dearest possessions - photos of their families.

Three criminal deportees were allegedly involved in lighting the fires.

This highlights an ongoing problem at Baxter where men transferred from the prison system and awaiting deportation are placed throughout the asylum seeker compounds.

There is no good reason to do this when there are nine compounds at Baxter, a number of which remain unoccupied.

Asylum seekers have always expressed concern that ex-prisoners were placed in their compounds. They saw this as DIMIA attempting to confuse the Australian people by mixing asylum seekers and ex-prisoners to present asylum seekers as criminals.

While some ex-prisoners present few problems, others are angry and violent and frighten asylum seekers who have fled violence in their own countries.

Asylum seekers report being afraid to come out of their rooms when ex-prisoners are on the rampage. They say that the ex-prisoners bait the guards, poisoning the atmosphere.

These are two different groups with very different needs. DIMIA should immediately separate them. They have the space and facilities available and should do so without delay.

Yet more Federal Government manipulation to confuse the populace.

2005-11-22T14:58:00.000+11:00

I can't believe this is happening!!!! (not)

From the Education Guardian:

Top 50 independent schools found guilty of price-fixing to push up fees

Fifty of the country's leading private schools were found guilty yesterday of running an illegal price-fixing cartel which investigators said had allowed them to drive up fees for thousands of parents.

Following one of the biggest inquiries in its history, the Office of Fair Trading published provisional findings showing the schools, which include Eton and Harrow, had exchanged detailed financial information in a regular report known as the Sevenoaks survey.

The inquiry has focused fresh attention on the benefits private schools derive from their charitable status - a controversial tax exemption that critics say effectively amounts to a government subsidy - in return for questionable wider "public benefit".

Yesterday the Charities Commission said it would be looking closely at the implications of the ruling for private schools and charities in general.

Great - can we have that here, too?

The Independent Schools Council (ISC), the umbrella group which represents 60% of private schools, rejected the OFT's findings and said there was no evidence to support the claim that the sharing of information had led to a rise in fees.

Of course not. We're just getting together for tea and cucumber sandwiches.

"Fees in the independent sector rise in line with costs in the [public] sector, for the obvious reason that most of the costs are staff salaries and pensions," said Jonathan Shephard, the ISC director-general. He said the investigation, which lasted two and a half years and cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, was a "scandalous waste of money".

A private education body using the phrase "scandalous waste of money"?!?!? Hmmm ... isn't there a word for that ....?

Earlier this year research by the Halifax building society showed that school fees had risen by more than three times the rate of inflation over the last 20 years. The schools now have until March to appeal when the OFT will make its final ruling and decide what fines, if any, to impose.

The OFT can fine each school up to 10% of its annual turnover, but yesterday's statement said any financial penalties were likely to be limited. "At this stage the OFT does not anticipate that any penalty imposed is likely to be at the top end of the range available," the statement read.

But the ISC said that any fine would mean that some schools would be forced to put up fees. "Some obviously have considerable endowments but for a lot of those in the independent sector there will be no choice but to pass on the costs to parents," said a spokesman.

Ah, dear. What a shame.

The ISC said the schools did not know that competition rules applied to them and described the findings as "Kafkaesque."

Yeah, let's just throw in that little cliche to poo-poo the left again!!

2005-11-22T09:26:00.000+11:00

Read this and weep for the disadvantaged in the USA.

I had made repeated visits to a high school where a stream of water flowed down one of the main stairwells on a rainy afternoon and where green fungus molds were growing in the office where the students went for counseling. A large blue barrel was positioned to collect rain-water coming through the ceiling. In one makeshift elementary school housed in a former skating rink next to a funeral establishment in yet another nearly all-black-and-Hispanic section of the Bronx, class size rose to thirty-four and more; four kindergarten classes and a sixth-grade class were packed into a single room that had no windows. The air was stifling in many rooms, and the children had no place for recess because there was no outdoor playground and no indoor gym.

In another elementary school, which had been built to hold 1,000 children hut was packed to bursting with some 1,500, the principal poured out his feelings to me in a room in which a plastic garbage hag had been attached somehow to cover part of the collapsing ceiling. "This," he told me, pointing to the garbage bag, then gesturing around him at the other indications of decay and disrepair one sees in ghetto schools much like it elsewhere, "would not happen to white children." Libraries, once one of the glories of the New York City school system, were either nonexistent or, at best, vestigial in large numbers of the elementary schools. Art and music programs had also for the most part disappeared.

And these are the schools that governments are supposedly "throwing money" at?

And if you're still not convinced of the inequity of money spent on students according to social status:

Around the time I met Alliyah in the school year 1997-1998, New York's Board of Education spent about $8,000 yearly on the education of a third-grade child in a New York City public school. If you could have scooped Alliyah up out of the neighborhood where she was born and plunked her down in a fairly typical white suburb of New York, she would have received a public education worth about $12,000 a year. If you were to lift her up once more and set her down in one of the wealthiest white suburbs of New York, she would have received as much as $18,000 worth of public education every year and would likely have had a third-grade teacher paid approximately $30,000 more than her teacher in the Bronx was paid.

The dollars on both sides of the equation have increased since then, but the discrepancies between them have remained. The present per-pupil spending level in the New York City schools is $11,700, which may be compared with a per-pupil spending level in excess of $22,000 in the well-to-do suburban district of Manhasset, Long Island.

The inequity in the public school system must be attacked and a solution brought about. But enough bleating about using vouchers to "fix" this problem. There is enough evidence to show that "school choice" systems, of which vouchers is one of the most insidious, only creates greater division and inequity - the more advantaged do better, and the less advantaged do worse.

2005-11-18T16:42:00.000+11:00

Interesting article in yesterday's Age

Thanks for the comments so far, guys. Keep it up.

I am actually very supportive of language survival, as many aspects of tradition and history are imbued in the language itself. And contrary to popular belief, many of these Northern Aboriginal languages are still very vibrant. Most are endangered, though.

I also like the fact that urban Balanda schoolchildren have contact with original Australians.

But here are some things to think about:

1. Oh, nice. We've found a far-flung community to liaise with. Pity none of the families at our school would probably ever visit there. Too busy organising holidays to Byron, Noosa or Bali.

2. When will we see some of these schools organising links with poor schools in the Western Suburbs? Or even Melbourne schools that have aboriginal students there?

3. Bridgit's comment seems pretty close to the mark. There is a smack of neo-colonial cultural pity, here; i.e. we're only interested in them because they're in danger of disappearing.

4. Wouldn't it be great if STATE SCHOOL budgets extended to cultural links programs, rather than just (extremely) wealthy schools like Carey, Trinity, Wesley and Scotch? (who incidentally get another free plug thanks to the Age)

2005-11-18T16:36:00.000+11:00

Wot a larf

Stolen from The Daily Flute

Note the sign for The King's School - "Taking your taxes to build rifle ranges and swimming pools".

2005-11-17T13:27:00.000+11:00

I just discovered an interactive section to the Education Guardian. It's called EducationTalk and a lot of UK teachers use it. Why can't we have something like that in Australia?

You can access it here. And I'll put it in the links.

2005-11-15T12:51:00.000+11:00

It's pretty evident that schools are not the ones to blame for rising violence and declining social standards ...

Just ask the UK Children's Commissioner

A culture of violence in Britain is to blame for an epidemic of school bullying that is devastating the lives of millions of children, according to a devastating attack by one of the country's leading experts on young people.
In his first major interview as the new Children's Commissioner for England, Al Aynsley-Green said nearly every child was affected by the problem: 'I have no doubt that children are being brought up in a society where violence is the norm in many ways. I include in this the violence on television, in the workplace and in the home.

2005-11-14T15:24:00.000+11:00

Bolt on Edjakayshin

In his Friday column for the Herald Sun, Andrew Bolt seemed to be lamenting the decline of competition in our schools and its consequent erosion of the quality of education. I say "seemed", because it was never clear as to exactly what he was talking about.

The struggle from some quarters (obviously those not in Andrew Bolt's camp) against testing and streaming comes at a time when the push for statewide / nationwide testing is greater than ever. And the push is largely coming from big companies who provide the tests.

But ask any teacher whose students have sat these tests, or who have marked these tests. Is the standard the same from year to year? Well, it depends on many things - one of which is whether the school was recently privatised?

It's a familiar trick used by the Blair government - close a low-performing school (after its students have completed one of these tests), reopen it as a privatised Academy, have the students complete another (easier) standardised test, and voila! Blair can justify his mass privatisations; and mugs who believe the hype then get onto my blog and repeat that same bleating here.

Evidently Bolt has hooked onto some of this propaganda. He has cited Kevin Donnelly as someone he greatly admires, and this recent article, though vague, reinforce these beliefs in a privatised, testing-oriented system.

And what is it with competition anyway? The vast majority of our interactions in daily life have more in common with cooperation than competition. Driving to work is an excellent example. A group of cars that drive together in a cooperative rather than competitive manner have a greater chance of arriving at their destination on time (and alive).

Boltwatch has covered some of the other issues in far better detail than I have time to spend on.

2005-11-11T08:22:00.000+11:00

A bit of clarification ...

Some of the posters here have yet to shed the muffling view of "a school is just another business".

Schools are not businesses and never will be. Granted, some of their transactions are conducted in a businesslike manner, and there is some amount of buying and selling that takes place. But their purpose is NOT to be a business. The success of a school or a schooling / educational system is not seen until well after the providers of that system are dead and gone. It's likely that we're only now seeing the results of our post-war system, and some of the initiatives put in place by people like Menzies.

But if others STILL cling to the idea that schools should function as a business and should be subject to competition and the free market, I would like to hear their ideas with regards to privatising the following:

The Army
The Navy
The Air Force
The Police Force

Well?

2005-11-07T15:58:00.000+11:00

Some encouraging news about progress in public schools here

Public schools to control teacher recruitment

The South Australian Government is handing control of teacher recruitment to the public schools.

Under the changes a small panel at each school will be able to select the best candidate rather than accepting a centrally-appointed teacher.

The Education Minister, Jane Lomax-Smith, says it is always been a contentious issue.

"Many principals, school communities and parent groups want to choose the best teachers for the job but it's always been a centrally allocated process," Ms Lomax-Smith said.
"This agreement was reached after significant negotiation with the union because the State Government was absolutely keen on making sure that always we have the best teachers in our schools."

2005-11-07T15:56:00.000+11:00

School-raised funds paying teachers' salaries: union

The Australian Education Union says schools are having to use fundraising dollars to provide core programs.

A survey by the union shows nearly 72 per cent of Victorian principals believe their school is under-funded.

More than half of the principals surveyed said school-raised funds were used to pay the salaries of specialist teachers and support staff as well as library, computer and sports equipment.

The union's Victorian president, Mary Bluett, says the problem is rife in country areas.

"Principals ... feel the pinch even more so because with the reliance on locally raised funds that is going to depend on whether or not your community can afford to make a contribution and overwhelmingly in country Victoria they can't as much as they would like to be in a position to do so," Ms Bluett said.

"Principals are saying, 'state and federal governments hear our plea and fund us, at least the basics' and then parents can make the contribution for the add-ons, the additionals."

2005-11-07T15:53:00.000+11:00

Public schools starved of funds: principals

The Australian Education Union (AEU) believes the Federal Government is deliberately starving the nation's public schools of vital funding.

A national survey of principals has found 80 per cent rate the Commonwealth's performance in regard to the public schools as "poor" or "very poor".

They say the major areas in need of additional funding are building and maintenance, increased administrative support, and extra information technology support for staff and teachers.

The survey also shows parents are paying an increasing number of school costs.

AEU federal president Pat Byrne says the schools are being shortchanged.

"We know that despite the fact that almost 70 per cent of Australian students attend public schools, they receive only 30 per cent of funding from the Federal Government," he said.
"Principals are quite clear that they feel that this in fact makes it more difficult for them to deliver quality education programs in their schools."

Ninety per cent of school principals surveyed say there is a real need for a significant increase in funding for the public system.

Mr Byrne believes the Federal Government has another agenda.

"It's quite clearly an ideological position which says that they want to see in fact a privatised education system rather than a strong quality public education system," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1498778.htm

2005-11-02T09:00:00.000+11:00

Thanks, Joel

Joel sent us a terrific post here. I won't paste it here, as you can read it for yourself.

Very interesting situation in Sweden, evidently. I've yet to investigate it fully, but I can make a few tentative comments already.

1. Firstly, Sweden has a history - a LONG history - of fiscal rigour. Right- or left-wing, whatever side you like to take, it has to be said that, comparatively, they're pretty careful with their money. And Mr Emilsson's comments reflect that - "The Social Democrats changed that when they came to power and increased the value of the voucher to 100%, but with the limitation that not one single dollar extra can be paid," "There is a concensus (sic) in Sweden that taxpayers should bear the cost for educating the next generation. That we do together. Then parents and students can pick the school of their choice, and in that way we get better, more efficient use of taxpayers’ money", etc.

2. Note that no co-payments are allowed, the voucher covers ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the education costs, and the private schools are forced to take whoever enrols. Would that happen here / the US / the UK? Once again, we see that it could be argued to be a "Swedish" solution to the matter.

3. It's run by a Swedish company, thankfully, so the profits stay in Sweden. And we all know about those wonderful high Swedish taxes, so most likely much of the money flows back to the Swedish people anyway. And did you know that Sweden is considered one of the best places in the EU to do business? Why? Because the bureaucracy is so efficient, it's never a problem getting a permit or document processed quickly!

4. Now I'm exploring the cons. What will happen when businesses controlling many of these schools decide to enter into the education research debate, similar to the pharmaceutical companies and medical research? What if some of the educational findings don't suit the budget of these companies? This HAS happened in the pharma / medical field.

5. How will these schools be going in five years' time? Will we get the full story, or will it be a whitewash, like the spin job done on Blair's "successful" Academies? Once again, knowing that this is Sweden we're talking about, I think that regulation will actually be pretty tight. And if it is found that it's better to keep them in government control, there will possibly be some type of "buyback" from those companies to put them in government hands again.

6. I found it interesting how he talks about the "different" ways they learn at his schools: "We have based it on a very individual model. When a student comes to us, we very carefully examine his or her ways of learning and then put together an individual structure around it. The teachers are more than teachers, they are coaches;" as though this could NEVER happen in a government school. Maybe he should take a visit to the new Fitzroy High School, which is also taking bold new steps but totally within government control - it CAN happen, guys!

Back to you, Joel!

2005-10-31T15:29:00.000+11:00

What's wrong with the UK Academies? Here's another view from the UK Teacher's Union:

What is the NUT's policy?
The NUT is opposed to the Academies initiative because:
academies put schools in the hands of an unaccountable sponsoring body;
academies can threaten fair admissions procedures;
academies threaten teachers' job security and conditions of service;
academies have a damaging effect on other local schools;
academies threaten children's entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum;
academies undermine the independent role of school governors.

2005-10-28T15:42:00.000+10:00

From the UK Telegraph:

Every secondary school is expected to become an independent, self-governing academy within five years, Tony Blair said yesterday.

EVERY secondary school? People, we're seeing the beginning of the end. Tony, repeat after me: "The Academies don't work ... The Academies don't work ..."

So, charter schools and vouchers in the US and academies in the UK. What does Brendan Nelson have in store for us?

2005-10-27T15:08:00.000+10:00

How the neo-cons are stifling discourse

The more I research the area to which this blog is dedicated, the angrier I find myself becoming.

A good place to start is the Institute of Economic Affairs. From there, search through their links of organisations dedicated to "Educational Reform" (yeah, right). Open some of those links and read their claims. Then go to sites like Media Transparency to get the real story.

I can't believe what is happening in the USA. And they are using a hammer to fix it, claiming that there is "no other way". Please, please let it not happen here. What do I mean? Read on ....

No Child Left With The Slightest Scrap Of Hope

2005-10-24T13:19:00.000+10:00

From the ever-provocative Adbusters website:

Schools are sites of both social replication and creation: that is to say, they reflect and define how we organize and understand ourselves. If children spend the vast bulk of their lives in anti-democratic institutions where they have little opportunity to make real choices, direct their learning, spend time doing things they value, or take independent initiative, how can we expect anything other than a docile and compliant citizenry?

I think the real question is this: is spending six hours per day, five days a week, ten months a year for twelve years, confined to an institution in groups of thirty the optimal way for children to thrive? If not, then what the hell are we doing?

Yet we can’t just retreat into individualist, everyone for themselves answers. Schools are a social problem that demand social answers and social institutions in their place: we have to build better places for kids and better conceptions of childhood. But there can be no systemic answers. Like Colin Ward said "We need a mass of answers, not mass answers."

An article which bravely treads the middle ground.

2005-10-21T10:17:00.000+10:00

From a reliable source; a colleague who shall remain nameless:

A few years ago now, a request came from my deputy to provide three students for a photo shoot, for material to be included in the (private) school's marketing material. They were engaged in a particular activity in the shots and naturally I was pleased that my students would be featuring in these photos. They were also excited about it and "scrubbed up" beautifully for the occasion.

A few weeks later, the deputy made a similar request, as they wanted to get some more photos of different kids. "Sure," I said, happy to help. "Oh, but can you make sure of one thing," said the deputy ....

"Don't choose any fat kids."

I think my jaw dropped in disbelief at that moment. I managed to splutter out something like "Why?", to which she replied, "Well, this material will be going to prospective parents, you know." I was still agog and unable to summon up the necessary ire as yet, but I did ask: "I thought the last three kids looked great." "Yes," she replied with an air of distaste, "but the girl was a bit ... chubby." She pointed to her own flaccid cheeks as she said this, before walking away.

It was only after a few minutes that the full weight of what she had said hit me. Colleague after colleague to whom I related this story could not believe what she had said; some of them berated me gently for my lack of a witty reply.

The photographer wasn't much better, though. A skeletal harlot made up to look like something out of a horror movie, she insisted that other private schools hired child models for all their marketing material, so requesting anaemic students from our own school was actually leaning towards the side of morality.

Thankfully, the principal saw sense in my argument and the deputy (I am told) was seriously admonished for what she said. The photo of the "fat" girl was ultimately used in the school brochure, so that was some vindication.

It was only about a year after that that John Howard spoke to the press about the lack of "values" in public schools.

How about the serious lack in private schools, John?!?!?!?

2005-10-20T10:57:00.000+10:00

Why the UK Academies are crap

Matthew Taylor, education correspondent
Saturday October 8, 2005
The Guardian

Most of the "failing" secondary schools replaced by academies were improving their educational standards when they were closed and none were in special measures, it emerged yesterday.

Ministers have repeatedly said academies would only replace failing schools in disadvantaged areas. But although 13 of the 27 replaced schools had been in special measures or had serious weaknesses in the three years before they were taken over, all were improving.

Last night the Department for Education and Skills said the schools had all had a history of poor results. "At the point at which the decision was made to create these individual academies, three-quarters of schools were in special measures, had serious weaknesses or were of serious concern to Ofsted," a spokesman said.

But the last available reports from Ofsted, the education watchdog, show many were making progress. Brackenhoe high school in Middlesbrough, replaced by the King's academy, was described by inspectors as "a rapidly improving school that has identified its main weaknesses and is making inroads in resolving them".

The Dixons technology college in Bradford, replaced by Dixons city academy, was "a very effective school [with] excellent leadership". And Thorne grammar school in Doncaster, replaced by the Trinity academy, was "an improving and increasingly effective school, which cares well for its pupils".

Kevin Donnelly, James Tooley and Sir Michael Barber, take note.

2005-10-17T16:09:00.000+10:00

Private schools may hold key to universal education - Guardian article

An interesting article - interesting because it was found in the Guardian.

Keep an eye out for this James Tooley. From what I can gather he seems to be another Kevin Donnelly - seems read-up, but is judicious with the research he uses. I don't deny he's had a lot of experience on the ground, but he doesn't seem to look at the wider picture, which is:

Why should we tell these dirt-poor countries that private education is the way for them, whilst the developed world takes public education for granted?

2005-10-12T08:15:00.000+10:00

My argument spilleth over

Over at anonymouslefty I've been having a discussion with "duncan". This is evidently not a Duncan that I'd "like to have a beer with".

You can read the argument for yourself here.

So that I can make a few things clear:

Duncan has reached the stage of "so what". In particular - "No, they (the churches) don't pay tax, but they are charitable organisations. If you have a problem with them running schools, fine; but that is not the issue here."

Actually, it IS the issue. Control over schooling is given to these massive wealthy organisations, AWAY from public scrutiny, and they are being given money to do it. To argue that they are just "charitable organisations" is really diluting the argument.

"Private schools receive the lions share of tax deductible donations because of the parents that send their children there.. again, so what? You will find that public schools in higher socio-economic areas receive more donations than others; a fairly obvious fact."

Money is money, Duncan, and these are little hidden "extras" that don't make it into the comparison tables that I see trotted out so often. Duncan's original argument was about "how much money" and I have tried to point out to him that the figures he quoted can be quite easily changed when facts like these are taken into consideration. The donation is money that ordinarily (OK, not all of it) would be paid in tax - instead, it is directed away from the common wealth and into private pockets. Same for the salary packaging argument - money is money.

2005-10-12T08:02:00.000+10:00

UK Education in The Guardian

Just remembered two great articles I read in the Guardian over a week ago, both about schooling in the UK.

The first was that junk food is to be taken out of all UK schools, and vending machines will be banned. Hurrah! I take back everything I say about Tony Blair (WHAT?!?!? Think about what you are saying, you fool!) ...

The second is that there is a turn away from private schools because the fees are now so outrageously expensive - that some are charging over 20 000 pounds per year (where's the damn pound sign on my keyboard?!?)!! What? And the UK taxpayer is SUBSIDISING these places?

If anyone finds these articles please send me the web address.

2005-10-10T11:37:00.000+10:00

Finally, an article (in this case, an editorial) from The Age that DOESN'T support the public/private partnership argument:

With notable exceptions (including 28 new and 17 replacement schools since 1999), the facilities in our state schools are the nation's worst ... There is no longer any excuse for procrastination. Money is available — Victoria's budget surplus now stands at $795 million — and the Australian Education Union appears to have softened its position on public-private partnerships, which the State Government is believed to be investigating as a way of tackling the problem of rebuilding rundown schools. Opponents of these partnerships rightly point out that while this funding method allows governments to hang on to surpluses, or avoid deficits, it leaves the state with long-term liabilities to pay leases so that the final expenditure inevitably exceeds the cost of building and maintaining the schools.

2005-10-10T10:48:00.000+10:00

I've been away for awhile. Nice to spend time with the kids again, though.

Of note during that time was of course Dr Fels' lame attempt to push the voucher system into government policy during a conference in Sydney. How interesting that Dr Nelson has ruled out this idea - has he finally realised how far he is able to push?

Good on mrlefty for also bringing this issue into popular discourse.

2005-09-23T15:08:00.000+10:00

The Age continues with its shameless promotion of Kosky's privatisation agenda. Today there is an opinion piece from Sir Michael Barber, who is "a partner at McKinsey & Company and a former senior adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair".

Who the hell are McKinsey and Co? Businesspeople? Economists? And of course he's only going to have wonderful things to say about the progress of Blair's reforms, if HE'S the one whispering in his ear the whole time.

Has Sir Michael bothered to listen to the many complaints about Blair's Academies?

(The) Blair Government ... built on important reforms made under the Conservative government - the delegation of funding to school principals, the introduction of national testing and inspection, the publication of school results and the extension of parental choice with money following the pupil. Blair's Government refined each of these aspects. For example, it has delegated more funds and from next year will provide each school with a three-year budget.
Crucially, it also strengthened the capacity of the system. Funding is now 50 per cent higher in real terms than in 1997. Teachers' pay has risen by 15 per cent in real terms, school principals' pay by 20 per cent. The number of support staff in schools has increased. The school building stock is being comprehensively renewed. The deal is serious investment in return for sharp accountability.

"Parental choice"; "accountability" ... same old spin.

2005-09-23T08:19:00.000+10:00

OK so I can't get the other blog to work, so I'll just use this one. Feel free to discuss the issues surrounding government funding of private schools at this blog. It will be devoted only to this issue (wellllll, maybe I'll chuck in something "special" now and then) ...

2005-09-22T15:05:00.000+10:00

Crossposted at my other blog (can't get it to work properly yet!!):

From today's AGE:

VICTORIA'S leading private schools are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on marketing as competition for students increases.

And government schools — faced with the drift of enrolments to the private sector — have also entered the fray. While their budgets are a fraction of what private schools can spend, some state secondary schools are spending up to $15,000 a year to get their message across.The figures have emerged from an investigation into education marketing by The Age, which identifies Victoria as leading an Australia-wide push.

The extent of the marketing campaigns by some schools prompted a warning from the Bracks Government about the need for parents to be informed about how much money was being spent.

Education Minister Lynne Kosky said she supported schools marketing themselves, arguing that it was important that staff tell the community about their positive practices.But she warned that marketing for schools should not be "just about the gloss"."Some schools have got billboards," she said. "They have nice pictures. But is it giving solid information to parents? Probably not." Ms Kosky said marketing could "cross over the line when it becomes more like marketing any sort of product, rather than education". "Where they are paying marketing companies huge amounts of money, I think parents have firstly got a right to know that that's the case," she said. "It should be in the public domain, so that parents can ask questions if they choose to."

But Opposition education spokesman Victor Perton said he found "nothing objectionable" about schools marketing themselves, arguing that parents who chose private schools were informed consumers.

Some private schools were prepared to openly discuss their marketing budgets. Carey Baptist Grammar School said it spent between $150,000 to $170,000 a year on marketing. Others declined to discuss the issue. Australia's largest independent school, Wesley College, which has endured a run of bad publicity, recently revamped its marketing image with the slogan of "Success has a purple lining". The school declined to discuss its marketing and advertising strategy, although in previous years it cost about $200,000. The $150,000 to $200,000 range is reported to be similar to what is being spent by other large independent schools. In the government sector, secondary schools can spend up to $15,000.

Michelle Green, chief executive of the Association of Independent Schools of Victoria, said independent schools were in a marketplace and wanted people to understand what they did.Ms Green said it was up to schools to decide the balance between boosting their market and providing services.

So there you have it. We're not "parents" anymore. We're "consumers".

And of course schools are in a "marketplace". If I don't like the school that's ten minutes walk away, I can always send my kids to the one which is an hour's drive away.

2005-09-22T10:52:00.000+10:00

Suddenly it's popular to cycle to work. FINALLY, after so many years of putting up and putting up with rising fuel prices and grumbling but still filling the car and emptying the pockets, it's FINALLY too expensive for many people.

The bike paths (long overdue for the sort of road works you see happening on the main roads all the time) are starting to get really crowded out there. Newcomers to bike commuting are showing their inexperience and impatience. Hopefully they'll also start to complain about the state of the paths and the councils MIGHT JUST do something about them.

Soon, however, they'll realise what they've been missing and won't go back. Ever. Why would you? If you can cycle to work, why would you drive?