Funding for Religous Schools

[ponde]

I was just having a conversation with the boss.

I asked her did she think it was fair that religous schools get more funding than state schools.

Her comment was "how do you know that."

Can anyone give a reference how much is given to each school.

Thanks

[Seamus]

Can anyone give a reference how much is given to each school.Just had a little look around.

Having trouble finding an independent source. It seemed to me that it depends to some degree on which vested interest you ask. See link; it's not very helpful ,except to give you an idea of the kind of misleading arguments used.
http://www.isca.edu.au/html/funding_main.htm

I was looking for a per student comparison,which I think would be more useful than a per school comparison. I couldn't find one.However. I spent only as much time looking as interest allowed;about 3 minutes.I'm fairly confident you can find what you want if you have decent look. Google is your friend.

[boxsey]

No idea - I've seen stuff over the years that reckons the privates get more - and then I've heard arguments from the privates saying they get no where near the same.
Beats me, I just know that I think if you want private schooling, it should be full fee for service and not subsidised.

[youngmoigle]

Creative book-keeping. The school may release all the figures under "funding" but it may be that more cash is hidden away as "bonuses" or "incentives". Unless you specifically ask the precise question you'll never find the truth.

Apparently it is quite easy to do - I remember a news report saying that Kerry Packer's book-keepers once got his yearly income down to $1 (and saved him a fortune in taxes).

[Mister Pervert]

Apparently it is quite easy to do - I remember a news report saying that Kerry Packer's book-keepers once got his yearly income down to $1 (and saved him a fortune in taxes).

It was a 4-Corners program, and Packer's "paper trail" ultimately led to some tiny, non-descript shop in Hong Kong.

[loubert]

the fact that they get any funding at all is beyond me!

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Bloody religious bastards are exempt from paying tax! This is just stupid.

But having said that I believe that many are private schools operating as corporations. So they tend to have shareholders and stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Pacific Hills Christian School operates like this I think. Of course I wouldn't recommend going there after being there myself and being treated heavily like I was bad luck or something. Many people at these schools are prissy too.

But they get funded more perhaps because they are private and they are corporations.

Unfortunately I can't figure out where to get sources from so someone correct me if I am wrong here.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

That makes sense. This reinforces the idea that they operate as private corporations.

I think they do operate like that - they are private schools after all and to get in they are bloody expensive.

I guess a lot of religious school boards operate in this way too with the schools being subsidiaries of some sort.

[Dave]

I always get pissed about the real estate and infrastructure that my tax dollars seem to purchase for these religious versions of McDonalds.

[tandytripper]

I was just having a conversation with the boss.

I asked her did she think it was fair that religous schools get more funding than state schools.

Her comment was "how do you know that."

Can anyone give a reference how much is given to each school.

Thanks

I will try and get something from ed.qld.au site to show distribution of funds at least here in QLD.

It could however differ state to state but at least it would give some idea.

:)

[johnsr]

All taxpayer's funds allocated to schools should be directed to Public schools only. Those who send their children to private schools falsly argue that they are taxpayers too and therefore want the choice of their tax money to go to the private schools. If choice is what they want then they have the choice of sending their children to taxpayer funded public schools or to private schools at their own expense. That way, all children in Australia will be given an EQUAL opportunity to learn in well funded educational institutions. Those wanting the choice of offering their children something different can fund it fully themselves. Now that is genuine choice.

[eclectic]

I always heard that the govt gives equal funding per student, but of course the private schools then get their fees on top of that, hence the pretty buildings and superb equipment. However, I believe there is different funding from state & federal levels which goes (in part) to explaining why different parties involved can get away with different claims of whether the schools get more or less.

I will hunt for proper sources now. :)

I lived in a share-house with a Swedish exchange student once. He confirmed my belief that Scandanavia have got a lot of things right. He was surprised by the prestige value of private schools here, because he said in Sweden it just wasn't the case. Their private schools get no state money, they have to source their own funding (from fees and whatever church or other organisation they are affiliated with). He said that people choose them if they are particularly religious or hold to whatever other ideology the school is about, but there is NO incentive based on them being better equipped etc, the govt schools are the best. Sounds lovely. :)

[SinisterDexter]

All taxpayer's funds allocated to schools should be directed to Public schools only. Those who send their children to private schools falsly argue that they are taxpayers too and therefore want the choice of their tax money to go to the private schools. If choice is what they want then they have the choice of sending their children to taxpayer funded public schools or to private schools at their own expense. That way, all children in Australia will be given an EQUAL opportunity to learn in well funded educational institutions. Those wanting the choice of offering their children something different can fund it fully themselves. Now that is genuine choice.

Quoted For Truth

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

And people wonder why I care about religion if I don't believe in it!

I care because religious crackpots like Rudd actually support religious stuff and use taxpayer's money to do this.

[TimB]

There is a bit of info around on Australian school funding - a bit of crap too. Found this reference but haven't read it all yet.

http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PolicyBriefs_Dowling07.pdf

Another source to look up is Jane Caro who writes a lot about school issues.

The Federal government gives a bigger chunk of money to non-government than to gov schools but this is reversed at the state level. I don't know how this looks per head or how the funding models work.

The main issue I have with private schools (or at least the 85% that are faith based) is that I don't think it is a good idea to segragate children along the lines of their parents beliefs which is what faith based schools do.

I don't have too much issue with some government money going to non-government schools HOWEVER it should just maybe cover the essentials for teaching the curriculum ie text books AND if ALL government schools already have adequate funding. I really get the shits when I see wealthy non-government schools building multi-million dollar sports stadiums AND getting government money while there are kids in government schools in dodgy demountable buildings with crap airconditioners - the system seems to be a little out of balance.

Sorry for the long post.

[wearestardust]

Generally, religious schools get less total government funding than public ones. The ads that talk about public schools getting less funding are basically being truthful while not being honest. Those ads refer to Federal funding. Private schools do get more federal funding than public schools (I think public schools may not get any federal recurrent funding), but they get less state funding, and the sum for privates is less than for publics.

However things changed in the last couple of years of the Howard govt and I understand that some elite private schools may do very well. Whether they do still get less than publics, I don't know. Hence my "generally" qualifier.

[Logic]

Sanitarium, the Seventh Day Adventist mob who make your Weet-Bix, are an example.


Apologies for the brief thread hijack but.... OH NO!!! I like weetbix and now I know who owns Sanitarium I can't eat it anymore, I also have 'up & go' nearly every morning....what else are these nutters going to ruin for me next? :(

[Fearless]

Apologies for the brief thread hijack but.... OH NO!!! I like weetbix and now I know who owns Sanitarium I can't eat it anymore, I also have 'up & go' nearly every morning....what else are these nutters going to ruin for me next? :(
On the sanitarium thing, as many know my mother is a seventh day advestist (she is far from being a nutter though). She swears that the profits Mainly go to charity. Now I know it is an opportunity for 'the church' to pedal their wares but IMHO if any bit of profit is going to charity it is better then lining the pockets of the fat cats of the world. I have a feeling other brands would see a good bit of money being farmed off our shores.

I think as an atheist as much as I am against religious control and influence I am also for Australian interests and industry.

It is like saying 'i hate Paul Newman as an actor, therefore I will not be buying his charity brand of foods.'

I will try to find out where the money goes when I have a chance from sanatarium products but I don't know that the religious influence automatically means it is a negative.

To be continued..

Son of a 'nutter'

[Fearless]

@Fearless: I guess it all depends on how one defines "charity".

I'll have to thank you in advance mr black as I am using my iPhone and trying not to chew through my limits. Will have a look later. Cheers

[wearestardust]

All taxpayer's funds allocated to schools should be directed to Public schools only. Those who send their children to private schools falsly argue that they are taxpayers too and therefore want the choice of their tax money to go to the private schools. If choice is what they want then they have the choice of sending their children to taxpayer funded public schools or to private schools at their own expense. That way, all children in Australia will be given an EQUAL opportunity to learn in well funded educational institutions. Those wanting the choice of offering their children something different can fund it fully themselves. Now that is genuine choice.

I'm sorry, I think this is glib and relies on emotion more than thinking through the issue. Why should private schools not get funding? That (providing funding) provides effective choice, which is what real choice is. The kind of choice you are talking about is like when the Howard Govt cut various entitlements for people with disabilities and said it gave them more choices to work!

It also sounds to me like there is an underlying perspective that, when it comes to religion, people ought have their choices taken from them. Think about this: not all private schools are religious schools. Should non-religious schools have their funding stopped as well? Why? Or it it just the religious schools that should not have govt funding? I'm (slightly) sympathetic to the idea, but I don't think a choice-based argument is going to get you there.

P.S. @ SinisterDexter - not sure I'll convince you on this one, but I'll try!

[Mister Pervert]

That way, all children in Australia will be given an EQUAL opportunity to learn in well funded educational institutions.

If NO government funds were given to ANY educational institutions, things would be just as "equal". Not quite sure I understand your bias.

[Fearless]

@Fearless: I guess it all depends on how one defines "charity".

jd1KqyEmXmk

also reading Sanitarium's page here

http://www.sanitarium.com.au/company/tax.html

Yeah, just a bit ambigious to tell... I still respect the point of keeping it all in Australia but well yeah... not sure what to think. No point trying to pick my mothers brain over it.

[Logic]

also reading Sanitarium's page here

http://www.sanitarium.com.au/company/tax.html

Yeah, just a bit ambigious to tell... I still respect the point of keeping it all in Australia but well yeah... not sure what to think. No point trying to pick my mothers brain over it.

Mmmmm, my problem is that although charity is a good thing, I am always sceptical behind the motivation of religious entities in doing the good work. For example, Salvos rehab centres have daily religion classes. My friend's brother went into Salvo drug rehab and came out having 'found god'. He's back on the drugs 3 months later so......

Edit: by the way, thanks Fearless for looking into it further, I'm not sure what to think either.

[Fearless]

Edit: by the way, thanks Fearless for looking into it further, I'm not sure what to think either.
I didn't do a great deal but thanks.

I guess getting back to the OT for me basically the state should offer well funded schools with no direct charges to parents apart from uniform and books. If any religious organisation want to open their own school then they are accepting that their attending pupils parents also accept that they are choosing not to use what the gvnmnt has provided, therefore expect nothing. If they want extra money they can pray for it!

[SinisterDexter]

I'm sorry, I think this is glib and relies on emotion more than thinking through the issue. Why should private schools not get funding? That (providing funding) provides effective choice, which is what real choice is. The kind of choice you are talking about is like when the Howard Govt cut various entitlements for people with disabilities and said it gave them more choices to work!

It also sounds to me like there is an underlying perspective that, when it comes to religion, people ought have their choices taken from them. Think about this: not all private schools are religious schools. Should non-religious schools have their funding stopped as well? Why? Or it it just the religious schools that should not have govt funding? I'm (slightly) sympathetic to the idea, but I don't think a choice-based argument is going to get you there.

P.S. @ SinisterDexter - not sure I'll convince you on this one, but I'll try!

I see this as fairly simple. The government provides schooling because it mandates schooling. It, therefore, must fund this schooling. If people want to set up their own schools, that's all good, so long as they meet minimum government requirements and are privately funded.

I have yet to see a private school that does not charge more for it's services than the public system.

The "choice" argument is one of religion and quality. Most private schools are also religious in nature and some parents use this as a choice thing. In this case there is no argument for government to contribute funds because it should not be endorsing any religion. But even if not, private schools are quite well funded enough - they hardly need a second swimming pool (oh, I was glib! Yay!).

As for quality, a lot of people argue that they get better quality in the private system. This is unfortunately true to a large extent because of the disparity in funding between the two. But it is not universally true. I had the good fortune to go to an excellent public school and I am a strong believer in the public system. My son will go to a public school. Of course, the more funding that is directed (publicly and privately) to private schools, the more the quality gap widens.

Private schools should be allowed to raise as much cash from their 'customers' as they like - but asking for additional cash from the government is a bit rich IMHO.

[Jonathon Byrd]

When it comers to religious eduction, there are some ‘norms’ in society that are beyond criticism but shouldn’t be.

a) Knowing that children’s minds are sponges just waiting to absorb information, should it be the carte blanch right of parents/guardians to instil personal religious beliefs at whim as is the case now?
b) Should the fact that traditional religion is culturally accepted be reason enough to do this without restraint?
c) Is it the role of government to support financially and in kind the religious beliefs of parents by aiding and abetting in part or in full the faith indoctrination of some children?
d) As no religion has a monology on being correct with religion having a clear record of creating political and social divisiveness, should a government be involved with legitimising the faith imperative in a secular nation? (Or any nation!)
e) Because there is some evidence that religious indoctrination of children produces dysfunction in society, what are the motives of governments making the laws accommodating various belief systems, beyond imprinting children with their own personal beliefs or keeping their seats safe?
f) Decent citizens rightly condemn physical/sexual child abuse, but why is mental-child abuse via religious indoctrination condoned?
g) Education is about learning how to think, not a particular version of what to think. If schools cannot abide by this basic rule, then why should a secular nation supply them with any financial assistance?

No doubt, there are other ‘norms’ in need of greater scrutiny but this list is something that immediately comes to mind.

Jonathon

[Mister Pervert]

f) Decent citizens rightly condemn physical/sexual child abuse, but why is mental-child abuse via religious indoctrination condoned?

Personally, I believe the advertising/indoctrination of companies like McDonalds to be far more dangerous to children than anything that might be dished up in a religious schooling environment. The fact that McDonalds in particular parades itself with a joy-joy, pseudo-Jesus clown as its mascot shouldn't be dismissed lightly.

[Jonathon Byrd]

The idea of schooling is to mould children to be good citizens by giving them a well rounded education. That’s the idea even though most of us become corporate fodder for the big side of town, and that includes the McDonalds slavery. Or is that the Mc…Con…alds?

Religion produces divisive ideas retained by adults, as the world sadly is testament to. McDonald’s increase waistlines, by teaching that unhealthy diet is the way to go.

The options boil down to a society with bad physical or mental health.

My choice would be, go for good mental health and the rest might follow. :D

Jonathon

[Mister Pervert]

My choice would be, go for good mental health and the rest might follow. :D



"Blessed are the cracked: they let in the light."

[Fearless]

Ok I had a big disagreement with my partner about this just then and I think we found mutual ground for fairness.

We both can agree if the funding is per head and not per school thus ensuring every child has an equal share, then it would be fair. But neither of us know how schools are funded. Does anyone know for certain?

[c2009]

"Blessed are the cracked: they let in the light."

ROFL :p

[GenericBox]

I used to think why not, just stop funding for them. But a recent assignment caught my attention to a problem (in QLD at least).

Our client was QLD Education - and in his brief, he said that currently about 60% of students attend public schools, and 40% private - and he said this was not a serious problem yet - but that more children were being enrolled to private schools than public. What he wanted to do was keep the split roughly the same - but get parents enrolling their children into public schools more again.

He said they were not worried about the 60/40 split because they NEEDED private schools to take the load of the public system. (QLD at least) doesn't have the capacity to handle all children in their public education system - so they need private schools. In some major areas he said - even when there were more kids in private schooling vs public - public classes and schools were packed to the limit.

So although I agree with the idea - theres alot more issues to deal with first than just cutting off the private funding tap.

[ponde]

The fact that the queensland public system could not handle the influx from private schools is no reason for them to to be able to hold the education system to ransom.
If they get snooty about it then cut the funding off and use the money to build new schools and upgrade existing ones.
I realy do not have anything against private schools but it must be on a one child one dollar basis.

[wearestardust]

I see this as fairly simple. The government provides schooling because it mandates schooling. It, therefore, must fund this schooling.

Actually, that doesn't follow. Govts require, or strongly encourage, us to do various things that we have to pay for - third party motor vehicle and health insurance are two things that spring to mind. But, anyway, ifone does accept the 'if govt requires it then govt must pay for it' line, that's actually an argument for more funding for (most) private schools, not less. The government saves money when people send their kids to private schools.

If people want to set up their own schools, that's all good, so long as they meet minimum government requirements and are privately funded.

It's only a contingent fact about the way people felt government services should be provided at the time compulsory schooling came about - ie, they should be provided by government. Nowadays the theory is that governments should pay but not provide. If schools were set up today, they would very likely be all private, with a voucher system.



More broadly, I think what is going on in this thread is that there are actually two, quite different conversations going on. One is: how well do private schools do out of government funding, with a subtext of "and lets grumble at the religious schools" (I presume). The other conversation is more along the lines of, "religious schools should not get government funding because they are religious", which is a different issue altogether - even if the point is being made under the guise of "private schools should not get government funding". This latter conversation needs to be underpinned by an assumption that goes along the lines of, religious people should be denied certain rights and freedoms enjoyed by other people. That would be an interesting discussion to have (maybe I'll start a thread in another lunchtime), but it's a different issue.