Adding up the numbers in the education debate

September 17, 2004

We continually hear that because private school students receive much less government funding per capita than public school students, every child in private education somehow saves the taxpayer money. Let us apply some primary school mathematics to expose the flaws in this proposition.

On average, total government funding per capita of private students is about half that of public students. In other words, the government money spent on private students would be sufficient to educate only half that number of students in the public system. So far, so good - the proposition seems to hold water.

But consider what would happen if all government funds to private schools were withdrawn and allocated instead to the public system. Unless more than half of all private school students moved to government schools, there would be a net benefit per capita to the public system at no extra cost to the taxpayer.

Such a level of migration is highly unlikely. In the 40 years since taxpayer funding of private schools began, their share of students has grown only from 24 per cent to 32 per cent. There is no evidence to suggest that this would suddenly fall to 16 per cent if funds were withdrawn, particularly since private schools would seek to minimise the loss of their paying customers by rebalancing the fees they charge against the level of facilities they provide. (Far from being the only option available, universal fee rises would seem to be the least attractive option for private schools.)

The debate about parental choice would have greater substance if the available options were a well-funded public system and a genuinely private system with no taxpayer funding. Instead we have the curious hybrid arrangement whereby all schools are government schools to a greater or lesser degree.

Freddy Sharpe, Gordon, September 16.

Is Mr Latham aware that some schools such as King's and Frensham are boarding schools with a very large percentage of farmers' sons and daughters, many of whom find it extremely difficult to pay the fees.

Frensham, in fact, raised funds to provide financial help to such families by providing subsidised or free places.

Where does the "ladder of opportunity" fit in here? I think, Mr Latham, you haven't thought this out properly.

Fiona Kennedy, Vaucluse, September 16.

Mr Latham's proposed changes to school funding are simply offensive. It should not matter where parents choose to send their children to school, the funding subsidies should follow them.

If I choose to contribute more than just my tax dollars to assist in educating my children, so be it. Does this automatically mean my children should receive less benefit from my tax dollars? No.

I refuse to support a government that is removing choices for me regarding my children's education and future.

A more cynical critic of this policy might say Mr Latham is once again pandering to ALP union interests in the education sector.

Brett Andrews, Naremburn, September 16.

Why have so many of the journalists and letter writers completely missed the point concerning Labor's education policy?

The main point is not about reducing government funds to a few private schools that have been over-funded by the Coalition, but about providing more funds to the many other independent schools.

It is about using everyone's taxes to bring more independent schools within the reach of more children of more parents. Surely that is providing more choice, not less, to those "aspirational" voters everyone else comments upon?

Adam Rope, Newport, September 16.

Congratulations to the newly oppressed minority of "expensive private school users".

You now qualify for membership to the Australian League of Wedges, an elite and illustrious group which includes indigenous Australians, gays and lesbians, women, the unemployed, the mentally ill, art lovers, ABC watchers, academics, refugees, asylum seekers, health workers, environmentalists, civil servants, pig farmers, self-funded retirees and Margo Kingston.

League membership entitles you to be used as a political football by all parties, stereotyping by the media and vilification on talkback radio. Unfortunately, you are no longer afforded "battler" status and forfeit your right to a fair go, but you'll soon discover it's a small price to pay when compared with the privilege of being democratically misrepresented by those who apparently know more about you than you could ever hope to understand yourself.

Peter Fyfe, Lavender Bay, September 16.

The security of knowing all about human and legal rights

While freely acknowledging that David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib have breached no Australian law, the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, our nation's most senior law officer, feebly justifies the denial of their legal and human rights by asserting that the protection of "security-related information" is of higher importance ("No justice for Hicks in flawed trial: QC", Herald, September 16).

So much for the rule of law.

John Richardson, St Ives, September 16.

Is it really the case that evidence against Messrs Hicks and Habib is so sensitive to operational security that it cannot be publicly revealed? Does Mr Ruddock expect us to believe that no one in the Australian judiciary could be trusted to review the evidence? I suspect the information which terrorises him, which he seeks to keep from his vulnerable Australia, is politically explosive: the innocence of these men, imprisoned without charge and abused, for three years and counting.

Rob Maxwell-Jones, Stanmore, September 16.

John Howard's comment that the two Australians held at Guantanamo Bay should not be brought home "because there is no crime under Australian law with which they can be charged" will send shivers down the spines of all Australians who hold our rule of law in high regard.

That these two should be locked up with the key thrown away on the basis of untested evidence sickens me.

Mr Howard and Mr Ruddock are playing to the lowest common denominator in this case and at stake are the legal rights of all Australians.

D. Hurst, Lindfield, September 16.

The specialist hostage team now in Iraq should drop into Guantanamo Bay on the way back and spring a couple of Aussies who are also incarcerated in defiance of international law.

Greg Loder, Springwood, September 16.

Sounding the death knell for democracy

John Howard's rejection of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's view that the invasion of Iraq was illegal is worrying enough, but when he states that the UN was a fine body, but was often "paralysed" because its members struggled to reach consensus, well, that's scary.

If George Bush's commitment to unilateral action in defiance of the UN has made him the smiling assassin of democracy, then John Howard now has the title of undertaker.

Richard Makarewicz, Lennox Head, September 16.

We can add Kofi Annan to the list of Mike Scrafton, Andrew Wilkie, 43 eminent Australians, 56 eminent medicos and more than 50 per cent of the Australian population who are out of touch with reality regarding the Iraq war.

Rhys Thomas, Brisbane, September 16.

Kofi Annan has declared the war in Iraq illegal. As I write, troops are packing up and heading home. Everybody has shaken hands and said sorry. Saddam is back in his palace and all is right with the world.

The power of the UN, backed up by a stiff note, is awesome and the glacial speed it moves at is dazzling. Let's hear it for Kofi and the UN.

Michael Stanbridge, Bonnet Bay, September 16.

It's all in the details

Predetermined Iraq hostage contingency plans swing into effect, and Messrs Howard and Downer are coy about details and their significance. Mr Latham stands in front of the media, crying "why wasn't I told" and complaining of Mr Howard "putting political interests ahead of national interests" ("Hostage drama politicised, says ALP", Herald, September 16). Does the word "hypocrite" come to mind?

Max Heinrich, Queanbeyan, September 16.

A fine too far

The NSW Government has again shown how money-hungry and unfair it is, with the proposed penalties against the employers of truck drivers if the drivers speed ("Truck speeding fines", Herald, September 15).

What sort of justice is it when somebody who does not commit an offence and who has no real control over the person who commits that offence, can be prosecuted for that offence?

This idiotic law will make totally innocent people accessories during and after the fact and subject them to losing their property under the draconian state debt recovery regime. When a driver speeds, only he is to blame and only he should be penalised.

Ziggy Malter, Dural, September 16.

The poor rich folk

Mark Latham has gone too far this time. First he takes money from some super-rich schools and now he is discouraging executive greed ("Cut the greed, Latham warns top executives", Herald, September 16). He seems completely indifferent to the emotional and material needs of our aspirational multi-millionaires.

Tony Moore, Caringbah, September 16.

A simple solution to excesses in executive pay. Legislate that any percentage pay rise given to the CEO sets the minimum percentage pay rise for all other employees. The brakes would come on so fast there'd be skid marks down George Street.

Brendan Jones, Annandale, September 16.

Hard to swallow

Ray Moynihan's pharmaceutical company bashing ("An unhealthy influence on the medical establishment", Herald, September 16) has a familiar ring.

He assumes that doctors are totally in the thrall of drug company advertising and research. Most doctors have a more pragmatic view, however, and use medications that are found to be effective over years, in clinical practice.

Prozac has been used successfully since 1989 and has saved countless lives from potential suicide and depression.

Would Moynihan suggest we not treat young people with proven pharmaceuticals for depression or revert to older, less efficacious, drugs? Doctors are not corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry any more than farmers are corrupted by tractor manufacturers.

It is Moynihan who is suffering from a hearty dose of conspiracy paranoia.

Dr Raymond Seidler, Kings Cross, September 16.

Fund your own lifestyle

I have a solution for you, James Manning (Letters, September 16). Either you or your partner can stay at home and look after your children.

No expensive day-care fees, no nannies, no after-school care fees and you get to see your children growing up.

It's challenging and rewarding and lots of families are doing it and getting exactly $0 in help from the government. It's called looking after yourself and not expecting the government to fund your lifestyle.

James Hocking, Cronulla, September 16.

Give us role models

Your article ("How the pollies can get hip to the groove", Herald, September 16) presents an ill-informed claim that young people value charisma and a desire to be entertained from our political leaders.

Australians are desperate for leaders driven by strong values, passion and purpose. In all arenas, we are facing a drought in such leadership. As emerging young leaders, we are concerned at the lack of strong role models and teachers in this field.

Adam Smith, Bella Vista, September 16.

Insensitive comparison

Stay In Touch's use of Mussolini to describe me was as idiotic as it was offensive ("Costa hip-pocket nerve", Herald, September 16). Mussolini was deplorable - responsible for the suffering and murders of countless people, particularly in Yugoslavia, Libya, Ethiopia and Greece, where my parents have their heritage.

I've never seen the Herald use this descriptor for bald men of Anglo-Celtic descent. Therefore, I'm forced to ask whether it's my Mediterranean background that led you to make this appalling and insensitive comparison. If that's the case, I'm happy for you to call me a "wog".

Michael Costa, Sydney, September 16.

Only a matter of time before it all gelled

Capsicum gel on the rail system? It's a long overdue idea. I assume it's for use against people who stand on the platform in front of the train doors as they open, others who board crowded trains while wearing backpacks, and for peak-hour clearance of people sitting on flights of stairs.

Gary Howe, Elizabeth Bay, September 16.

Does capsicum gel work on mobile phones?

David Small, Croydon, September 16.

Mortarboards off

When are we going to have a ticker-tape parade for those people who excel academically?

Jenny Zahos, Belfield, September 16.

Just another baby

Fans staking out the magazine stands to catch their first glimpse of Russell Crowe's heir have been bitterly disappointed, with Woman's Day's exclusive snaps revealing that baby Charles looks just like ... a baby.

Max Fischer, Scarborough, September 16.

Sticking the boot in

It's been a long time since there's been a rugby league team everyone could hate. Through the combined efforts of Phil, Bill and Ricky, we may just have found the men for the job.

Peter Bryant, Wishart (Qld), September 16.

Mail discrimination

I live across the road from Cremorne post office. However, when picking up packages, I need to travel two kilometres to Mosman post office, despite the fact that all of my letters are addressed to Cremorne.

Chris Gatfield, Cremorne, September 16.

Old fogey friendly

Clapped-out old rockers entertaining clapped-out old audiences (Letters, September 14, 15): if they're all happy, that's fine. Why does it irk some people?

Jim Dewar, North Gosford, September 16.

Well-read robber

At least four times a week a copy of the Herald disappears from our front lawn, leaving a disgruntled, paper-free breakfaster. Not so the case for the Telegraph, which has never been taken. Are thieves' standards rising?

Cathy Davitt, Waverley, September 16.

What a turkey

I rang Parks and Wildlife to ask how to deter bush turkeys from my garden. They advised they are a protected species and I must learn to live with them. My garden is (or was) full of protected plants but these pests have progressively dug up my entire garden. Any suggestions?

Neville Eldred, Killcare, September 16.

Advertisement Advertisement