Sue Bull, Melbourne
Federal education minister Brendan Nelson thinks it's not a problem that his government has increased public funding of wealthy private schools like Haileybury College, Ivanhoe Grammar and Presbyterian Ladies College, by up to 278% over the past four years.
I wonder how many of the 70% of students who attend the cash-starved public system, and their parents, would agree? Most parents of public school students would argue that public funds should be used to improve the schools that cater for the majority rather than subsidise already privileged schools.
On February 14, the Australian Education Union launched a $3 million advertising campaign to highlight the underfunding of government schools. The union wants funding to be based on need, with more money injected into the state school system.
Rich schools in Victoria are receiving up to $7.9 million in federal funds each year, whereas the highest a state school can manage is $1.5 million.
Under the federal government's socioeconomic status model, schools are allocated funds according to where their students live, but the money they get from parental fees and private investments is not taken into account.
Consequently, a very rich school that enrols large numbers of students from suburbs lower on the socioeconomic scale can gather millions of dollars. For example, Wesley College, where every student has their own personal laptop computer, can wangle $7.9 million from the federal government.
In the government system, most students do not have laptop computers and teachers are forced to lease theirs from the government for $5 a week.
Nelson is convinced increased funding to rich schools is "fair" because there has been a shift in new enrolments to the private system. Over the past 20 years or so, the proportion of school students enrolled in non-government schools has risen from 24% in 1982 to 32% in 2002.
Nelson claims that this justifies the $4.7 billion given to non-government schools, which service 1 million students, compared to the $2.4 billion provided to state schools that educate 2.25 million students.
When Nelson points out that, overall, public schools receive 76% of all taxpayer-funded education dollars and independent schools just 24% per cent, supplemented by $4 billion in fees, a casual observer could be forgiven for believing that's fair. But only if you ignore billions that private schools get from investments and donations, a rough estimate being $10 billion.
Students in the government school system have far fewer resources for the special programs and facilities that the wealthy private schools enjoy. Riches accumulated over decades mean that private schools have access to the best of everything.
The federal government's funding policy means that private schools will continue to get richer, while public schools become less attractive to parents who fear their kids will get a poorer education there. However, many students in government schools come from poorer backgrounds and their parents cannot afford to send them to private schools.
School funding must be designed to guarantee equal access to the best education available for all. That means a massive increase in funding for public education and an end to the subsidisation of wealthy private schools.
[Sue Bull is a public school teacher and a member of the Socialist Alliance.]
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, February 25, 2004.
Visit the