May 23, 2007


Contrary to all impressions, 70% of Australian children attend public schools.

According to an article in today's paper, nearly twice as much Federal funding is currently given to private schools - which are attended by a mere 30% of Aussie children. Over the next five years, as announced in the recent Federal budget, the funding to private schools will go over the edge of more than double the funding that is provided to public schools in this country.
"federal funding for private schools will increase from $5.8 billion to $7.5 billion over the next five years. Funding to public schools will rise from $3.1 billion to $3.4 billion over the next five years. Shame on us."
Surely this can't be true?


  1. Anonymous12:08 PM

    What a delicious spin. While the actual figures may or may not be accurate the general contention is accurate - and highly misleading.

    The key word is 'Federal', lump in the state government contribution and the balance swings in favour of government schools.

  2. How is this "spin"?

    There is nothing "spinnish" about factual Federal funding figures.

    It is entirely valid to question the allocation of Federal funding in relation to private and public schools.

    Just as levels for Federal and State funding for a myriad of other goods and services provided to the community are examined all the time. In conjunction or isolation.

    Your point - if there is one - is what leads to the perpetual destructive buck-passing between Federal and State politics.

    I guess you'll be voting at the Fed election this year based on .... State policies? Hey?

  3. Anonymous5:28 PM

    It's spinnish because it invites the reader to draw the conclusion that private schools recieve more government funding than state schools when the reverse is true.

    You are absolutly right, these levels of funding should be questioned, my point is that the consumer should be provided with all the relevant facts. Then they can decide wether or not they support or reject the state or federal government.

    The selective quoting of facts can only hinder genuine debate.


  4. Squid - (or should that be Squiddish?) - was it "selective" though?

    Both in the article, and in my snippet of a post, it is clearly stated that the figures relate to, and only to, Federal funding, as announced in the Federal budget.

    It would take a poor reader, even given the sometimes unfortunate state of our MSM reporting / opinion pieces, to misunderstand the context and the point.

    Yes, it would be interesting to see the total figures all lined up, but as I have already suggested, it is not invalid to examine a particular aspect of something.

    Indeed, for the most part, that's what we all do most of the time. In order to discuss and understand the whole, we consider the parts. If we had to take account of the wonderful interconnectedness and interdependencies of everything all of the time, we'd give up in confusion and our heads would explode.

    I don't think the ALP have said much about education yet (if they have, I missed it), but if I recall, they had some quite radical policy plans last time around, so the private versus public funding for education at Federal level may still become a divisive issue in the election.

    I don't remember the details, but their last policies were purely ideologically based, as is the case with the current gov't. Neither side is defensible. Education, and education funding, should have a more intelligent basis than political ideology.