got kids? sending them to a public or private school?

[Sojourner]

Currently the number of kids attending Private Schools is increasing rapidly and although I dont have the figure is not far away from 40%.

What then happens to the dispersing of government funding when the figure becomes 51%? suggesting that the majority of parents want the Government to fund Private Schools? Will that not give both State and Federal Governments the mandate to do so? Ultimatley its about what the people want as its their tax money, if it costs x amount of dollars to educate a child, then maybe their is a case for the parents to have some say in which way the funding goes as its their coin in the first place.

[rod_rooster]

At the end of the day life is not fair. It never was and never will be. Some people will get things others won't. No matter what we all do nothing will change this. Get over it. Private schools have better facilities for students. Some of those students will take that for granted and the facilities and expense spent by their parents will be wasted whilst students who could benefit from the same facilities miss out. That is reality and it won't change. The fact is that we are very very lucky to live in a country where we are debating which school is the best to send your kids to. Could be a lot worse.

[Jimmy_041]

A good first step to better funding for the public education system is to take the state governments out of the equation. Same with health. But they wont let it go - not because they can look after their state schools better. Same with health. Look at the reaction over the Rudd plan to nationalise public health - the Premiers all came out and said no way - why? - because they skim off the top - both sides of the political equation.

[Mic]

At the end of the day life is not fair. It never was and never will be. Some people will get things others won't. No matter what we all do nothing will change this. Get over it. Private schools have better facilities for students. Some of those students will take that for granted and the facilities and expense spent by their parents will be wasted whilst students who could benefit from the same facilities miss out. That is reality and it won't change. The fact is that we are very very lucky to live in a country where we are debating which school is the best to send your kids to. Could be a lot worse.

So because we are in such a good country we should just accept the way everything is here?

[Q.]

At the end of the day life is not fair. It never was and never will be. Some people will get things others won't. No matter what we all do nothing will change this. Get over it. Private schools have better facilities for students. Some of those students will take that for granted and the facilities and expense spent by their parents will be wasted whilst students who could benefit from the same facilities miss out. That is reality and it won't change. The fact is that we are very very lucky to live in a country where we are debating which school is the best to send your kids to. Could be a lot worse.

So because we are in such a good country we should just accept the way everything is here?

Yes, complacency doesn't require any thought

[dedja]

Just checking in to see how the class warfare is going ... play on

[Dirko]

Just checking in to see how the class warfare is going ... play on

So dedj....what about your kids ?

[dedja]

Just checking in to see how the class warfare is going ... play on

So dedj....what about your kids ?

Well I've got 3 girls, turning 12, 10 and 8 this year so we need to decide pronto.

It's interesting seeing the arguments here (before the distraction about funding which is really a completely separate issue).

Firstly let me state that there is no right and wrong answer ... its a completely personal choice and we should respect that.

Both Mrs Dedj and I went to public high schools and both have uni degrees ... I went to Norwood High whilst Mrs went to Campbelltown High (which is now a housing estate).

Also, my sister has been a teacher for 34 years, firstly in the public system, and lately (the last 10 years or so) in the private system (Pembroke).

My personal view is that (as has been mentioned before), there are good and bad schools on both sides, and having been on school committees at Athelstone Schools where the girls are currently, I know the importance of a good Principal and deputies. So the culture and desirability of a particular school is highly dependent on it's leadership.

The other part of the equation is that as parents, my missus and I have a great responsibility to not only show interest in our girl's schooling, but to be active as role models with ethics and values and to also have a major impact to shape them academically. IMO, if you don't have this then it doesn't matter where you send them, they'll be hanging in the breeze and more likely than not adverse outcomes will result.

So with that background, you start to look at the available schools in the area. On the public side, we are zoned to Charles Campbell High which doesn't excite me a great deal. It has a great music and dance program but academically its not up there. Even though I hate the name, I still have very fond memories of Norwood High as it has always competed admirably against the private schools.

On the private side, Iggies is just down the road so you have to look at that, Pembroke and a host of others.

For me, I'm happy to send my kids to a good public school as I think it exposes them to life more than the private system, which to me is a slightly cocooned environment. I want my kids to be able to handle adversity and challenges as well as excel. I want them to know how to handle bullies and to thrive when maybe some of the others around them are not so motivated. Isn't that what happens in real life? Think of your current work environment, I'm sure there are some no hopers as well as stars.

Then there's the financial side. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a tight arse but can I justify the return on investment if you like for sending 3 girls to private school for 5 years each? That's a fair amount of coin. Yes the facilities are more likely to be better but at the end of the day what's the value proposition that these schools offer thats over and above the public system. Remember my point about parenting and the school leadership, for me that drives the argument more than anything else.

Funny enough, my missus mostly agrees with these arguments but I think is torn with the notion that sending the girls to a private school is giving them the best head start in life. So we have a dilema which needs to be resolved fairly quickly and have hedged our bets by putting our eldest on the list for some of the private schools mentioned.

I won't go into government funding for schools because I think its irrevelant for the purposes of the current discussion.

There have been some really good posts on this topic so thanks for that and keep them coming.

[Pseudo]

For me, I'm happy to send my kids to a good public school as I think it exposes them to life more than the private system, which to me is a slightly cocooned environment. I want my kids to be able to handle adversity and challenges as well as excel. I want them to know how to handle bullies and to thrive when maybe some of the others around them are not so motivated. Isn't that what happens in real life? Think of your current work environment, I'm sure there are some no hopers as well as stars.

Interesting points.

When I was nearing the end of high school I was of the belief that students from my catholic private school had one of the highest drop-out rates at Uni, and this was allegedly because we were all spoon-fed information rather than encouraged to seek it out ourselves. I cannot vouch for the veracity of that claim; for all I know somebody made it up. As it happens I got through my undergrad degree with no trouble, with (almost) straight distinctions in my chosen major, and class 1 honours. Perhaps I was the exception?

[dedja]

For me, I'm happy to send my kids to a good public school as I think it exposes them to life more than the private system, which to me is a slightly cocooned environment. I want my kids to be able to handle adversity and challenges as well as excel. I want them to know how to handle bullies and to thrive when maybe some of the others around them are not so motivated. Isn't that what happens in real life? Think of your current work environment, I'm sure there are some no hopers as well as stars.

Interesting points.

When I was nearing the end of high school I was of the belief that students from my catholic private school had one of the highest drop-out rates at Uni, and this was allegedly because we were all spoon-fed information rather than encouraged to seek it out ourselves. I cannot vouch for the veracity of that claim; for all I know somebody made it up. As it happens I got through my undergrad degree with no trouble, with (almost) straight distinctions in my chosen major, and class 1 honours. Perhaps I was the exception?

I think there is credence in some situations. Also, I forgot to mention the (unrealistic) expectation that some of these kids have from their parents which can have a detrimental effect as well.

[Jimmy_041]

[Wedgie]

Really good posts Dedja, enjoyed those.
Only other thing I'd throw in is the kids making a choice themselves.
My daughter is mature enough to know the differences between private and public schools and is probably more mature than me (she takes after my mum). She decided the local public school was for her so I certainly wasn't going to stand in her way.
She's the sort of kid that will get As anywhere she goes anyway.
On that point once again I think its horses for courses assome kids wouldn't know at 12 what is best for them but a lot do.

[dedja]

Really good posts Dedja, enjoyed those.
Only other thing I'd throw in is the kids making a choice themselves.
My daughter is mature enough to know the differences between private and public schools and is probably more mature than me (she takes after my mum). She decided the local public school was for her so I certainly wasn't going to stand in her way.
She's the sort of kid that will get As anywhere she goes anyway.
On that point once again I think its horses for courses assome kids wouldn't know at 12 what is best for them but a lot do.

In addition to that there may be different needs for each kid. For example, one might be into music or dance whilst this may not suit the others, although I'd be keen to make sure that all my girls go to the same school ... there was a good reason (other than male opportunism) to have our kids close together and I'd be loathe to split them up.

[Wedgie]

Yep agreed, our kids would have to go to schools further away if they were looking at a sports based, drama based or music based education, luckily for us the nearest high school has the better academic qualifications which is what suited our needs.

[Jimmy_041]

Just checking in to see how the class warfare is going ... play on

So dedj....what about your kids ?

Well I've got 3 girls, turning 12, 10 and 8 this year so we need to decide pronto.

It's interesting seeing the arguments here (before the distraction about funding which is really a completely separate issue).

Firstly let me state that there is no right and wrong answer ... its a completely personal choice and we should respect that.

Both Mrs Dedj and I went to public high schools and both have uni degrees ... I went to Norwood High whilst Mrs went to Campbelltown High (which is now a housing estate).

Also, my sister has been a teacher for 34 years, firstly in the public system, and lately (the last 10 years or so) in the private system (Pembroke).

My personal view is that (as has been mentioned before), there are good and bad schools on both sides, and having been on school committees at Athelstone Schools where the girls are currently, I know the importance of a good Principal and deputies. So the culture and desirability of a particular school is highly dependent on it's leadership.

The other part of the equation is that as parents, my missus and I have a great responsibility to not only show interest in our girl's schooling, but to be active as role models with ethics and values and to also have a major impact to shape them academically. IMO, if you don't have this then it doesn't matter where you send them, they'll be hanging in the breeze and more likely than not adverse outcomes will result.

So with that background, you start to look at the available schools in the area. On the public side, we are zoned to Charles Campbell High which doesn't excite me a great deal. It has a great music and dance program but academically its not up there. Even though I hate the name, I still have very fond memories of Norwood High as it has always competed admirably against the private schools.

On the private side, Iggies is just down the road so you have to look at that, Pembroke and a host of others.

For me, I'm happy to send my kids to a good public school as I think it exposes them to life more than the private system, which to me is a slightly cocooned environment. I want my kids to be able to handle adversity and challenges as well as excel. I want them to know how to handle bullies and to thrive when maybe some of the others around them are not so motivated. Isn't that what happens in real life? Think of your current work environment, I'm sure there are some no hopers as well as stars.

Then there's the financial side. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a tight arse but can I justify the return on investment if you like for sending 3 girls to private school for 5 years each? That's a fair amount of coin. Yes the facilities are more likely to be better but at the end of the day what's the value proposition that these schools offer thats over and above the public system. Remember my point about parenting and the school leadership, for me that drives the argument more than anything else.

Funny enough, my missus mostly agrees with these arguments but I think is torn with the notion that sending the girls to a private school is giving them the best head start in life. So we have a dilema which needs to be resolved fairly quickly and have hedged our bets by putting our eldest on the list for some of the private schools mentioned.

I won't go into government funding for schools because I think its irrevelant for the purposes of the current discussion.

There have been some really good posts on this topic so thanks for that and keep them coming.

Pretty well sums up the considerations that most parents go through

I reckon it really gets down to the schools that are available to you. My brother in law got his kids accepted into Marryatville based upon their academic achievements even though he lives in the St Peters area. What a great school Norwood Tech has turned out to be. He eventually sent the boys to PAC and they enjoyed both and, in his opinion, they both had their plusses and minuses. IIRC, the lads are glad they went to both schools, so I really dont know that there is a definitive answer to the question, other than the schools under consideration - and some other things like rowing and the facilities

[Sploosh]

A couple of arguments

1. I dont expect the Govt to fund it. In fact, I expect each Labor Govt to cut it. They dont totally cut it out - why not?
2. I dont use the public school, health, transport or welfare system - why do you expect me to pay for it?

1. Well, we clearly agree here, although this (1st) point is not the timbre of the argument I sense from some people.

2. That's the current taxation system. I don't use any of the things you cited either, and I also don't use private schools. I don't get to say that I don't wish to pay for private schools. Well, I do get to say it on this forum, I guess. heh heh

I think this 2nd argument is a bit of a straw man. There is no mechanism to dictate that you believe, for instance, in funding de-salination plants, so are happy to pay that portion, but you don't believe in funding the maintainance of jetties, so will not pay that portion.

Yes you do - you use the public school system. *1

And your straw man argument actually backs up my view. There is a tenet in Australia that the Govt should contribute to the basics for all citizens, regardless of situation. If you want more, you pay for it. It is a system that works. *2

I got a return of 9% on my Medicare payments, but I contribute to those who need it more.

I contribute to social security and pensions even though I have my own superannuation and will never use it (hopefully), but I contribute to those who need it.

We cant pick and choose as you say - just because you dont use it, doesn't mean the nation shouldn't contribute to it. *3

The Labor Party is well aware that the non-funding of private services would overload the public system - it is not a fairy tale - it is the truth.

Firstly, the intelligent debate is quite interesting, far better than some website where by now any contentious issue would have all become nothing more than who mis-spelled which word or who is bloody nazi etc etc

*1 - no I don't, I don't have kids. Perhaps that disqualifies me from commenting in this thread, given the title?

*2 - I would suggest that in this case the govt IS providing the basics for everyone, i.e public schools. People wanting something other than the basics should pay for it all themselves, in my opinion. The private schools I have seen are anything but basic. The money appears to be dripping off the eaves.

*3 - yes, I agree with that, naturally. But with regards to education, I would like to see tax money go to public facilities that all can choose to use if they wish, rather than facilities that only students attending the already far wealthier schools can use. I concede that there are bound to be many examples in other areas where exceptions can be found.

[Sploosh]

Read this: http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Transcripts/s1213157.htm

I just read it now, although it's difficult to get the full context of a TV piece from just the transcript.

I must admit that when I think of private schools I'm thinking of Westminster, St. Peters etc rather than small catholic schools. Perhaps that may be a grey area. I'm basing my opinions on the perceived (large) wealth of a school.

I do note that the transcript refers to "a token effort", giving the impression that people understand the 'switch' to public from state would not be a long-lasting one for those families.

[Psyber]

Firstly, the intelligent debate is quite interesting, far better than some website where by now any contentious issue would have all become nothing more than who mis-spelled which word or who is bloody nazi etc etc

*1 - no I don't, I don't have kids. Perhaps that disqualifies me from commenting in this thread, given the title?

*2 - I would suggest that in this case the govt IS providing the basics for everyone, i.e public schools. People wanting something other than the basics should pay for it all themselves, in my opinion. The private schools I have seen are anything but basic. The money appears to be dripping off the eaves.

*3 - yes, I agree with that, naturally. But with regards to education, I would like to see tax money go to public facilities that all can choose to use if they wish, rather than facilities that only students attending the already far wealthier schools can use. I concede that there are bound to be many examples in other areas where exceptions can be found.

When I went to Woodville High the state government did provide adequate schooling there, and I refused to sit for the scholarship to PAC my Labor Party member father wanted me to sit for.
I'm not sure I believe the government is providing an adequate basic school system any more, and I suspect that is why parents are, it seems increasingly, sending kids to other schools.

We all pay taxes to fund these services, and I don't think that if we decide to top them up with our own money we should be denied any share in the benefits of that tax revenue.
That sort of thinking would abolish Medicare because we could all go to the public health system run by the states..
[Which would probably reduce the Federal government's pension liability. ]

[Jimmy_041]

Sorry - I thought I read that you had a child in the public system

I tried to find out today but ran out of my time - I may be wrong, but I believe that the Govt funding is used for the education side of the school.

When it comes to the infrastructure, PAC has a very organised alma mater system where the P&F, Old Scholars Association and Foundation are very active in getting donations from old scholars and their families. Some of the bigger schools like Saints and PAC have some wealthy families that are huge benefactors. Saints will never be poor thanks to a bloke named Da Costa who actually never went to the school but was friends with the Anglican Archbishop in the 1800's. He left the school, amongst other things, Adelaide and Da Costa Arcades, and, I think, actually paid for a lot of the Hackney site. PAC has always been heavily supported by the Gerard family, and more recently the Coopers. IMO, this is the area that differentiates the private schools from public schools with respect to their facilities.

My son rowed and I have friends who's sons have rowed for Adelaide, Norwood Morialta and Unley High Schools. We are talking about a $million investment in sport. We all have to support the sport by donations and fund raising whether it is a private or a public school - just to different degrees. My son has left, but I still donate to them because it is such a good sport for young adults

[zipzap]

Why shouldn't MY tax dollars go to the school that I use, be it Private or Public ?

Because to my mind, in a very simplistic but very real sense, 'Private' by its very definition means independent, by yourself, on your own, DIY, without outside assistance. You have chosen to pay to enter a private system, which is very much your right, but the fact you pay tax makes no difference as far as I'm concerned. Taxes exist to pay for 'Public' services which by its very definition should (at least in theory) mean services funded by government for the good of the whole. You are entitled, as a tax payer, to take up a spot at your local public school. If removing private funding resulted in an influx of students to the public system then good I say. It might open up some eyes (as well as some wallets) to the disadvantage that public schools endure and instead of shutting them down and replacing them with Orwellian 'Super Schools', the governments might actually build something the whole community can be proud of.

I just opened my glossy old scholars magazine / monthly pledge drive (yes, I was unfortunate enough to be privately indoctrinated for a spell) and underneath a call to raise $600k for a new IT wing - which I am happy for them to do, though I wish the cnuts would stop calling me - they are gloating about how they are building a new multi purpose hall and library (replacing existing ones that public schools could only dream of) with $3 million awarded to them by the Feds.

Had a call from a chirpy old scholar a couple of weeks ago suggesting it 'would be really great' if I wouldn't mind giving them $45 a month to fund new scholarships aimed at a broader cross section of the community. She didn't actually say, Jaime-style, 'we're gonna let some poor, ugly people in' but she may as well have. Anyway, as I picked my jaw off the ground being actually impressed by such a seemingly noble sentiment, she then shattered the illusion by adding, 'Oh yeah, and for a new multi-purpose undercover Hockey / tennis stadium'. Hmmm....you would have thought their new Olympic sized swimming pool would have been enough?