I AM state school and I'm proud.
Sure, I respect Ballarat's fine private schools and admire the sacrifices some families make to allow their children to attend such esteemed institutions. But, frankly, I have seen little to suggest I would have been that much better off if my parents had spent thousands of dollars to send me to a non-government school. Maybe I would have been better at rowing if I went to St Pat's, or choir if I went to Grammar. But, for a great many students, school is just school.
Now I mightn't have the scoop on this, but a lot of families are finding it harder to make ends meet. Families are having to make tough decisions on what constitutes a necessity and what's actually a luxury.
I have already heard a few mums fretting about the financial crisis and stressing about how they will be able to afford the private school fees.
But here's the thing: they don't actually have to. Because, as unpopular as it might sound, private school is actually not a necessity. It is a luxury.
I don't know where this modern obsession with sending kids to private school came from. If you are rich enough, why not? But I know of a number of cases where parents from my generation who went to perfectly good state schools feel obliged to send their children to this or that private college. Parents willing to put themselves into financial hardship for the sake of not sending their children to a school that presumably was good enough for them.
"Times have changed," they might say. But have they really?
Surely it's better for children to go to a perfectly good school that does not cost a fortune, and then come home to family less stressed about where the money will come from?
All this is academic (pardon the pun) of course. Ultimately parents who want to make the sacrifice will, and I admire them.
What irritates me is that we are still being asked to pay some of our tax by the Federal Government to help other people's kids go to private school ($28 billion over the next four years). Why should we?
Now, I fully support the dual education system: government and non-government. The government school system is paid for by the government and, I thought, the non-government schools weren't _ that's why they are called "non"-government schools.
There are two reasons often given for government funding private schools.
The first is that parents who send their children to public schools are assisted by government funding, so those who send them to private schools should be compensated as well. But it is an invalid argument. Government is not supposed to be about charity for the rich. Private schooling is a choice not to send children to a public school _ a choice not to have the government pay for schooling presumably because the parents can afford something better.
The second is that some private schools will be forced to close down if they don't get the direct and indirect funding from government. This argument, often from Liberal Party supporters, flies in the face of the whole principle of business (that's what private schools are) being separate from government. It is against the whole point behind the Liberal Party.
But we don't have a Liberal government in power federally now anyway, so that isn't an issue either. And the Rudd Government is in a position where, if it chooses, it can get rid of this ridiculous subsidy for the rich or rich-wannabes. If it has the guts.
And then the money can be spent on new public schools or making our existing state schools better.
You know I'm right about this.
Email a friend