AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL FOR THE DEFENCE OF GOVERNMENT
SCHOOLS
PRESS RELEASE 419
YOU CAN ONLY
FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME….
March 4
2011
The rhetoric and statistics
put out as gospel truth by sectarian school lobbyists are threadbare as the
result of almost a half-century of taxpayer funding of religious schools. The
Fairfax Press has given the issue some
coverage, but the repetition of muddled information together with breast
beating of the triumphalist are apparent in the article entitled ‘Bias Rules in Attack on Schools’ by
Father Chris Middleton SJ , the principle of St. Aloysius College, Milsons
Point, Sydney. The article reproduced in The
Age Tuesday March 1, 2011 was an edited extract from his comment in a
recent edition of the college’s newsletter. He quotes bald direct grant figures
which fail to take into account the incremental costs incurred by the public
school systems; taxation exemptions, (otherwise known as taxation expenditures)
and capital costs.
He trumpets the fact that ‘non-government schools educate about one in
three of all Australian students, most of whom are
educated in Catholic schools and various low-fee-paying religious and community
schools.’
But the ‘rights of parents’ arguments
have given way to a claim that Catholic schools can ‘make a claim for some
funding on the basis of the common good.’
What exactly does this mean
one wonders?
What does the common good’ really
mean for ‘powerful religious groups who promote their peculiar view of
theocracy? Does it mean that Australia will go down the path of Southern
Ireland where the established religion dominates the education system and calls
the government to pay up for religious abuse of children? And what will it mean
when other religious groups promote their own version of the common good’?
DOGS had hoped that
Australia had learned the lessons of the religious wars of Europe and the
Middle East and enjoyed the fruits of the Enlightenment.
The Middleton article was
published in response to an article by Jewel Topsfield in The Age on February 28 entitled Catholic Schools’$39 Million
Bonanza. This article revealed the ridiculous inequities involved in Gillard’s
continuation of Howard’s version of the ‘Needs’ policy. The internet polling
revealed that 73% considered that the Gillard government should cut funding to
private schools.
But it was the comments to
the article on the internet that indicated that you might fool some people some
of the time, but certainly not all of them. DOGS quote from a few:
‘I suppose that the wealthy will next demand that Average Joe taxpayer
not only pay for their kids to go to an exclusive private school, but that they
also get equal funding for their own private security forces instead of using
the state police.’…Dr Mat
and
‘The Murdoch media will not permit Labor to
reduce funding to the richest schools, just like last time. Those people who
continue to say that Labor should just ‘do it’, are I
suppose the same Green/Anarchist/New Socialist dummies who still cannot count
the numbers in the House, just as they couldn’t count the numbers in the Senate
in the last parliament when they wanted the Greens ETS policy implemented.
No matter how much some of us want this funding obscenity to cease, our
extreme right wing media will never allow it. Of course, this under funded state school/over funded private school policy
will eventually destroy the social harmony in Australia, which is why no other
country has state funding to elite schools, only funding to independent schools
which don’t. School policy will eventually destroy the social harmony in
Australia, which is why no other country has state funding to elite schools….Paul
and
‘The problem here is for the government to show “political courage”-
forget it unless the focus groups say it might be a good idea. As for Garrett,
well the next time he does something useful will be the first time.’…John in
Vermont
and
‘Of course it’s a funding obscenity but it’s also nothing unusual in
Australia. I have spoken to Labor pollies who admit
that they think the private health insurance subsidy is terrible public policy
as well. Problem is that a large enough percentage of the voting population has
become accustomed to and reliant upon this form of middle-class welfare. Hard to shake households off the public teat. Apparently,
baby bonuses, non-means tested home buyers grants, private school and private
health insurance subsidies are ácceptable’welfare
schemes.’…RikkiA
and
The government can get it right with government schools, not just McRobs and Melbourne High, Balwyn, Glen Waverley, Mount
Waverley and McKinnon are superior to many ‘private’ schools on performance
academically despite not having the resources to compete.
Then you have other government schools, which for the sake of the good
people who go there I won’t mention, who are struggling for basic needs like
warm showers for sports, adequate computing technology and well, lets face, it classroom fit for use and teachers.
Meanwhile one needs only walk through the curated lawns of Scotch, the
Yarra Boat sheds by the river and the luxury mini buses of the cricket teams of
the privileged few to know the disparity of resources.
One is struggling to exist, the other is
struggling for a third coaster for the choir.
Of course the government is too gutless to change it because the wealthy
have a louder voice than the poor.’… Dan Warna.
and finally, looking forward
perhaps to the Father Middleton article,
Well argued and pretty
hard to fault on both ethical and moral grounds. No doubt that will not prevent
the wealthy, with their snouts well and truly plunged into the trough, from
coming up with some pretty impressive, but vacuous and empty of content,
arguments as to why the vast differential in overall funding to wealthy schools
should be continued into the foreseeable future. Those arguments are simply
code for re-introducing a rigid class system into Australia… Iesm
Listen to the DOGS program
3CR, 855 on
the A.M. dial
12 Noon
Saturdays