The Case for Private School Subsidy

Liz Gordon describes private school subsidies, shamefully reduced by the government, as funding the privileged.

She makes the following points, which I deal with one at a time:

• Yes private school parents save taxpayer funds, but they do this by choice, so stuff them

From a moral point of view this is wrong. If parents are willing to take a load of the system, then the government should refund at least part of this cost, from a moral obligation point of view.

From an economics point of view this is also wrong. Giving a $7000 subsidy to save $8000 makes economic sense for any government [these numbers are made up]. In fact, put this way, the government should try to get all children into private school, and cut taxes by $1000 per child.

From an access / fairness point of view it is also wrong. As private schools are becoming unaffordable, only the rich can gain access to the best schools in the country. A subsidy would help redress the balance.

• Private school parents have no disability, so shouldn't be funded. Gordon herself was funded as a child, but her parents were nutters so that's ok

It depends on your definition of disability. Many children have learning problems. Money is no guarantee of a child's ability. I have seen no study which shows that rich people are clever and poor people are stupid. Many people with children in private schools end up there because it is the only place their children can get the help they need, despite the financial hardship this causes.

• There are no subsidies to send 'needy' children to private schools

This is false. Many private schools offer scholarships and bursaries aimed at poor people's children.

• Some state schools have boarding options, so no excuse just because you live in the sticks

I didn't know that. I'm sure it will help in a few cases and I'm please to hear about state schools offering this.

• Private schools are not better. If they get better results it is just because their children are privileged

That depends on the school. In my experience, private schools which are not in the 'very good' category are not popular, and suffer a declining role. Fee-paying parents can be pretty demanding, a bit like fee-paying university students, actually.

From an economic point of view it is clear that private schools must offer something. Who would pay $10k a year to send a child there if there were no benefit?

• People seek out private schools because they seek wealth, power and exclusivity

I'm sure some do. I'm not sure what the point is here. Are we trying to keep people poor, week and common?

• Yes private school parents save taxpayer funds, but they do this by choice, so stuff them

(this point repeated for some reason, I dealt with it above)

• We should instead try to educate the disabled ,refugees, etc.

I think we already do that. Or is Liz Gordon suggesting we send them to private schools?

I would also make the point that we need special help for children at both ends of the scale. Very clever children often have problems which prevent them from learning to their ability. Economically speaking these children give us the best bang for our buck, as they may be the next Angus Tait or Theresa Gattung, if only they learn to read and write.

 

Liz Gordon would be on much firmer ground if she developed her theme around educating the disabled and needy. It is a shame that only 4% of children attend a private school (her figures, which I haven't checked). The number should be much higher, and we need a much more diverse school sector so parents get a lot more choice.

Every child is different and one state-provided size does not fit all. The crazy thing about Liz's article is that she says:

[about her private school attendance instead of going off to a children's home] It was, I am sure, a life-changing decision for us

Good on you Liz, lucky you. Now how about giving a few more people a chance. Let's lift the private school subsidy to 100% of state sector cost.