Beware class warriors in our schools

It is leftist propaganda to suggest there is a campaign by the rich and privileged to harm government schools.

Shane Maloney's spray of prejudice against private schools ("An invitation to Scotch College", last Monday) would scarcely be worth commenting on were it not for the fact that it exemplifies much that is wrong with the debate about school funding.

There is a debate worth having, and research worth doing, about the reasons that parents are voting with their feet in favour of private schools. But unfortunately, this debate is rarely joined, because many of the self-styled defenders of government schools share with Shane Maloney a view of the world in which the rich and privileged are conducting an aggressive (and successful) campaign against "public" education, which is starved of money and hence unable to compete.

This is a fantasy whose components - a powerful class reproducing itself through education, and a political party (the Liberals, generally) implementing policies to disempower the less privileged - are recognisable as a relatively unsophisticated version of neo-Marxist ideology.

The sad thing is that this perspective has no capacity to explain what is happening in Australian education, and the nature of educational policy. The pre-occupation of its proponents with systems of ownership ("public" versus "private") prevents them from understanding that parents are interested in the capacity of schools to meet the needs of their children, and that it is school performance that matters.

In this context, arguments about "systems", and particularly the need to support "public" education as such - as though there were something intrinsically good about government-run institutions - leaves large numbers of parents cold.

Parents want to know that their children will be safe (hence the high priority given to "discipline", which equals "order" in the classroom and the playground), that they will read and write well, that they will learn the knowledge and skills they need in later life, and that schools will reinforce and teach values such as honesty, striving for excellence and working together.

These goals can be achieved just as well in government schools as they can in private schools.

The best defenders of public schools are the many principals and teachers who work effectively to meet the needs of their students, make schooling fascinating, achieve the outcomes students and their parents seek, and accept accountability. Their task is made more difficult by ideological attention-seekers on a frolic of their own.

It should not be forgotten that government schools are much less of a drain on the family budget than independent schools. But clearly novelist Maloney and the Australian Education Union would like to see the financial burden of choosing a non-government school made heavier still.

Making fees at non-government schools higher still is hardly a policy with any educational justification. Would it make the education in government schools any better? Clearly the answer is "no". Furthermore, it would discourage parents from investing in schooling at the levels they do at present - which would not be in the public interest.

Surely a constructive debate must focus on educational outcomes - and on the basis of evidence, not the kind of prejudiced assertions Maloney proffered in his address to startled Scotch College students.

And let it be said quite plainly: there is no "relentless propaganda campaign" against government schooling by "the private-school lobby". A class warrior such as Maloney, however, is not a lone voice in a persistent ideological campaign against independent schools that is once again aimed at the High Court of Australia.

It may be uncomfortable for those on the ideological left to acknowledge the fact, but the funding system established by the Howard Government for non-government schools is needs-based, with the highest levels of support per student going to the schools attracting the poorest families, and the lowest to schools drawing students from the most well-to-do families.

One of the system's greatest virtues is that it is objective, based on census data about income levels in the districts from which students are drawn, and not - thank God - on the political and ideological prejudices of people such as Shane Maloney.

The main beneficiaries of this system have been parents and students at Aboriginal community schools, and parents and students in lower-income suburbs who have seen educational choice come within their reach. Since 1997, 298 new schools have come into existence, and they have an average fee of $1895 a year.

There is no reason why the flow of lower-income families from government schools need continue. But reversing the flow will surely require persuading parents that the outcomes for their children in government schools can be shown to be equal to those they might achieve elsewhere.

David Kemp is a former federal minister for education and a Scotch College old boy.

I have never even heard or seen an indoctrination camp school and I am a teacher. The only things I try to indoctrinate my students on are things like reading, writing, being honest, respecting parents, working hard, etc.

I think the indoctrination idea must be something that the anti-education liberals cooked up.

any public school that stesses the importance of homosexual tolerance, condom education, diversity training, et al, are indoctrination camps... any public school that has muslim education days, but doesn't do the same for christians, is an indoctrination camp...
any public school that knowingly hires openly gay teachers is an indoctrination camp...

Sorry, never have seen any of those in 9 years nor even heard of them. There may be a few in some high schools, I guess, but none around me. Again, I often wonder where some of these guys get some of these ideas. One thing that I do know and that I and other teachers stress is having strong families, being involved with one's children (especially dads), and being strong parents can only help children. My parents had a much stronger influence over me than any other factor because they were involved and because they taught me good values like being honest, respecting others, having strong families, etc. I try to teach such values to my students. My dad and mom stressed the importance of education. We did sports, church activities, etc. but school came first AND both of them helped us.

The only time I remember coming into conflict with a teacher is one who supported Walter Mondale. I was encouraged by OTHER TEACHERS to write one to the editor praising Ronald Reagan's accomplishments.

One definite thing I would agree with is that there should not really be any discussion of gay issues in public k-12 schools, especially k-6.

It's one thing to complain and rant all day (or to listen to all the propaganda). It's another to say, "how can I help?" The right attitude and time don't don't take tax dollars.

I could make my reply longer, but won't at this time.

I went to a Catholic Prep School as the lone Calvinist, Religon courses were optional for me, but I attended out of respect and curiosity, I learned alot.

The big but was,there was a lot of political indocrination, rat oriented. I am not Irish, I hated the original JFK, and was Youth For Goldwater. Recieved an excellant Classical Education and have never visited the place since, this was the late 50's and early 60's.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.