Government funding for religion based schools

[stui magpie]

We want to have a multi cultural secular society?

So why should single denomination religious based schools get government funding? if parents want their kids to have religious education, send em to church (of whatever kind) rather than perpetuating this religious divide.

Catholic schools are obviously the main ones, but there's also Islamic schools and I assume others.

Schools should be required to maintain the separation from religions and education and accept all people regardless of their religion. If they don't, they get zero tax money.

I grew up in the bush and I could never understand how a town of 1000 people had 2 primary schools, a Catholic one and a public one. One school would have been more than enough, and the district high school was a public one.

I don't get why public money would be spent to support any religious beliefs.

[Mugwump]

I think it is a pragmatic matter, to be honest. do they work, in the sense that they offer a good education and turn out good citizens ? That is the point of the education system, and if they do this at a lower cost to the taxpayer than state schools I see no reason why a parent and taxpayer - already subsidizing schooling through their fees and that lower overall cost - should be penalized further relative to the users of the state system.

To be honest, I have more of a problem with truly elite schools - the Melbourne Grammars and Ruytons, etc - getting state funding when they are already so heavily resourced. If parents want to see their religious ethics transmitted via the critical experience of education, however, then I think that's a reasonable expectation.

I am not religious myself, but I did most of my secondary education in a bottom-end Catholic school in the Eastern suburbs, which had modest fees which were the best my parents could afford. It was far from perfect, and inconsistent, but it did the job, rather better, I think, than the local state school did. Some competition for the often crappy state sector is desirable, and it is worth the state paying a little to secure its own accountability.

There is clearly a problem with Islamic schools, given the particular sickness prevalent in that religion today, and the apparent link between extremism and separate education. In a sensible society we would deal with that through a closer inspection regime for Islamic schools and certification of governing boards etc. in that regard, providing government funding for reputable education gives a stronger license for intervention, so it is a good thing there, too. The equality lobby would not like it, but I would stop government funding for the equality lobby instead.

I think religion is all rather pie-in-the-sky, but the active Christians I know tend to be kinder, gentler, more open-minded and better citizens than the atheists I know, on average. I don't really understand why we find Christian education and values so objectionable, given that society has become more brutish and violent as Christianity has waned.

[stui magpie]

I just put all religious schools. Catholic, Islamic, whatever, in the same bucket. Fund em all or fund none.

Having single denomination schools only provides competition for those of that denomination. If you're not Catholic, your parents aren't going to send you to a Catholic school, are they?

[Mugwump]

^ they sure used to ! We had all kinds of kids whose parents took a look at the state school and thought the Pope a better bet ! I should add that religion was not very indoctrinating, very much in the background and 95% of the time was spent on academic subjects - as it should be. My experience is old and may not be representative, I don't know, but I suspect it still is.

More broadly, different types of schools provide different attainment benchmarks that help keep the state system honest. Then there is the competition and accountability that comes through parental choice. I'd prefer a way to keep my children out of the grip of the highly-ideological state education system and its teacher unions, for example, and so would most parents who want their children to grow up knowing how to think, not what to think.

[ronrat]

A very attractive young girl who lived in our street in Caulfield North went to a Jewish school for the last 2 years. She wanted to learn as many languages as she could and did Russian and German. I saw her 3 years later visiting her folks and she was wearing a Stewardess outfit for Virgin and she was being being fast tracked into their International program.

All parents should be given a voucher of equal value. If they want to send to a secular or grammar school they use that. But they get no more and that includes tax breaks.

[Skids]

They should start paying Tax!

What a &^*%$^&% joke

[partypie]

People need a choice. I sent my daughter to a catholic primary school because the teaching they offered was better for her. It was found some years later that she is dyslexic. Her ability to cope with literacy demands in the workplace now I credit to her primary education.

[David]

For me it's not about secular vs religious so much as public vs private. Once you accept the existence of private schools, you more or less accept the range of approaches and ideologies that might involve ��on that level, I don't see a fundamental difference between a religious school and, say, a Steiner school.

So, the question for me is whether the government should fund private schools or not. I sympathise with the concept of subsidies for schools that are struggling to meet their own funding targets, but I think there's a reasonable expectation that any government support will come with a bit of oversight and adherence to certain educational standards (which are probably compatible with a religious framework but not with, say, religious teaching that contradicts established scientific views).

On the other hand, rich private schools that can stand on their own feet shouldn't get government funding at all.

[Dave The Man]

They should not do that. They are Private Schools so they should not get Funding.

Only Public Schools should get Funding from the Government

[watt price tully]

[Mugwump]

[sixpoints]

^
Yeah and I freely choose to drive on privately built tolls roads as much as possible. I don't use public roads and therefore I am saving the government money. I believe that driving on the toll roads personally suits me better than public roads - eg no traffic lights, less stress & a quicker trip. I pay taxes for public roads I don't use and then I pay private tolls. I expect the government to compensate me for my tolls as I am saving them money.
Nonsense argument. How many duplicate services could we use in this argument and add "my free choice to go private saves the government money so now I expect my money back". Private lawyers over legal aid, Netflix over the ABC, Buying your own home over Public Housing, attending private Bond Uni over a government university, using a private caravan park over the council run one...
I don't know what's worse, the wasting of our money or the attitude that a free choice to seek an alternative deserves compensation.
Added that the waste of money is exacerbated as those who build the alternative services (in this case, private schools) are religious bodies and they themselves don't pay any tax!

[Wokko]

People should be given education vouchers that they can take to whatever institution they want, the money follows the student, not the ideology.

[sixpoints]

^
So our precious tax revenue should be meted out and then freely given to private institutions. Again if you choose a private alternative over a public one, why do you expect our taxes to pay for that choice? It's just a concocted response to prop up private educational institutions with public money.

[Wokko]

I think that parents should be able to choose the best education model for their children, that a competitive education model benefits everyone, that disadvantaged people should have the chance to give their children better education and that Governments shouldn't be forcing people into State education using the power of the purse.

Tax revenue isn't 'meted out', it's given back to the people who had it taken off them in the first place. If public education is so good then people will happily take their vouchers to public schools.