Unfair schooling

Wealthy wicked spending on private schooling

David Gonski Chancellor of UNSW, and chairman and member of numerous boards, is chairing a panel established by the Gillard government to Review the Funding of Schooling. He has been reported as being concerned about a growing shift to private schools. ‘‘We need to continue to build a strong public education system and investigate and understand the causes and effects of the enrolment shift from government schools to non-government schools’’…’’The panel believes that the focus on equity should be ensuring that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possession.’’

The recurring cost to taxpayers in 2007-8 of supporting a child at a government school was around 90 per cent more than supporting a child at a private school, according to Productivity Commission figures recently reported by the Australian Parents Council. Why then should anyone be concerned about a drift to private schools. The parents pay a lot for the privilege so they must think their children get a better education. If they are right we benefit as a society in having better educated people as well as paying less tax. But then that is not the goal is it? We apparently have to ensure that wealth isn’t used wickedly to over educate the children of the wealthy. How in the world are we to do this – to ensure as Gonski says that educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth? He doesn’t say. Does he mean what he says? Does he know what he means? Who knows?

People who are wealthy will usually want to give their pampered offspring educational advantages. This is probably better for society than if they splurged on extravagant pleasure boats and probably worse than if they invested in the stock market, where their money might be used to build additional wealth. But better or worse, it is up to them. They have earned it; they choose where to spend it. Of course, we could adopt a communist system, in which case the children of the upper echelon party members would get the educational plums.

There is no conceivable amount of money that could be spent on government schools that could negate the advantage that the son or daughter of Mr and Mrs Filthy Rich could gain by enlisting the services of an excellent Swiss private tutor. Why Swiss? Why not? In other words, pound for pound, private education will always top public education because that is the very purpose of private education.

Of course, by a long chalk, private schools are not the preserve of the rich alone. When I lived in Melbourne, decades ago, I had two daughters at private school. My salary was okay so I could afford it; though rich I wasn’t. Neighbours of ours had three young daughters at the same private school. He was a police sergeant. He and his wife used to do letter box drops to make ends meet. That kind of thing has to be stopped. Children of parents like these may gain an unfair advantage.

I am not as clever as Gonski, I am fairly sure of that (well not absolutely sure) but I have outgrown childish views about equitable outcomes. When I was on the left as a callow younger person I might well have said that educational outcomes should not depend upon wealth. It was in fact saying such things that eventually led me to reflect that I was talking nonsense and had to stop. I became a conservative simply to stop talking nonsense. Look at Obama’s let clean waters flow throughout the developing world or Hawke’s no child will live in poverty. Conservatives don’t spout this kind of twaddle.

Sometimes I think many wealthy business people must be apolitical to start with as they concentrate on material success. Then, with success, comes the need to atone for it by developing a heightened social conscience better suited to a youthful, hopefully, passing phase. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are prominent examples. In fact, they suffer from what might be called late onset arrested political development. They should be kept right away from political/social inquiries where they can do no harm.

The Funding Review is still on foot. Submissions are not due until end March on an issues paper the panel has produced. Consistent with its terms of reference, the principal aim of the Review should be to set out how to make the best use of taxpayers’ funds in educating children. One obvious consideration is that taxpayers get more bang for their buck through private school funding than public school funding. Irrelevant left-wing twaddle about wealth and equitable educational outcomes will hopefully not infect the panel’s final report, anticipated in the second half of this year. It will be best to stay alert. The signs are not promising.