Aussies and NZers: Jabs, Jobs and (grounded) Jets

[Free Northman Reborn]

So what is the proposed way in which religious schools should teach their religious principles to students then?

Can they still teach that X or Y is sinful according to their faith, even if students of X or Y persuasion attend the school? Or is even conveying those teachings then deemed to be discriminatory?

I can’t imagine this is a better situation for the students who feel victimised by the religion in question - i.e. being allowed to attend the school but being taught that a major part of their identity is sinful.

[Paxter]

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So what is the proposed way in which religious schools should teach their religious principles to students then?

Can they still teach that X or Y is sinful according to their faith, even if students of X or Y persuasion attend the school? Or is even conveying those teachings then deemed to be discriminatory?

I can’t imagine this is a better situation for the students who feel victimised by the religion in question - i.e. being allowed to attend the school but being taught that a major part of their identity is sinful.

What you are describing is the current state of affairs - schools are allowed to do the above.

I just found it hilarious that ScoMo's own government ended up passing a law in the lower house that would possibly change that!

I don't have an answer to the substantive part of your question as I know we are fundamentally misaligned on this topic. For example, I don't think Christian schools should be operating in Australia with federal government funding, much less teaching Christian doctrine to gay and trans kids. You don't share that view (I don't think).

[Free Northman Reborn]

28 minutes ago, Paxter said:

What you are describing is the current state of affairs - schools are allowed to do the above.

I just found it hilarious that ScoMo's own government ended up passing a law in the lower house that would possibly change that!

I don't have an answer to the substantive part of your question as I know we are fundamentally misaligned on this topic. For example, I don't think Christian schools should be operating in Australia with federal government funding, much less teaching Christian doctrine to gay and trans kids. You don't share that view (I don't think).

Well, I guess I would say that Christian parents pay tax just like other parents. And then pay private school fees on top of that in order to send their kids to Christian schools, right? So it sounds only fair that they get at least the same tax funded educational support as non-Christian tax paying families.

[Paxter]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, I guess I would say that Christian parents pay tax just like other parents. And then pay private school fees on top of that in order to send their kids to Christian schools, right? So it sounds only fair that they get at least the same tax funded educational support as non-Christian tax paying families.

Very few OECD countries have the above model - and for good reason. It creates an unbalanced system in which the private system enjoys far more funding per student (and therefore higher quality education) once fees are taken into account. That might be “fair” based on parents’ income, but it’s not at all fair for Australian kids.

ETA: The easier answer here is to read the Gonski research and proposals. Not saying you have to agree with those - it just summarizes my position.

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 minutes ago, Paxter said:

Very few OECD countries have the above model - and for good reason. It creates an unbalanced system in which the private system enjoys far more funding per student (and therefore higher quality education) once fees are taken into account. That might be “fair” based on parents’ income, but it’s not at all fair for Australian kids.

 

Doesn’t healthcare work on that basis as well? Those with private Health cover still get full access to tax funded medicare benefits in Australia, right?

Seems like a fair system to me.

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, Paxter said:

What you are describing is the current state of affairs - schools are allowed to do the above.

I just found it hilarious that ScoMo's own government ended up passing a law in the lower house that would possibly change that!

I don't have an answer to the substantive part of your question as I know we are fundamentally misaligned on this topic. For example, I don't think Christian schools should be operating in Australia with federal government funding, much less teaching Christian doctrine to gay and trans kids. You don't share that view (I don't think).

We have a similar issue here in Ontario in that Catholic school boards are publicly funded by as such have to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It causes no end of problems as parents then realize what this means in that any discrimination is illegal, no matter what the Catholic church says.

[Paxter]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Doesn’t healthcare work on that basis as well? Those with private Health cover still get full access to tax funded medicare benefits in Australia, right?

Seems like a fair system to me.

Not a good analogy I'm afraid, and here's why. 

The private health care system is a top-up that the government incentivises via tax/pricing laws to provide optional extras such as treatment as a private patient in hospitals and physio and optical care. It takes the pressure off the public purse (cf. private schools, below) while providing some consumer choice. 

The private school system is not a top-up/optional extra: it provides baseline education for around half of high-school aged children in Australia. It doesn't take as much pressure off the public purse, as the feds are the main funder of private schools (fees are in addition to federal funding). The rest of high-school aged children are provided with baseline education by a chronically underfunded public school system. This is unfair. Gonski (a mostly failed reform) was an attempt to redress this issue. 

ETA: The private health analogy would work if private school kids were only receiving, say, extra out-of-school tuition paid by parents, in addition to their baseline public school education. But, of course, that's not how our system is. 

[Paxter]

2 hours ago, maarsen said:

We have a similar issue here in Ontario in that Catholic school boards are publicly funded by as such have to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It causes no end of problems as parents then realize what this means in that any discrimination is illegal, no matter what the Catholic church says.

Some green shoots though on that front!

[The Anti-Targ]

I was always of the understanding that you can believe whatever you like, but if acting on said belief contravenes an anti-discriminatory law then you will face consequences. You can be racist AF, but if you refuse to serve a person who has a certain skin colour you will be prosecuted and you won't be able to use "but I believe X coloured people are sub-human and therefore not entitled to my services" as a defence.

One might want to have a think about whether tax-money should go to any school that would teach such a concept. And I don't see much difference when it comes to teaching people to hate LGBTQ people by saying their mere existence is sinful.

[Free Northman Reborn]

5 hours ago, Paxter said:

Not a good analogy I'm afraid, and here's why. 

The private health care system is a top-up that the government incentivises via tax/pricing laws to provide optional extras such as treatment as a private patient in hospitals and physio and optical care. It takes the pressure off the public purse (cf. private schools, below) while providing some consumer choice. 

The private school system is not a top-up/optional extra: it provides baseline education for around half of high-school aged children in Australia. It doesn't take as much pressure off the public purse, as the feds are the main funder of private schools (fees are in addition to federal funding). The rest of high-school aged children are provided with baseline education by a chronically underfunded public school system. This is unfair. Gonski (a mostly failed reform) was an attempt to redress this issue. 

ETA: The private health analogy would work if private school kids were only receiving, say, extra out-of-school tuition paid by parents, in addition to their baseline public school education. But, of course, that's not how our system is. 

So I did some quick google based “research”- most of it on sites arguing for the elimination of government funding for private schools in Australia.

The argument repeatedly made was that as of 2020, private schools received more total annual funding (~$19,000 per student) than public schools (~$17,000 per student).

At face value that seems obviously unfair. Until you realise that this is not comparing the government funding received by each. Because private schools only received about $10,000 per student in government funding. The remainder came from parents fees.

So what this means is that students in private schools are only costing the tax payer $10k dollars a year, compared to $17k per student in public schools. If you abolished private schools, government (the tax payer), will have to fork up an extra $7k per year to absorb all the former private students into a universal public school system. So outcomes for everyone would be worse.

That is fairly self evident.

So it is absolutely true that government gets more bang for its buck from every tax dollar spent on supporting private schools. With parents of private students effectively sacrificing their own after tax income to fill in this gap. Ultimately they are already cross subsidizing kids in public schools, by getting less for the tax dollars they have spent.

[Paxter]

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So I did some quick google based “research”- most of it on sites arguing for the elimination of government funding for private schools in Australia.

The argument repeatedly made was that as of 2020, private schools received more total annual funding (~$19,000 per student) than public schools (~$17,000 per student).

At face value that seems obviously unfair. Until you realise that this is not comparing the government funding received by each. Because private schools only received about $10,000 per student in government funding. The remainder came from parents fees.

So what this means is that students in private schools are only costing the tax payer $10k dollars a year, compared to $17k per student in public schools. If you abolished private schools, government (the tax payer), will have to fork up an extra $7k per year to absorb all the former private students into a universal public school system. So outcomes for everyone would be worse.

That is fairly self evident.

So it is absolutely true that government gets more bang for its buck from every tax dollar spent on supporting private schools. With parents of private students effectively sacrificing their own after tax income to fill in this gap. Ultimately they are already cross subsidizing kids in public schools, by getting less for the tax dollars they have spent.

Yeah agree with the above analysis - the  states are obviously paying into the public system, which costs the taxpayer, but not into the privates. The privates are being partially funded by fees instead. But that overall system isn’t producing fair outcomes for students, who don’t get to choose which school they go to. This has led to a system based on privilege rather than needs.

Your argument is focused on costs - which is fair. But you need to also consider what the system is producing in terms of educational outcomes.

ETA: I think most people/voters probably agree with you, otherwise we wouldn’t have the system we have. I just don’t think the Gonski review got it wrong and I think there is an imbalance that needs to be redressed. Probably not by defunding the entire system - that is an extreme view I’ll admit, though it aligns with most of our peer countries.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Paxter said:

Yeah agree with the above analysis - the  states are obviously paying into the public system, which costs the taxpayer, but not into the privates. The privates are being partially funded by fees instead. But that overall system isn’t producing fair outcomes for students. - who don’t get to choose which school they go to. This has led to a system based on privilege rather than needs.

Your argument is focused on costs - which is fair. But you need to also consider what the system is producing in terms of educational outcomes.

That’s a fundamental philosophical difference, as you rightly mentioned at the outset of this discussion.

I once read an Australian based article about how many immigrant parents - particularly from Asia - arrive with very little in terms of material wealth, but nevertheless choose to have both parents work longer hours, sometimes getting jobs on the side and sacrificing short term quality of life, in order to send their kids to private schools, while many locals are content to send their kids to public schools while enjoying a more comfortable life from a material perspective.

In the end, the kids of those immigrants go to university and become the doctors, engineers and CEO’s of tomorrow, while the kids of the locals then become tradies and other blue collar type workers.

Obviously a rather broad generalisation, and it was written by a child of such immigrants who looked back on her lived experience on the path to success as a professional.

And to that I say, all credit to those parents who were willing to make those sacrifices. Maybe a bit of the Calvinist upbringing in me, but that is exactly what SHOULD be rewarded, in my world view.

[karaddin]

All of which is a complete diversion from whether religious beliefs which are discriminatory against certain groups of people should be allowed to be taught within a school that receives any government funding. If you want to teach that shit, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and pay for the entirety of your childs education but you shouldn't get to siphon public funds to teach discrimination.

Or as Pax pointed out, treat it like we do private health insurance and send your kid to supplemental church classes outside of regular school - that way you still get access to the same public education funding as everyone else, and you get to teach the religious lessons you want.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

All of which is a complete diversion from whether religious beliefs which are discriminatory against certain groups of people should be allowed to be taught within a school that receives any government funding. If you want to teach that shit, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and pay for the entirety of your childs education but you shouldn't get to siphon public funds to teach discrimination.

Or as Pax pointed out, treat it like we do private health insurance and send your kid to supplemental church classes outside of regular school - that way you still get access to the same public education funding as everyone else, and you get to teach the religious lessons you want.

Tail wagging the dog here, I would say. Australia is maybe 50% religious (including Christians, Muslims and other religions), but less than 10% LGBTQI.

Christians should get what they pay for with their tax dollars, and that includes education for their kids.

[maarsen]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Tail wagging the dog here, I would say. Australia is maybe 50% religious (including Christians, Muslims and other religions), but less than 10% LGBTQI.

Christians should get what they pay for with their tax dollars, and that includes education for their kids.

If you want a good education for your kids,taking away critical thinking skills by sending them to a religious school seems counterproductive. Paying extra is sending good money after bad.

[Paxter]

12 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Tail wagging the dog here, I would say. Australia is maybe 50% religious (including Christians, Muslims and other religions), but less than 10% LGBTQI.

Christians should get what they pay for with their tax dollars, and that includes education for their kids.

I enjoy wagging that dog! 

Anyway the bill is dead for now. Gay and trans students can still be discriminated against and FNR can rest easy tonight. Let’s see what everyone’s favourite Pentecostal PM comes up with next time, provided he lasts.

ETA: Someone else's turn to start a new thread!

[The Anti-Targ]

Seems a mite unfair to be implying all Christians are hateful discriminators. I hear some churches do same sex wedding services, seems unlikely they would support ongoing discrimination against at least the LGB community. Trans might be a different kettle of fish, seems like that's harder for people to get their heads around.

Be nice if everyone started from the fact that everyone is human and deserving of respect, until anti-social behaviour that requires the intervention of law enforcement suggests otherwise.

[Paxter]

ETA: Bleh nvm. Thought better of it.

[Derfel Cadarn]

New Zealand playing Barry Manilo to get rid of protesters. James Blunt’s respinse

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

New Zealand playing Barry Manilo to get rid of protesters. James Blunt’s respinse

 

To be honest, I think the Speaker (Trevor Mallard) is making a mistake here. You either ignore the muppets altogether, or you wheel out the tear-gas and forcibly disperse them. This sort of half-measure just looks petty, and emboldens the muppets.

Though New Zealand is currently being buffeted by the remnants of Cyclone Dovi - let's say that the weather-gods aren't exactly smiling on the anti-vaxxers.