diddly-squat said:

captain_spalding said:

diddly-squat said:

that’s not really what I meant,

my point is that funding private education goes some way to lessening the burden on the public system (it’s similar to healthcare). Removing incentives that enable people to access private education will very likely result in people having to make an economic decision that increases load in the public system.

So the question needs to be, what is the minimum about of funding for private schools that maximises funding per student in the public system.

It’s the same with healthcare, the same with higher education…

I see now. You’re right, it’s not an either/or situation. Certainly not in the short term.

On the face of it, zero funding for ‘private’ means max funding for ‘public’ students.

But, this can’t be done overnight. A flood of students from ‘private’ to ‘public’ can’t be contemplated.

It can be done gradually, winding back the funding to ‘private’, and spending at least some of that money on ‘public’, gradually making ‘public’ a more attractive choice.

And, that’s what the news item suggested. ‘Wind back’ the funding to ‘private’. They can still operate, but perhaps in not such ‘comfortable’ style. They may have to reconsider priorities, and re-think some capital expenditure plans.

Perhaps, eventually, ‘public’ schools might offer education and facilities about equal with the ‘diminished private’, and then the choice of school might become more about preferred values and philosophies.

Exactly.. max funding into the public system may not necessarily end up being the maximum funding per public school student. That’s the circle the system needs to square.

When was the last time the public school system was adequately funded? When was the last time the public school system put their hand up and said “That’s too much. Here ya go, have some of it back”. (Same with the public hospital system)

These public systems will never be “adequately funded” because they will always spend the lot.