School Contributions in Public Schools

cheaptech20 on 27/02/2021 - 14:32
Last edited 27/02/2021 - 14:40 by 1 other user

NSW Government policy is that all school contributions are voluntary, and it's the Principals responsibility that parents know this fact.

I am OK with the ordinary subject fees. However, I have noticed more recently, this is deliberately hidden and more odd line items are being introduced like "wellbeing contribution". In addition, parents are chased for these contributions as if they were not paying a bill.

But I've been paying everything to avoid being chased, but curious what do you all do? And comment on whether this relates to your level of income.

Poll Options

  • 223
    Pay 100% of contributions
  • 6
    Pay partial contributions
  • 63
    Don't pay any contributions
Education & Work

Comments

  • holdenmg on 27/02/2021 - 14:42
    +1

    So, is a wellbeing contribution an excursion?

    • EightImmortals on 27/02/2021 - 15:40
      +13

      Probably a mask and bottle of disinfectant.

        • harrywwc on 01/03/2021 - 06:56
          +34

          I suspect you were being disingenuous in your reply, however, as a teacher in a former life…

          School is not just "9 to 3". Indeed, if there is not some sort of 'extra-curricular' activity (including "parent / teacher nights"), then there is the preparation beforehand and the assessment afterwards that can go into the wee hours of the day.

          And we won't mention all the additional crap 'good stuff'(tm) that gets added to the curriculum every couple of years. Not to mention the changes to the curriculum by the Board of Studies (oops, sorry…) "The Authority" often requiring a re-write of lesson material - usually at the last minute before term starts. There was one re-jig of the curriculum that we were assured early January would not be implemented until the end of the year… cool, plenty of time to read, digest and make appropriate changes through the year - e.g. teach material to the current, then after hours make changes for the coming.

          The week before term starts "new curriculum starts this week - teach it, or else!"

          So yeah, an extra coffee could help.

          • Caped Baldy on 01/03/2021 - 15:35
            +12

            @harrywwc: Teachers are unsung heroes. I struggle to think how parents expect teachers to raise their kids for them.

            • dogboy on 01/03/2021 - 18:02
              +2

              @OzzyOzbourne: I agree. Not to mention that you can change schools and keep your long service leave accruel. I have worked at schools and it is nothing like the real world where deadlines can have you working all nighters and weekends (often quite regularly) with no compensation other than to keep your job.

              • p1 ama on 01/03/2021 - 23:45
                +2

                @dogboy:

                Not to mention that you can change schools and keep your long service leave accruel.

                You do realise that when changing between (public) schools, you're still employed by the same employer, right?

                If you worked for Target in Melbourne and moved to Target in Sydney, it's exactly the same deal.

                • dogboy on 02/03/2021 - 14:46

                  @p1 ama: I meant for private schools as well. It is all under education qld.

                  • teacherer on 10/03/2021 - 15:35

                    @dogboy: You most certainly can't swap between private and public and keep your LSL.
                    Where have you picked up that idea?

            • p1 ama on 01/03/2021 - 23:43
              +24

              @OzzyOzbourne: Teaching is hard work. Came from the corporate world into teaching, as it was my childhood dream. Now back in corporate. That should say enough, right? If you compare teaching with other professions which require similar qualifications (basically a Bachelor's degree + professional Master's degree), it doesn't stack up as well.

              It's not just about the pay and hours (which is what everyone seems obsessed with and misses the point), it's that it's extremely inflexible work. With an office job, if I have a headache in the morning, that's fine, I can call in and let everyone know I'll be a bit late. No problem, I'll just stay back later that night to finish things off. Stuck on a problem and need some time to think things through? Easy, just take a stroll and get a coffee and I can have a break any time I want. Lost my voice or have a sore throat? Not a problem, I can just sit and work at my computer in silence.

              That's not the case in teaching and that's what makes it a very difficult and challenging profession. Not to mention that it's a profession that's full of extremely ideological people, bureaucrats who can't teach but want to tell everyone what to do, and just a lot of closed-minded people who have a very inflexible view of their work and how to approach things and can't seem to get with the times.

              FWIW, I think you're being pretty loose with the facts. Although it is true that teaching is a highly unionised profession (for better and for worse), the average yearly pay growth (from memory) is around the median, not significantly higher than you are suggesting. The reason why teachers need to be unionised (and have to strike…etc.) is that it's basically a monopsony with hiring as the state government is (practically) the only employer for teachers. Unlike in corporate (or other fields), you can negotiate your salary by switching employers, looking for new opportunities…etc. That's very difficult to do in teaching. Again, I think what you're doing is that you're taking something with a grain of truth and blowing that up into something that's largely fiction.

              At the end of the day, the litmus test is that most of the people who say that teaching is a wonderful and piss easy profession aren't teachers themselves. If you're singing the praises of teaching as a bludge profession, then become a teacher and live a good life.

            • Domingo on 02/03/2021 - 09:05
              +4

              @OzzyOzbourne: You do realise teachers work outside the hours of 9-3 and on curriculum days right?

              It's not like they just walk into a classroom with lessons planned for them, materials ready, rooms set up, tidied up and decorated. The curriculum also changes year on year, so it isn't just recycling last year's materials.

              On top of the preparation work, there is also a fairly strong emotional component to it, especially in primary schools - if you have a class of 20-30 young kids, there are going to be some that don't know how to behave or have mental health challenges and the teachers are responsible for looking after them for a fair portion of the day. Parents have expectations around how things are done and these can be unreasonable. Like any other workplace, there are politics, there are decisions made that make life easier for some and harder for others and there are a lot of things that happen in the background that you won't have much visibility of unless you're involved.

            • adb1984 on 02/03/2021 - 12:47

              @OzzyOzbourne: Who are these teachers working 9 till 3?

              Sounds awesome.

        • participant123xyz on 02/03/2021 - 10:26
          +1

          I always feel that when people say this, the perfect rebuttal, is that if teaching is so easy, then feel free to become a teacher and live the easy life.

    • cheaptech20 on 01/03/2021 - 19:50

      Seminars for anxiety and such I believe

    • capslock janitor on 03/03/2021 - 11:36

      We used to pay early years but then stopped.

      NOW I know why they don't hound us to pay for the past 6 years lol, even though it's still on the invoices, highlighted.

  • jwh on 27/02/2021 - 15:21
    +9

    I'm the same as you and don't have an issue with paying the basic school fees. I've always paid all of them (including the voluntary contributions), however it does annoy me with the wording for how they request payment, plus the threat of children being removed from certain programs (ABC Reading Eggs, Mathletics in my case) if they're not paid.

    Which is wrong if fees are not compulsory

    "Schools are reminded that there are no compulsory fees or charges in New South Wales government schools for students to meet the minimum curriculum requirements."

    And removing children from programs would breach the policy you mentioned;

    "Principals will ensure that no student or family suffers any discrimination or embarrassment over failure to make a voluntary or subject contribution. Confidentiality, privacy and dignity must always be maintained concerning contributions."

    • cameldownunder on 01/03/2021 - 13:09
      +2

      The new principal of our primary school, has modified the wording, so that it is more clear, that those are voluntary contributions, a very bold move in my view.
      It really is up to the parents to pay, or not. Of course not paying will reduce the opportunities that the school offers, and maybe that was the ill formulated sentence that made you think that your child would be excluded from programs.
      Of course if it is an excursion, and the fees are not paid, then the child has to stay back at school, while the rest hops on board of the bus.
      I know that schools tend to chase up on the fees, probably because people in the office are not used to people not paying. We discussed that in a P&C meeting and the principal did not tell who it was, that was not paying the fees. So in our case, the privacy issue was handled correctly.

      • johndoh89 on 01/03/2021 - 20:14
        +1

        It was pushed down from 'above' that the voluntary parts had to be very clearly stated. At least according to our principal…

  • random12 on 27/02/2021 - 15:21
    +1

    If you take electives like woodwork or foodtech where there are consumables, then you should pay. Otherwise, I wouldn't worry lol. You pay taxes which cover the basics like English, Maths, Science, History, Geography, PE etc. [though, maybe one could argue there are 'consumables' in Science and PE, but still, they are the basics that everyone is forced to do].

    • jv on 27/02/2021 - 15:24
      +29

      You pay taxes which cover the basics

      yeah, you could just give kids the 'basics' but it doesn't hurt to give them a bit more…

      • capslock janitor on 03/03/2021 - 11:37

        Just checked on our invoice Line is called "Essential Education Levy" (VIC)
        Or is that different thing?

        • jv on 03/03/2021 - 11:55

          that's most likely it…

    • DarthAntz on 28/02/2021 - 10:34
      +21

      We pay taxes that cover private schools

      • sangohan on 28/02/2021 - 21:33
        +32

        This is the real tragedy. Taxes should only cover public schools - private schools are private because they intend to get funded privately. Having public funding, as well as private funding is contrary to the idea of private schools imho.

        • HeyHeyHeyIsItADeal on 28/02/2021 - 22:31
          +4

          Yeah i dont get how people arent mad at this…

          • AG_ACT on 03/03/2021 - 15:12

            @HeyHeyHeyIsItADeal: I think some people are.

            Maybe private schools should be like private health insurance. Do you have a child, yes/no, if no, you pay x amount If yes do they go to a private school, you get ripped off enough, if no, you pay y amount.

            I get mad when I have to pay taxes for services that are never going to benefit me, or anyone I know. Some things that I am principally against; but I guess this is how the tax system works.

        • jv on 28/02/2021 - 22:50
          +9

          Taxes should only cover public schools

          Rubbish. All kids should receive funding or no kids should receive funding.

          The school parents decide to send them to should not have any relevance…

          • sangohan on 28/02/2021 - 23:03
            +12

            @jv: no, because the public money that goes to a private school ends up being more useful - because it's a private school that has more funding (from being private).

            So a public school that received the same amount as a private school will not be as effective with that money. For example, if it takes $x millions to build a chemistry lab, but the public money can only cover half of that, the public school could never afford this lab, but a private school could (using both public, and private money). So the public schools suffers with a sub-par chemistry lab (or none at all), while the private school gets to have one and thus, private kids get a better educated there.

            So this becomes a way for public taxation to fund a special interest group (private school kids) in a round about way. And i don't agree with that.

            All kids should receive funding

            they would, if they decide to go to the public school. If the parents believe their kids should go to a private school, that is a decision that should come with the implied choice of abandoning of their taxation being used for their kid.

            Right now, it's a no-brainer for the wealthy to go to a private school - it's categorically better, and this "better" is being funded on the backs of taxpayers - undeservedly. Undeserved because the benefit is entirely reaped privately (by the kid and their parents/close connections). The public barely benefits from this arrangement in general - other than having these rich kids be better educated.

            • jv on 28/02/2021 - 23:09
              +4

              @sangohan:

              no, because the public money that goes to a private school ends up being more useful - because it's a private school that has more funding

              Who pays for the land, buildings and upkeep for a private school?

              Who pays for the land, buildings and upkeep for a public school?

              What do you think would happen if every private school parent decided to send their kids to public schools?
              Who will pay to build all the new schools and facilities required ???

              • bmerigan on 01/03/2021 - 22:48
                -4

                @jv: Exactly.
                People who are down on private schools are overlooking the fact that private schools are reducing the load on the public school system.

                • jv on 01/03/2021 - 23:55

                  @bmerigan:

                  People who are down on private schools are overlooking the fact that private schools are reducing the load on the public school system.

                  Yep, saving the states billions in infrastructure costs…

                  Imagine how much money the taxpayers would have to fork out to build new schools for another 1.5 million kids across Australia.

            • jv on 28/02/2021 - 23:11
              -3

              @sangohan:

              that is a decision that should come with the implied choice of abandoning of their taxation being used for their kid.

              I'm sure they'd be happy not having to pay the extra tax to fund parents of public schools…
              They could then pay their taxes directly to the private schools. That would be very fair…

              • sangohan on 01/03/2021 - 15:42
                -1

                @jv: you misread what i wrote. Private school payers would still pay their taxes to fund public schools under my description - it's just that they will be paying, but not receiving the benefit (which is solely in public schools) by choosing a private school.

                • jv on 01/03/2021 - 16:18

                  @sangohan:

                  Private school payers would still pay their taxes to fund public schools

                  Why would they pay twice ?

                  Do you like paying twice for services you use?

                  You also didn't answer my question…

                  Who will pay to build all the new schools and facilities required if everyone stopped using private schools ???

                  • sangohan on 01/03/2021 - 20:03
                    +4

                    @jv:

                    Why would they pay twice ?

                    because they chose to go private - meaning, they are eschewing their share of the benefits from the public system.

                    Who will pay to build all the new schools and facilities required if everyone stopped using private schools

                    if the parents choose to pay more to the public schools (such as volunatry contributions), i dont see the problem. But public taxes would be doing the same as it has always been - fund public schools.

                    If people stopped going private (which, i'm not suggesting they do), private schools may not have a business case any more. Or the contributions from private parents will need to be higher. That's neither my, nor society's concern.

                  • LlamaOfDoom on 02/03/2021 - 23:27

                    @jv: Wouldn't cost much as there will be a heap of useless schools laying around with very little real value (private schools with no kids anymore).

                    • jv on 02/03/2021 - 23:28

                      @LlamaOfDoom:

                      Wouldn't cost much

                      Sure, just the land value alone would be worth billions…

            • cameldownunder on 01/03/2021 - 13:16

              @sangohan:

              Right now, it's a no-brainer for the wealthy to go to a private school

              How wealthy do parents have to be to send a kid ( ONE kid, god forbid 2 kids ) to private schools?

              One year of fees can easily cost 30K ( Post tax ).

              So it is clearly not a no brainer, it is a hard decision. With the parents paying for it.

              • sangohan on 01/03/2021 - 15:40

                @cameldownunder: Wealthy - if you can't afford the $30k extra a year, i wouldn't say you're wealthy. A couple earning $250k each, can easily afford to do this.

              • AG_ACT on 03/03/2021 - 15:21

                @cameldownunder: Not every kid going to private school has wealthy parents. Some see the growth of their children (not necessarily a good education, which some public schools can more than adequately provide) as worth prioritising above everything else, including the food they eat. That is an absolute crap generalisation, and I PROMISE you, it is absolute rubbish.

              • sangohan on 01/03/2021 - 20:05

                @frewer: so you're saying that the gov't should allow the many employees from airlines to be fired (due to no fault of their own)?

                In any case, this example is a non-sequitor. I'm talking specifically about school funding allocation, not more or less funding for schools.

                • frewer on 01/03/2021 - 22:18

                  @sangohan: Oh my bad, I thought you was talking about "tax payer $ goes into private business".

                  gov't should allow the many employees from airlines to be fired.

                  Qantas already fired 1000's people, what is your point ?
                  20000 in March 20
                  6000 in June 20

                  gov't should allow the many employees from airlines to be fired.

                  So according to your logic Alan Joyce did a double dip ? A bad business should goes belly up, not using tax payer to bail them out. How come government not bail out 100's if not 1000's small businesses? Coincidence or favoritism ? So whose fault that these people lost their job ? Government's incompetent or Alan Joyce, either way the common people get 'punish' LOL.

                  I prefer big picture when it come to $, follow $ all thing will reveals itself …

            • netjock on 02/03/2021 - 03:23

              @sangohan:

              no, because the public money that goes to a private school ends up being more useful - because it's a private school that has more funding (from being private).

              Well look at most of our private school educated politicians as case to the point.

              Right now, it's a no-brainer for the wealthy to go to a private school

              Nice to rich parents making their kids into future financial sink holes. Most children from rich parents aren't very good at incrementally increasing family network. Carefully watching what is going to happen to Jamie Packer.

        • cameldownunder on 01/03/2021 - 13:12
          +3

          All schools should get funding, private or not, as they are doing the same things. Private schools then add the fees to the government contribution to enhance the offers to the students. Don't see any irregularities here.
          Private schools are taking pressure off the public school, as less students are in public school. That might be the reason for contribution.

        • IM-Cheap on 01/03/2021 - 18:34
          +3

          Disagree, parents of private school kids pay taxes too and therefore all kids should get use of tax funds for basic schooling. Does that mean kids at private schools will get a better education experience because parents throw extra money on top? Sure, but a better school experience doesn't guarantee natural talent, good study habits or a strong work ethic all of which can be nurtured at basically any school.

        • diddy50 on 01/03/2021 - 22:09
          +2

          Rubbish. Every child deserves government supported education regardless of the school the child attends.

          Without private/religious education, the public system would collapse.

  • jv on 27/02/2021 - 15:22
    +6

    what do you all do?

    pay everything…

    otherwise, the kids miss out on stuff…

    • random12 on 27/02/2021 - 15:35

      Miss out on what?

      • jv on 27/02/2021 - 15:38
        +21

        on the stuff the extra money pays for…

        • random12 on 27/02/2021 - 15:49
          +1

          …. Very insightful.

          I finished high school 10 years ago.

          I went to school that had a dollar amount dependant on year ( e.g. year 7&8 - $60 , year 9&10 - $80 , year 11&12 - $100 , per year ) and then they had extras for elective classes ( e.g. foodtech - $30, woodwork - $40 , etc).

          I am fairly sure, from memory, the first amount ( based on year grade ) was completely voluntary.

          I am not completely sure if the charges for electives were truly voluntary ( as in, they would make you transfer to a zero charge elective if you did not pay ).

          What I am saying is, I would not feel obligated to pay the first amount, but if you take a subject that has a specified extra amount, then you should pay.

          • jv on 27/02/2021 - 15:51
            +9

            @random12:

            I would not feel obligated to pay the first amount

            Why not?

            What do you think the teachers do with the money? Spend it at massage parlours?

            • random12 on 27/02/2021 - 15:53
              +1

              @jv: It does not matter.

              Public schools are public, funded by everyone's taxes.

              • jv on 27/02/2021 - 15:54
                +11

                @random12:

                Public schools are public, funded by everyone's taxes.

                Yep, put the money they receive is limited, so schools ask for a contribution to deliver the curriculum they set…

                • random12 on 27/02/2021 - 16:05
                  +3

                  @jv: Look, I don't care.

                  I am just telling you the facts.

                  The first amount is voluntarily. People are under no obligation to pay.

                  The extra amounts for specific electives are also possibly voluntary ( based on the quote in jwh's comment above )

                  I am just saying, it would probably be a good gesture to at least pay for specific electives ( or move to a zero charge elective ).

                  But at the end of the day, everything is voluntary.

                  • jv on 27/02/2021 - 16:10
                    +4

                    @random12:

                    Look, I don't care.

                    Then you are careless…

                      • jv on 27/02/2021 - 16:12
                        +8

                        @random12:

                        No, I am a genius.

                        self-professed, i am sure…

                • subywagon on 27/02/2021 - 16:52
                  +5

                  @jv: So basically parents are paying twice. Firstly through tax, then through these "fees." Our government has millions (billions?) to give away to mates and rort yet our schools are underfunded.

                  • jv on 27/02/2021 - 16:55
                    +8

                    @subywagon:

                    So basically parents are paying twice. Firstly through tax, then through these "fees."

                    Correct…

                    Many other things are like that too…

                    eg. Public transport… public museums… public art galleries…

          • bargainbrats on 28/02/2021 - 13:02
            +1

            @random12: Yes it is as my son is in yr 8 and i just got the yearly school fee amounts and it was broken down into section like $160 voluntary school fee , $20 P & C and $50 for maths ect ect

  • bargain huntress on 27/02/2021 - 15:22

    how much do you pay in total?

    • jv on 27/02/2021 - 15:23
      +1

      every school is different.

      • bargain huntress on 28/02/2021 - 07:28
        +1

        i thought public school was meant to be free?

        • jv on 28/02/2021 - 09:46
          +1

          Nope.

          They’ve always had fees.

          • OldnBroke on 28/02/2021 - 19:36

            @jv: They certainly didn't have fees when I went to school. Admittedly that was a long time ago, but at a guess I would say this idea of fees at Public schools probably arose 15-20 years ago.

            • modiika on 01/03/2021 - 12:15

              @OldnBroke: I went to public school in the 80s. There were fees, though they usually didnt show them to the kids it would be sent directly to the parents, so perhaps you were just unaware. They are low as you can see from this thread at least compared to any non public schools.

              Most schools also do fundraisers to help with other costs they have. Like say new sports uniforms. Pretty sure it can only be used on school resources, they cant like pay teachers bonuses with it or anything. They use the money to make the school better, most of their budgets are built around getting it. Now if everyone refused to pay, maybe, just maybe the government would be oh this is unsustainable we have to either make it mandatory or pay the schools the bit this covered. But this is unlikely to happen.

              But yeah it does further make some public schools in a better financial position than others if their students parents are wealthier as they are more likely to pay the fees and may be make other donations.

        • Minimum chips on 02/03/2021 - 01:01
          +1

          You might get that impression from media produced in other countries. Australia is kind of weird with this. Where I grew up people would be shocked they had to pay for anything other than what is in their kids backpacks. Even the idea of uniforms - and having to pay for them - would be seen as a joke.

    • cheaptech20 on 01/03/2021 - 19:55
      +3

      Just over $1k in a high school in Sydney

      • TimApple on 02/03/2021 - 09:08

        Per year?

  • WreckTangle on 27/02/2021 - 15:34
    +29

    I pay cos i’m not a deadbeat parent

    • jv on 27/02/2021 - 15:39
      +14

      some people can't afford to pay, but most schools exempt them and the government pays extra benefits to the school. eg. for school camps…

      there are many parents though that would rather spend the money on cigs and the pub…

      • deme on 27/02/2021 - 15:53
        +6

        Some people can't afford to pay because they spend that money on cigs and the pub

        • pharkurnell on 27/02/2021 - 16:16
          +2

          Mate worked out he spends $1800/mth on cancer sticks… cant understand why hes broke…
          but has tried many things to give up…

        • cameldownunder on 01/03/2021 - 13:17
          +1

          And in uninsured cars.

      • Vote for Pedro on 01/03/2021 - 20:24

        While we are on it, lets investigate pensioner rorts and tax handouts to the wealthy. Oh wait, why would we do that when tracey only goes after dole bludgers blah blah yawn

    • bargainbrats on 28/02/2021 - 13:06
      +7

      What has paying a voluntary school fee got to do with being a deadbeat parent ?
      Ppl can pay the fees and still be a deadbeat parent

      • cameldownunder on 01/03/2021 - 13:18
        +4

        Yes but not the other way round.
        You pay, you still can be a deadbeat.
        You don't pay, you definitively are.

    • Vote for Pedro on 01/03/2021 - 20:22
      -1

      What a dick comment to make. Bravo to you. Round of applause.

  • 87percent on 27/02/2021 - 15:41
    +7

    This year I paid $300 extra as a contribution for all the stuff the teachers had to deal with last year

    • jv on 27/02/2021 - 15:52
      +1

      for all the stuff the teachers had to deal with last year

      that's a bit late then…

  • SF3 on 27/02/2021 - 15:54
    +2

    Serious question.

    Are public schools that cash poor and receive very limited funding from the government?

    Would be interested to know how money is allocated and the rationale for extra fund raising school events during the year.

    Also many parents volunteering for school (eg canteen, excursions). I think it’s a good idea from a social angle.

    Are governments staving schools from much needed funds?

    • Quantumcat on 27/02/2021 - 15:58
      +24

      Are public schools that cash poor and receive very limited funding from the government?

      Yes, many teachers have to buy classroom supplies out of their own money

      • jv on 27/02/2021 - 16:11
        +6

        Because some parents won't cough up, even though they can afford to…

        • random12 on 27/02/2021 - 16:15
          -5

          You are a teacher or principal?

          The way you talk, 'cough up', don't you realise that you are funded by tax dollars?

          • jv on 27/02/2021 - 16:17
            +4

            @random12:

            don't you realise that you are funded by tax dollars?

            No I'm not…

            It's the other way around… I fund the ATO…

            That reminds me, BAS due tomorrow… :(

            • Lord Fart Bucket on 01/03/2021 - 20:28

              @jv:

              It's the other way around… I fund the ATO…

              This is the problem. Education is a state responsibility, tax is a federal one.

      • random12 on 27/02/2021 - 16:12

        Well they shouldn't be

      • Vote for Pedro on 01/03/2021 - 20:25
        +2

        And yet here we are attacking parents rather than the government for this sorry state of affairs

    • pharkurnell on 27/02/2021 - 16:18
      +7

      Are governments staving schools from much needed funds?

      Too busy spending it on themselves, junkets and travel rorts - nothing left for schools.

      • subywagon on 27/02/2021 - 16:54
        +7

        A stupid and uneducated population is easier to control.

    • deme on 27/02/2021 - 16:42
      +3

      Yes, private schools get massive funds from gov. Public school no.

      • plmko on 27/02/2021 - 16:59
        +5

        And pay no tax too despite being for profit because you know…worshipping and god and all.

      • mskeggs on 27/02/2021 - 17:57
        +21

        State gov funds public schools, and the funding is quite high. The federal government gives extra money to private schools for a reason that is not clear to me.
        The usual justification is that it saves the states educating those children, but so what? Send them to public school and raise taxes a bit.

        I reality, the bulk of private students would stay in private school.
        Don’t use my taxes to subsidise it (same with private health cover).

        • deme on 27/02/2021 - 18:50
          +11

          I'm more than happy to pay more tax to public schools, even happier not to pay a cent to private schools.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join