Categories: education

What an excellent coincidence that this post should spring up in the Femmostroppo Reader just as I had this one nearly ready to go: OH HAI Naomi Mc, have I got an example for you! In the same week that, in Melbourne alone, two men set a woman and a girl on fire (the second man also raped the girl) there was a report in the ABC News opining that again, society is going down the tubes because of feminism. With a big, scary, hot pink feminist symbol! Brrr.

A senior lecturer in psychology at Charles Darwin University, Dr Peter Forster, says there is no truth to the argument that testosterone levels make men more aggressive.
He says social factors such as the rise of feminism in the last few decades could be behind the rise in violence amongst women.

I’m happy to give him points for biology not being destiny – a refreshing change from most antifeminists I’ve read – but what actual evidence does he have that the “rise of feminism” has kicked off a rise in violence among women? Has he demonstrated that there is a rise in female violence?
Has he told us what the increase(s) are and from what bases they’ve increased? No. Has he teased out increases in actual violence from increases in arrests and charges? Nope. Has he looked at whether violence overall is rising or static, and if so, is male violence rising as well (See also previous point)? No.

Has he mentioned that if you look at historical sources of milieux such as Victorian London and accounts of colonial Australia, the idea of women as gentle and delicate creatures who never threw a punch was somewhat class-based? No.

I went off in search of more information, because I thought that if the ABC had seen fit to publish an article about Dr Forster pronouncing on women and violence, it must be that Dr Forster and/or his department had come up with some ground breaking research, perhaps resulting in a report or peer-reviewed paper which we could read.

Apparently not. In fact, my usually effective google-fu hasn’t unearthed any publications or reports put out by Dr Forster on women, violence, or women-and-violence at all. So what’s he got?

…(P)eople were now looking at other contributing factors, particularly at social and cultural factors such as the effects of several decades of feminism which have largely removed the expectation that women would behave differently to men, and, more recently, the binge-drinking culture among young people, for the rapid rise in female violence.

“Studies have shown that at the age of 14, girls were just as likely as boys to be involved in fights, threats and stealing,” he said.

“This is supported by studies at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, where they have found similar rates of binge drinking by men and women, and women are also catching up in the use of illicit drugs, and these behaviours are linked with aggression.

“People” are looking at contributing factors. “Studies” have shown. I’ve seen undergraduate essays, let alone blogs, with more demonstrated evidence – and active verbs – than that. Well, there is a citation of sorts, the AIHW, which does exist, although would it kill him to point to the studies themselves? And there doesn’t appear to be anything to do with women and violence, but women and “behaviours (which) are linked with aggression.” Right! Men binge drink and set women on fire and king-hit other men on King street, while women binge drink and “get themselves” raped. See, equal!

The only actual piece of work done within the walls of Charles Darwin University that he seems to be able to point to is a study of road rage by his colleague Mary Morris.

“The research by Dr Morris has clearly shown that, in such aspects of road rage as aggressive gestures, sounding their horn at another driver and verbal abuse, there is no significant difference between male and female drivers. There used to be differences, but not any more,” Dr Forster said.

Road rage covers a continuum up to and including stabbing, shooting, thumping and running over people, so I don’t see that an increase in female horn-sounding and verbal abuse is very useful evidence of an epidemic of violent femmes. I haven’t been able to find Dr Morris’s study either, but I’ll take his word that it exists, so that’s one more on the topic than I’ve been able to find for Forster. It’s ironic that given that the subject is the evil power of feminism, he took her work and ran with it as “Expert Warns”.

Dr Forster hasn’t even begun to demonstrate any link between feminism and violence.

I have no idea why this should have been put out as a media release by CDU and why it should have been news, but unfortunately it’s one more brick in the wall of the bullshit “Feminism gone wrong” story that the media is hellbent on giving us, no matter how dodgy the source might be.

So what’s Ada Lovelace Day?

Ada Lovelace Day is an international day of blogging to draw attention to women excelling in technology. Women’s contributions often go unacknowledged, their innovations seldom mentioned, their faces rarely recognised. We want you to tell the world about these unsung heroines. Whatever she does, whether she is a sysadmin or a tech entrepreneur, a programmer or a designer, developing software or hardware, a tech journalist or a tech consultant, we want to celebrate her achievements.

If you’re unfamiliar with Ada Lovelace, please check this out. OK, maybe I’ve chosen that because I love it so much, rather than its hundred percent historical accuracy. Wikipedia has an interesting page on her (and more about that some other time).

I work in the IT department of a nonprofit, as they call them in the US, in a sometimes uncomfortable limbo between the developers, who build the system, and the people who use it.

Most of what I know I learnt from my workmate. She had done a degree, or diploma, or something in IT after working in another place which went through a systems upgrade, and said she got the urge to, as she put it, “see what was behind it all”. And she certainly did. I think she’s probably forgotten more than I know by now. She taught me so much, but she believed in nutting things out for yourself, too, and would take me only so far down a certain path and would then leave me to work the rest out. When I see a discrepancy in some query result or process, and I’m tempted to write it off as some kind of meaningless one-off fail, I hear her saying “there’s always a reason”.

She could be hard work. This woman was full of ‘tude. And she had to be, working in a male-dominated department where she often had to go toe to toe with volatile and entitled developers. She used to bottle it up quite a bit, and sometimes it made her hard to live with. That’s the sort of thing which, in that setting, will attract the inevitable judgement of oh, women, so emotional. But holy Mary McKillop on my breakfast crumpet, you should see the men sometimes. The hissy fits they chuck. Women emotional and feeling, men unemotional and rational – a load of dingoes’ kidneys m’lud, I rest my case.

As a techie, she was ahead of everyone in the building who wasn’t actually conversant with a programming language, and in some respects she was even ahead of those people. What that woman couldn’t do with about twenty-five intricately linked database tables and a fearsomely complex reporting tool, isn’t worth knowing about. She built our website after a two-day training session in web design and HTML (and teaching herself about javascript). Thousands of people use her javascript pages to this day to do stuff online and make payments. She was awesome. And I, a thirtysomething jack-of-all-trades and refugee from the music industry, was always a little in awe of her.

And when I was working with her, although I never dared to ask, she was in her sixties, if she was a day.

Ah, the smashing of age and gender stereotypes: what a lovely sound.

Does anyone else have stories to tell for Ada Lovelace day about their favourite female techs?

Even in those heady piñata-bashing weeks of November 2007, I don’t think any of us were expecting the Rudd/Gillard government to be some kind of paragon of progressivism. By then, I was already low expectations R Us. Simply not being Howard, Abbott, Nelson and Bishop were the key to gaining my vote. It turns out that even this was asking a bit too much.

Murphy's law states that if you post a scornful article bagging someone else's web site, there will be a great big dog's balls of a HTML error just below the byline.

Murphy's law states that if you post a scornful article bagging someone else's web site, there will be a great big dog's balls of a HTML error just below the byline.



At first, I was a fan of Julia Gillard, a funny, combatative ranga who could reduce the baying saurians in the Liberal seats to a humiliated near-silence (assuming they’re capable of understanding and feeling humiliation, that is). She’s fun to listen to in question time, but she broke my heart with the part she played in the 2004 election. OK, so she shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near environmental policy, but surely she’d come good on the social justice issues…?

OK, now my heart is thoroughly broken and trampled on. I’ve become the voter who cannot love. The infamous My School database/website has been released today (and very buggy it is, too), and what do we see as the very first headline on the dead-tree Herald Sun? OUR SCHOOLS SHAME. The banner on the online version? HOW DID YOUR SCHOOL RATE? So predictable. Don’t ask me how the Boy’s school rates (The Girl has just left the public system with an excellent VCE score and as yet no crack habit – the Boy starts year 7 on Monday. Serial only children, I haz them.) The website hasn’t worked successfully for me yet. And yes, I am aware of most internet traditions and able to work most simple interfaces, so I don’t think it’s me.

Back to Julia, who on assuming the Deputy PMship announced that she would bring on an Education Revolution. Well, since “revolution” can mean doing a complete 360 and ending up facing the same way as when you started, then OK, technically correct, Julia.

Trevor Cobbold in his article, The Free market and the Social divide in Education (PDF), points out that the My School website is a continuation of the commodification of education which features the establishment of “quasi-markets” in schools.

The publication of the results of each school is seen as a central component of quasi-markets because it is supposed to inform parent choice…
The Rudd government has maintained and extended the focus on markets and competition in education… It has not reversed any of the key measures of the Howard government.
…It is paradoxical that a government which calls itself progressive is implementing the policies of its erstwhile conservative predecessor.

Progressive? They’re starting to make the previous government look more progressive:

…(A)s far as education policy is concerned, the Rudd Government has given John Howard and David Kemp another term in office…(The PM) says that schools that fail to improve will be subject to “tough action”, including firing principals and senior staff and closing schools. This is something that Kemp could only dream of.

And a Labor government that can actually introduce policies that aren’t the previous government’s leftovers plus spin from a personable pollie – that’s something that I can only dream of.

Robert Merkel at LP has more on the nuts and bolts behind the My School website.

22 Aug 2009, Comments (34)

Not a Blasted Wasteland, part 2

Author: Helen

[Part One]

So, I’m sitting around the table with the people I volunteer with at Scarysuburb High, and the conversation turns to the people who are pushing for a new high school closer to where I live. I said that I hadn’t joined the group except as an email listee, because I’ve chosen to put my limited effort into Daughter’s school and there are only so many hours in the day, but I admired them for their support of the bigger picture and of public education.

Well, said one of the other mums, have a look at this then. And when I saw the article in the local newspaper she had brought with her, I realised what she meant. The group supports public education – just not the public education that the rest of us are using. Because the real public education is too scary!
(more…)

21 Aug 2009, Comments (14)

Not a Blasted Wasteland, Part 1

Author: Helen

Someone mentioned that it had been a while since I posted on schools. I’ve written letters to the paper, and thought deep thinky-thoughts about it. There’s a Movement going on in our neighbourhood, and it shows a burgeoning support for public education. But, contrary pinkofemmoblogger that I am, I can’t find it my heart to support them all the way. Why, you say? It’ll take a while to explain.

In my area, we’re spoiled for choice when it comes to Primary schools. When we moved here, we had three nearly equidistant public schools to choose from, all bright, well resourced and with high morale. We ended up choosing the one just across a park from our house, which the kids could walk to once they were old enough. I even discovered that I had some distant relatives in the area and one, about my age, had taught at that school under the existing principal. How nice is that?

In the matter of high schools, we are not so spoiled. We did have a local high school, which fell victim to the Kennett government school-closing orgy. We do have a local school which is only five kilometres away, and is easily accessible by a bus service which goes right by the school doors.

It happens that this is the school which the daughter attends and at which she’s relentlessly pursuing a highly academic programme, with plenty of input from some impressive and motivated teachers. This school excels in a broad range of areas, with special emphasis on music and the arts, including film and TV, and they excel in maths, science and technology as well.

Here’s the thing: It bears the Scarysuburb name. And it appears that since my area became gentrified, and the Audis and SUVs and two-storey extensions covered the land, the incoming population have the opportunity to send their children there. But the parents who “support public education” don’t want to send their children to Scarysuburb High, because they see it as dangerous, or beyond help, or whatever, because it is part of the existing system. And as everyone knows, the existing public system is scary and failing. They fail to see that it’s the flight of the middle classes to the private and Catholic systems that is leaving the public system underfunded and in danger of becoming a “safety net”.

They want something better, somehow, built for them, so that their kids won’t have to mix with the presumed dangerous paint-sniffers and ice dealers at Scarysuburb High and they will not have to go on a terrifying, twenty-minute bus ride to (gasp) an adjoining suburb.
(more…)

So, to revisit my “Home ATM is out of order” post, I think that while subprime mortgages have been getting a lot of attention with regard to the Great Financial Crisis, the problem we have here in Oz is more to do with all debt and how our whole economy has become dependent on spending more than we earn. Mining home mortgages for their equity, because house prices always rise, don’t they? has been a very popular way to do this for people who are relatively well-paid and settled, but it can’t go on forever. What happens when it stops?

Where did those home equity loans and lines of credit go? Irvine Renter points out that the situation went really toxic when people realised that they could take out money, not just for renovations – which would then increase the house’s value – but for consumer spending. Boats, cars, holidays, that kind of thing. But I can see that many people who would balk at spending on these kinds of things might consider using their home equity for something they consider more important, more reasonable, more of an investment.

Back in the Australian context, I’m wondering how many households have been mining their home equity for education.

(more…)

Every year, the Friends of Scarysuburb High have a mega book sale. We bribe kids and parents to hand textbooks over after the exams, with promises of cash. We stick identifying labels on them and put the details in a database. On the day, we hold sausage sizzles and sell coffee while parents line up at trestle tables to buy books second hand, books which are quite gobsmackingly expensive at Academic and General. Prohibitively expensive, to many local people. It’s quite a useful service, and the school gets a cut.

It’s a long day. After the sale is over we sit and enter the details into the database, and then write a billion cheques together. Daughter helps out. I get a lot of pleasure from events like these; we work together, have a good time, and get to know the teachers and other students better than we would otherwise. And I’ve been committed to it all year. But!

Why, why, why, why, why in the name of all that’s inconvenient did they have to schedule it for the day of the Melbourne blog meet? Why must they torture me so? After I went to all that trouble to pick the venue from Ralph’s list of top 10 Melbourne pubs. (That must be true, I read it at FX’s place.)

Have a drink for me, all of you. I might be able to sneak in later to see if any diehard drinkers are still there. Have a wonderful time!

1 Nov 2008, Comments (8)

Muckup day

Author: Helen

Pity poor Michelle Green of the Association of Independent (read Private) Schools (Vic division), who had to catch flak on RN’s Life Matters about the violent and intimidating rampage by the exclusive Xavier school kids on year 12 “muck-up day”. Some of the things she had to say: It was very distressing for the principal and for the local community, who felt terrorised. (Boy’s leg broken in three places, woman parked on the street had to lock herself in her car, etc.) It can’t be explained away or covered up, and the school is dealing with it appropriately. You can’t stamp out human behaviour. “On one level” it doesn’t improve the reputation of the school, but a school’s reputation is multi-faceted. Parents send their children there for religious values as well as for education… This may not do much to diminish the reputation of the school in the community… “they’re learning from this as a group”.

Now this is all pretty uncontroversial stuff. Yes, we know young’uns can be pretty wild little bastards at times. In this case, maybe fuck up would be more a more accurate term. But wait – don’t the parents who send little Tarquin to these schools pay about sixteen thousand dollars a year, firstly to secure them a high TER score and prepare to join the ruling class, but otherwise to keep them away from the riff-raff, violence and bad behaviour that we’re constantly told is the daily fare at Scarysuburb High? I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve been earnestly told that someone doesn’t know what to do with little Tarquin, because if he goes to our local high school he’ll automatically graduate in Crack Dealing and Violence 101.

At least my daughter doesn’t get her leg broken at Scarysuburb High. I did take her to Cas once with a suspected cracked ankle, but that was due to a klutzy negotiation of some steps, not being jumped on by her fellow students. (We’ll have our own chair soon in the waiting room at the local hospital, won’t we?)

Michelle doesn’t like the name “Muck-up day” because of the connotations of bad behaviour and wants to change it to “Celebration day” instead. Imagine the sneers about boring political correctness if someone in the public system came up with that. And imagine the “ZOMG our public schools are a OMGHOTBED OF GANG WARFARE” type headlines in the Herald Sun if the Xavier rampage had been perpetrated by public school kids.

Then Green turned to the subject of social pressures – something that’s taboo for parents or officials in the public system, because then we’re accused of being bleeding hearts who are blaming society and should take more notice of individual responsibility. But it’s OK for the Association of Independent Schools to bring it on:

Interviewer: How do you reconcile the religious values of the school with that behaviour
MG: “Well, we have a different society…There certainly should be a code of behaviour and that is certainly something I’m sure that Xavier would be talking about. But you cannot impose a code of behaviour on a group of young boys who are affected by alcohol. You’d hope that they would have learned enough not to misbehave, but everybody knows there are sporting heroes who went to good schools and have good family backgrounds, and have a few drinks and muck up.”

Interviewer: How have schools responded to these muck-up day incidents in the past?

MG: “Independent schools were very concerned about it, because they could see it as part of a societal trend.
“[Dr Madeleine Levine has] written a study which shows that bright, charming, socially skilled young adults from affluent families are suffering epidemic rates of depression and substance abuse. And what she linked that with is the materialism and the pressure to achieve in our society. Now, our schools became aware of that research quite early on and what they said to me was that they were seeing that reflected in the end of year celebrations in these bright young students, who have been pushed to achieve by society and by their parents and by themselves, who have a few drinks and just let it go.”

Not good enough, AISV. Your point of difference, your marketing angle, is that your schools will take children out of a sewer of violence and riff-raff (the public system) and place them in an oasis of Christian values and firm behavioural coaching. You know: the rest of us are just as concerned about the violent, sexist and laddish culture of professional sport and many corporate milieux as well. You may say that’s separate to you, but you’re the ones who are boasting that you’re doing something about it; that private schools teach “values” and offer a superior environment where children too shy or vulnerable for the public system can learn without disruption. And I overhear a lot of people regurgitating this story quite uncritically.

An all-boys’ school like Xavier should be examining the Sam Newman/Wayne Carey/Eddie McGuire male culture in Australia, acknowledging their part in it and working on how to fix it.
Instead, Green suggests a Celebration Day with an early-morning jumping castle and a silver-service breakfast served to the year 12s. And some group psychology sessions. Yeah, that’ll work.

Who else has the sneaking feeling that all this talk about “Christian values” and the superiority of the private system is kind of beside the point with regard to elite schools? I think there’s a definite subset of parents who couldn’t care less about a little bit of ultraviolence. I think some parents who send kids to all-boys schools have a somewhat unreconstructed, masculinist approach to social competition. And I think for some, the elite schools represent membership of a network and a ladder to boardrooms and corner offices, and bugger the “values”. The values thing is a buzzword for the marketing company, and to keep our tax money coming.

Exodus! screams this newspaper article.

Official figures released yesterday showed 66.4% of the nation’s 3.4 million full-time students were at government schools last year, falling from 66.8% a year earlier and 70% in 1997.

In Victoria, which has the second highest proportion of students in non-government schools after the ACT, just over 35% of students, or 297,970, now go to non-government schools, compared to 262,948 a decade ago.

It’s articles like this one that have me holding my head and whimpering “wrong way, go back!…” I’m not referring to the government schools, but the State and Federal governments who should be supporting them. Given the level of neglect, they are actually surprisingly good, if you have the opportunity to look beyond the media hysterics and private prejudices. Sixty-six percent, as a letter writer pointed out the next day, would be seen as an overwhelming mandate if it was a government majority. And given the onslaught of scare propaganda we’ve had from the private schools, their advertising companies and their lobby group, telling us we really don’t cut it as parents unless we can cough up the money for private, I’d have expected the “independents” to do better, quite frankly.

Girlchild is starting year 11 and Boychild is in year 5. So for the next two years I’ll have my youngest in the pointy end of primary school, with the associated decisions to be made about secondary school, and my eldest at the much pointier end of VCE. My mood gets gloomier by the day as I contemplate the lack of an actual, well, revolution, post-November ‘07.

I’ll just gloss over the perfomance of our State government, which according to this quite incredible headline a few weeks ago, has increased in popularity, apparently. Evidently Victorians have no wish for social justice, vital infrastructure (as opposed to, for instance, car races and encouraging more imports), environmental survival – or decent public education. Teachers in Victoria are paid 10 percent less than their counterparts in NSW and other states, which makes life interesting for parents of kids on the Vic/NSW border.

Not that I had immensely high hopes for fundamental changes from the Federal government side, leading up to the election. Since then, I’ve heard Julia Gillard stating their intent to improve the dire situation of higher education, which is pleasing, but their attitude to secondary schools seems to be “don’t say anything that might frighten the aspirationals.” Pre-election, I heard Rudd declaring in a radio interview that he (hand on heart) wouldn’t think of getting in the way of a parent and their “choice” of education, and expertly deflecting the question of whether the government should continue to fund private schools. Since then, he and Julia Gillard have been talking up the national curriculum and a computer on every desk- nothing about the relative funding of public education and the death spiral that’s resulting.

It’s the weasel word choice which makes me recoil every time I hear a government or private lobbyist pronouncement. It’s the deliberate misinterpretation of “choice” which has our education system becalmed in a third-rate system.

A commenter on a post by Mercurius Goldstein at LP, The true story of the Education Revolution, demonstrates exactly what’s wrong with this “choice” shibboleth:

I think there is an unecessary prejudice against [a voucher system] amongst the Left. The last time I was in a left-wing political organization (2 years) discussing these aspects of policy the issue of choice was met with an obtuse insistence in bolstering up the public system. The person bringing up choice was not advocating a voucher system merely bringing up his own experience. He grew up in a small town with two schools: a “working class” Catholic school and a non-functioning state high school. He said: if I’d gone to the public school I’d be unemployed.
The response was a condescending request that he not show up to the Education policy discussion the following night!

It’s the commenter and his friend who are obtuse. This isn’t choice; this is the absence of choice. Or, the kind of choice we call “Hobson’s”. Attend Catholic or private school and have a job, or a substandard public school and be unemployed.

Families who are sacrificing beyond their means to send their kids to private schools, or families who are sending their kids to cheaper private schools of dubious quality, aren’t really exercising choice – they’re being railroaded. They’re straining their family lives and increasing their debt risk because, with the combination of genuine poverty in the public system, plus a “values” moral panic, plus the guilt and fear being whipped up about children competing with each other for jobs and tertiary places, they feel they have no choice. (Just as an aside, how much of the “sacrificing” that the lower and middle income families do consists of getting even deeper into the debt trap? What will happen when the credit party ends, as there’s every indication is about to happen? What impact does the debt have on the rest of their lives?)

If you read the first linked article in the paragraph above, and you’re a parent and you live in Australia, did you find it as disturbing as I did? Without actually having a child enrolled at a government secondary school, you’d think only the most poverty-sticken misfits and sad cases would stay there. Fortunately for me, when I go to fundraising meetings at Girlchild’s school, I meet some awe-inspiring parents and teachers (as well as some very nice and, yes, brainy kids.) It’s a very good school. I have no fear that Girlchild will miss out on a tertiary place because of the school she attends. But one day, out in the workforce, will a HR person scan her CV and cross her off the short list simply because of the hotbed of drugs and crime Government school she went to?

What should the Rudd government do about it? The fact that responsibility for education mainly falls on the states, but is tinkered with by the Feds, doesn’t make things any easier. But teacher salaries need to be increased. Hugely. The teacherly career path needs to be made attractive to gifted individuals again. The SES system needs to be scrapped and the richest schools weaned off their government subsidies. That money, and more, needs to go to the public system. We need well-paid teachers, buildings and grounds which are in good repair, decent libraries and other facilities such as science labs (yes, computers, of course, but they’re not the be-all.) Long story short, we need to make the notion of choice a reality, and that can only come from restoring the public system so that it’s an excellent and viable alternative. In every suburb. Oh, and to achieve this, we need to kiss goodbye to this fetish for tax cuts (Federal) and yearly budget “surpluses” (State).

Cue the screams of “But but but, that would mean more tax!” Yes quite. It’s a matter of priorities; instead of insisting on tax cuts and upper-class welfare payments to elite schools, the new Federal government should be biting the bullet and doing the infrastructure spending that the previous government wouldn’t do. And they should be prodding their state counterparts to wake the fuck up and do the same.

I think there’s a silent majority of parents out there who would rather pay a few hundred more in tax every year than go into debt for ten thousand plus, per year, per child, and before incidentals. Or who, at least, would be amenable to the idea if the picture wasn’t so distorted by advertising and media panic.

But, you know? this isn’t going to happen. Not only has education failed to score its own category in the 2020 talkfest, but the move to private schools has been reframed now by the media as white flight. Because, you know, parents aren’t worried about public schools because their most able peers are being poached or scared off, the facilities are worn and grubby and the teachers underpaid. Nothing to do with any failure of government policy. It’s because they’re all so racist, don’t cher know.
 
 
 
Crossposted at Road to Surfdom

5 Jun 2007, Comments (2)

Deveny Survives Mummy Drive-By

Author: Helen

“Give me a child when they are seven and I’ll show you an invoice for
$12,477″
– Catherine Deveny

Image from http://dickens.ucsc.edu/OMF/litvack.html

Please, Sir, can I have a realistic allocation of Federal funding?

Fairfax newspapers are pretty much oozing rightwards year by year, as I see it, so it’s a pleasure to read Catherine Deveny’s op ed articles. She’s a writer of the take-no-prisoners style, a bit like a really good blogger (I meant that as a compliment, journos). As a result, while those of us used to the blogosphere just find it bracing, she does stir up the pearl-clutchers and give them the vapours.

Last month, Deveny took on the issue of Federal funding to private schools. (Via Susoz)

Here’s something in the budget that you may have missed: federal funding for private schools will increase from $5.8 billion to $7.5 billion over the next five years. Funding to public schools will rise from $3.1 billion to $3.4 billion over the next five years. Shame on us.

To put this in context, as Ross Gittins points out, “Today, the budget shows public schools getting 31 per cent of the money while the private schools get 69 per cent. But public schools still have two-thirds of the enrolments.” In other words, Federal funding for schools is completely arse about.

Here’s where I stand: private schools should not receive funding. That’s it. We have a police force funded by the Government. If you want a bodyguard or private security, you pay for it out of your own pocket.

Read the whole thing, but I’ll just quote the last two paragraphs:

I added up the cost of fees for what it would cost to send my three children to a middle-of-the-range private school for six years. Not counting uniforms, excursions, transport, building funds etc. And it was about $330,000, give or take. My first thought? No one can be getting value for money. My second thought? I could buy my kids a degree for that amount of money, and I might have to if education keeps heading the way it is. But I’m hoping that my kids will all be tradies. Because the happiest blokes I know are the tradies. People say, “Stop funding private schools? It’s not as easy as that.”

Yes it is. Like smoking in hospitals, gender-based pay and taking babies away from unmarried mothers, funding private education is something we will look back on and be ashamed of.

Well, we can’t have that kind of rampant leftism in the op ed pages of the AGE without a suitable neoliberal reply, can we? so Michelle Hamer, parent of four privately educated children, weighed in the very next day.

Pardon if I pause for a wee cynicism break here. Even if Hamer is employed by the AGE – she writes for the Education Age sometimes – it would truly have been an Olympic feat for her to have read the article on May 23, become enraged, written and proof-read an article in reply, and got it into the OpEd page on May 24. Can you say “confected controversy”? or is it just my
suspicious nature?

Anyway, Hamer is enraged that Deveny should imply that the Federal funding balance is all out of whack. She tries to paint Deveny as disingenuous because she hasn’t mentioned the State component of public school funds. Hamer, on the other hand, is definitely disengenuous because she tries to make that argument without mentioning fees. State schools, of course, don’t have fees, except for the “voluntary school payment” (Ha!) which is less than $1000, while the “better” privates schools cost a small hatchback or sedan per year. This rhetorical pea-and-thimble didn’t work on this public school mum, as I was only further enraged because she reminded me that private schools get money from the States as well as all that Federal moolah, although, in this case, it’s less than the public schools get. Which is simply because the State schools are largely State funded and do not charge fees. Which is why their Federal funding should be greater. QED. etc.

Hamer then descends into what the Americans call a Mommy drive-by, coined by the late great Chez Miscarriage. In case you haven’t come across one of those things before, it’s the kind of backhanded or even downright barefaced rude comment made by Superior Mothers ™ to the Beta mothers. Examples are: “Oh, Taylah-Maddisyn never had a dummy!”, “I breastfed Tarquin until …” (if the age given is above university
entrance, back away slowly); and, “well, if you think the local High school is good enough for your son/ daughter…”

From Hamer’s reply to Deveny, I offer the following examples:

I’m paying for all this, and it’s not cheap. But then you can live on fast food and it’s certainly cheaper…

I will make the choice that I think is best for my children. I won’t buy a new car, a new house or take overseas holidays; instead I’ll invest in my children’s education because this is my right and my choice.

Because, of course, everyone has the money for a new car, a new house, or an overseas holiday. It’s just priorities, people!

Deveny feels liberated that she has put no thought into her children’s education. (My italics}

!!!Speechless!

That’s her right, and if she aspires for them to be tradespeople, then that’s fine too.

…!!!!!…

Plus a glowing account of the hip and happening nature of her kids’ school, which encourages kids to cook meals! and, it has chooks!

Hoo-boy, she really showed that Deveney woman, didn’t she.

Strangely enough, in another Fairfax article, Michelle Hamer criticises the very mummy-drive-by behaviour she is wielding with such consummate skill:

Somehow, the very intimate act of mothering has become a high-stakes game played out in the very public arenas of our schools, play centres, mothers’ groups and preschools…The mother competition starts from the moment of conception…

Takes one to know one, I guess. She’s also co-author of Gucci Mammas, a satirical – I think – book about being a private school mum. Interestingly enough, when she is not defending her turf, she herself can admit that the private system is not the perfect choice that she makes it out to be when she’s attacking Deveny.

The idea of being at the best school with the best name is a big theme in my new novel Gucci Mamas, and the protagonist Mim becomes confused by why, when she is paying the top fees in the state and sending her children to one of the country’s most elite schools, she hates even stepping foot in the grounds and has rumblings of discontent about the school. How could something so prestigious and expensive be flawed – surely the problem must be in her, not the school? It’s a clear case of the emperor’s new clothes.

When we wrote Gucci Mamas, my co-writer, Lisa Blundell, wanted to have a bit of a laugh at how competitively some women treat mothering, but, along the way, we were occasionally sobered by just how sad that can be.

Indeed.

But I’m still curious about the uncanny warp speed of the Hamer response to Deveney’s piece, I notice Hamer’s had articles printed in the Education Age supplement. (Celebrities Raise the Stakes: Just get the famous and wealthy parents at your school to do the fundraiser. Now, why didn’t we think of that?) You might notice that the dead-tree version of the Education Age is heavily dependent on advertising from private schools, and the Fairfax advertising stream has been under pressure lately. I guess there was some editorial reluctance to piss off the lucrative advertisers in the Education Age and other supplements catering to the AB section of the population, so any bit of incendiary criticism of the private sector had to be followed up pretty quickly with a “rebuttal” to soothe the pearl-clutchers.

It’s all so unnecessary. If you go back and read it again, all Deveny was saying was that private education should be private and public education public. Parents can send their children to Hogwarts to learn Quidditch if that’s their wish, but they should pay for it themselves. Meanwhile, a properly funded public system would offer genuine choice – which is different from privilege.
 
 
 
Crossposted at Road to Surfdom