school fees at government schools

[mrsbrown]

When your children attend a governemt school in Victoria, you assume it will be a free education.

It isn't. T's school has a "subject and services fee" of $470 and G's school has "levies and charges" of $420, including "charges for expensive course options" - theatre studies, chemistry and physics. On top of these there are charges for excursions, internet access, and at T's school, the "Parent's association contribution".

To quote from a victorian government white paper on a review of the education and training legislation, published september 2005

"While the majority of parents make these contributions, some are unable to do so – it is for this reason that such levies are voluntary. The proposed new legislation would require schools to apply the following principles when seeking financial contributions: they are to be voluntary; a child is not to be refused benefi ts or services because the child’s parents do not make a contribution; a child is not to be approached or harassed for contributions; and finally, any record of contributions should be confidential."

Neither school includes the words "voluntary levy" in their letters, and the letter accompanying T's statement is worded similarly to a letter of demand.

I've always objected to these charges, and conscientiously objected to them, by not paying them. But I've never written the letter to the minister I always promised I would write in lieu of payment.

Perhaps I'm just a tightarse.

Comments

[sootysmudge.livejournal.com]

In a perfect world schools (and every other publicly provided service like health care) would be adequately funded and there would no need for any 'voluntary' fees, 'co-payments' or anything else. That's the world l'd prefer to live in, but unfortuantely i'ts not the reality. By you not paying the levies you are making it even more expensive for those who do. Having children is an expense that same as any other item, and as a parent you have to be prepared to share in some of this cost.

[mr-bassman.livejournal.com]

By you not paying the levies you are making it even more expensive for those who do.

No, this is not self evident at all.... There more factors affecting the imposition of a levee than the parents' ability to pay.

Having children is an expense that same as any other item, and as a parent you have to be prepared to share in some of this cost.

However despite my bias in this matter,
I would regard children not as commodoties. Nor do I regard the expense in raising them a commodoty either. The type of social practices that make raising children a disincentive are to be abhorred.

[sootysmudge.livejournal.com]

Hi, l appreciate your position from a theoretical point of view, but am afraid l disagree with you in practice, I'll stop here as we'll just have to agree to disagree :-)

[splodgenoodles.livejournal.com]

The type of social practices that make raising children a disincentive are to be abhorred.

Yep. 'If you can't pay for them don't have them' appears to be an excuse for all sorts of abominations.

Promises

[erudito.livejournal.com]

The promise of free education is: the political 'we' will value the education of your child as much as you do.

Now, do we really think that is generally true?

Re: Promises

[sootysmudge.livejournal.com]

No, l don't think its true, especially not in current times, when education (especially tertiary) is seen as a commodity on which a $ value can be placed. I really DO value 'free' education, l'm a product of it, without free university education, l'd never have gone to university at all, and going to uni has had the most profound impact on me and my life. However if schools can't make ends meet with the funding they are given, they can either cut services or ask parents to pay a levy, in such cases l'd be more than prepared to pay the levy. Maybe all of this would be solved if we all faced the reality that nothing is free, everything comes at a cost, and people stopped using the terminology 'free' education.

[monstah.livejournal.com]

Reason 911 why I have never 'gone it alone' with having a child.
I would love to be a mother but I could never afford it.
I feel it would selfish to bring a child into the world, on purpose, without a hope of financial support for their education among other things.
I went to crap schools and have spent most of my life trying to fix my crap early education.
I still cant spell!!!

[splodgenoodles.livejournal.com]

It's not selfish to believe your kids are an instrinsically valuable contribution to society.

It seesm to me that this belief only arises when people have a very individualistic mind set that also has difficulty with the assumption that people should contribute to the welfare of their community (eg by paying taxes). Ironically, it does this by suggesting selfishness behind childbearing ( because anything that requires other people's support must be wrong.)

[nobble.livejournal.com]

On the whole contribution thing, you know, it wouldn't be so bad if that contribution actually went into things like education that contributed to society. But each year the proportion of the tax-payers dollar that goes to education is getting smaller and smaller, while the proportion that goes to the defence of Australia against theoretical enemies gets bigger and bigger. What is with that?

OK, a bit more thought about this

[mrsbrown.livejournal.com]

I really object to the fact that both schools have ignored the voluntary nature of their charges.

It is clearly government policy that no student should be disadvantaged by their inability to pay charges levied by the school, however, both schools effectively mislead parents into believing that they must pay these fees.

My non payment of these fees stems from both my disinclination to support a system that should be funded sufficiently by government (or budgeted by the school more effectively) and by a feeling that, as a parent who knows that these charges are voluntary, I should not pay them - to make the point on behalf of the parents who don't know.

In my own half-arsed way, I'm trying to remind the schools of their obligations to families without the finances to pay these fees, or the street smarts to know they don't have to.

And, being honest in a way that probably undermines my entire argument, I don't _have_ $890 to pay for school charges that should be paid by the government via everyone's taxes.

Re: OK, a bit more thought about this

[nobble.livejournal.com]

Yeah I understand and agree. If that is your choice to send your child to a perfectly good state school then yes, no further charges should apply. What you've got there is a partially privatised entity. Perhaps they've outsourced part of their function !

Re: OK, a bit more thought about this

[anthraxia.livejournal.com]

"I don't _have_ $890 to pay for school charges "

On top of school clothes, books, stationery, bus fares/school run petrol, school excursions...

One of my all time favourite quotes: "I'm waitng for the day when schools get all the money they need and the Armed Forces have to hold a cake sale to buy weapons."