Standard Of Debate
Send to THE AGE, Friday, January 7, 2011
Wow! Your article on school funding by Chris Middendorp (7 Jan) provides ideal material for a classroom lesson in fallacies of argumentation. His first dodgy tactic is selective omission. The only private school that he mentions is a posh (high-fee) one. Never mind the fact that most non-state schools operate on a lower budget per student.
Then there's a doozy. "[How do you justify] ... funding of private schools when two thirds ... are ... at state schools?" That's like saying: how do you justifying providing a pension to old men when most old people are women?
Yes, Australia brought in "free" schooling - but only if you attend a state-run school. Thanks to the good work done in the first century of compulsory schooling, there are now many good schools that can do the job - including a great many non-state schools. Indeed, a state government conducted an opinion poll that revealed that the majority would choose a non-state school if they had the choice.
Most of the "disadvantaged ... attend state schools": yes, but why? Our present funding system herds them all into state schools. If they wanted to go anywhere else, they'd have to pay, even at schools that would gladly take them with NO fees (if they received equal funding).
Then there's the apple pie statement: " ... excellence ... should be available to all". Here Chris shoots himself entirely in the foot, because he, and everyone else, knows that locking the poor into state schools creates ghettos that will never deliver this outcome. The closest we will ever get to equal opportunity is open competition. Let families be free to choose their school - by funding same-budget schools on the same footing.
Philip O'Carroll