Our federal government is funding non-government schools at an ever increasing rate because it's cheaper to partially fund non-government students than to fully fund them in government schools. The advantage for the non-government schools is that while they're still accountable, they have far greater freedom in setting their own (peculiar?) standards and accepting (and rejecting) whomsoever they please. In effect, this has created a separate user-pays education system, much like the health system. If you want your own doctor, you contribute to the cost.
Our governments continue to pronounce that education is free, knowing quite well that all schools have fees and could not provide a suitable environment without these fees. Our politicians must continue to proclaim `free education' because if education isn't free, then how do people who can't afford it, get an education? After all, isn't that the responsibility of our governments' social justice policies - to protect this ideal. Isn't that why we pay taxes? … Actually, it's more a matter of being honest about who IS paying.
It's all a facade, this equity / free education ideal. Even when private schools were private(ly funded), there was no such thing as equity. Any student in government or non-government school could only ever study music if they could afford the instrument. But if they were very talented, the funding was always found. Schools have been arranging educational excursions for the financially unchallenged for many years.
A question: is it inequitable to allow only talented students into elite sporting teams and exclude the others? How ridiculous! Will we see an anti-discrimination case mounted on this basis? What I'm getting at is this: do you discriminate negatively if you don't provide opportunities that are possible, just because some don't have the resources to contribute? Should we not have elite sporting teams / excursions / laptop classes, because some don't have the necessary where-with-all? The notion of equity in an educational setting is a shaky one at best, so how do we dictate what's fair and what isn't. … Fair?
I'd like to draw a distinction here between equity and opportunity. I do believe in providing the best educational opportunities for all, but that doesn't necessarily equate to educational equity, especially if we're using finances as our measure-stick. How ridiculous is it, to say that public education must provide equity, and if you don't agree with us, then we'll subsidise you to go somewhere inequitable (a private school)! This is just double-talk.
Some people would like to say that Melrose High should not provide an elite education to students whose parents can afford to buy them a laptop computer because it discriminates against those who can't afford the purchase. After all, that's inequitable. Melrose would be giving a better education to those who have, than to those who have-not. (Whether it's `better' or not is yet to be discovered.) The extension of this argument is that from now on, we'll have no music, excursions, sport, or debating either. The only problem that the negative camp might have is with the parents who want their children in a laptop class. Could the laptop parents equally say they're being discriminated against?
Or maybe we should say that students can only be in a laptop class OR go on excursions OR play representative sport OR debate. That would be fairer, wouldn't it? As long as Melrose is providing plenty of computing opportunity to ALL students, then how can a laptop class be considered inequitable? On what grounds? I submit that the only way a laptop class should be considered inequitable is if we also consider ALL educational opportunities that we provide, in the same light - and who dares?
Melrose's laptop class is a pilot project which will be closely scrutinised. It's the educational outcomes that concern the teachers and parents the most. If it's considered `successful', then the issue of equity will take on a whole new light. In fact, all resourcing in schools may need to be re-considered - and if this project is a fulcrum for this, then good, and about time.