Politics: How Howard Won And Where It Got Us: Education.

Only the educated are free.
- Epictetus, Discources

There are some issues in which discourse about the pros and cons of the Liberal and Labor parties is totally acceptable. From health to security to taxation, there are some issues du jour that you could conceivably reserve judgement on. But when it comes to education, Labor are the outright winners.

Latham’s education promises represent everything good and right about the Labor party. ‘The nation's elite private schools would have their funding slashed as part of a $2.4 billion Labor shake-up of education,’ says the Sydney Morning Herald on the 15^th of September. That’s reason enough to give Latham the benefit of the doubt. Even if he delivered on less than half of his promises, his education policies would still be markedly superior to anything Howard could come up with on a good day.

Howard’s education policies, on the other hand, are some of the most ludicrously offensive efforts the education system has ever had the misfortune to see. He and Brendan Nelson, minister for education amongst other things, honestly seem to believe that an education system based on blatant inequality and outrageous inaccessibility is somehow not just acceptable, but desirable. Their continued advocating of a full-fee paying system at universities quite obviously means that rich kids can get an education, and less-rich kids can’t. Their superior allocation of funding to private schools – as opposed to government schools – is a clear indication that they truly adore the perpetuation of an explicitly class-based social system, and they’ll introduce stringent measures to get us there. That's not the Australia I want to love.

Full confidence, however, should not be placed in Labor. They were responsible for bringing in the HECS system in 1988, a move that provided the infrastructure for the Howard government to introduce significant fees for students. But regardless of that cheeky fact, Latham is a clear winner here. He has proposed the abolition of full-fee paying places at universities. He claims Labor will increase funding to public schools by 42%. He has proposed significant funding cuts - $520 million - to schools that need cash the least. This cash would then be transferred to the poorest schools, if indeed Latham stands by his proposal. In fact, on paper, Latham’s proposals are some of the most impressive efforts a Labor government has delivered since Whitlam. Howard, conversely, is offering a 25% increase in HECS, just in case Arts graduates weren’t poor enough.

Of course, this isn’t objective, bi-partisan journalism. I’ve been to both government and private schools, and yet I got the best part of my education at a poorly funded state school. I adore the fact that if I want to go to university, I can, and I won’t have to pay $70 000 or more for the privilege. I would love to see Latham cut funding to King’s College, MLC and St. Catherine’s, amongst other genuinely over-funded schools.

It is absolutely fucking repugnant that education should explicitly favour the rich, allowing them to buy an education regardless of merit. Anybody who supports Howard on the education issue – and I doubt many youngsters will unless their parents are made out of cash or they’re smarmy Young Liberal fucks (or both) – is loudly proclaiming that they adore a society in which the rich get smarter and richer whilst the poor get dumber and poorer. And what an embarrassing way that is for Australia to be.

(Originally published in The Brag in the Fear & Loathing column).