What going to six schools taught me about diversity in education

It is an irony not always acknowledged that debates about school funding are usually wholly unedifying.

The issue is polarised. There are those who believe we should cease funding private schools entirely and pour all our money and energy into public education.

Meanwhile, others deny the obvious inequalities at the heart of our school funding system and claim it is all about choice.

We can fund choice in education without exacerbating inequality.Credit: Quentin Jones

Both sides are likely to dismiss the idea put forward by Professor Adrian Piccoli, the former NSW education minister, on Tuesday. He argued that governments should fully fund private primary schools (and ultimately high schools) on the condition they accept all students and don't charge fees. Schools would be free to decline but they would lose all state funding as a result.

My life experience tells me this proposal deserves thorough consideration.

I went to five public schools across inner-city Sydney, regional NSW and south-east Queensland and finally a Steiner school on Sydney's north shore.

As a child I had close friendships but I arrived in early adolescence feeling unmoored and lonely. When I met a girl who went to the Steiner school, I was captivated by the sound of the school's bushland setting, emphasis on the arts and philosophy of nurturing the whole person.

I lobbied to go there for my final four years of school and, happily, my mother wanted to move back to Sydney and my father agreed to pay the fees. It was a choice that allowed me to flourish as a person and to fulfil my academic potential.

With hindsight, what Steiner education does best is that it's cross-disciplinary. It emphasises the connections between things and teaches through exploration of big ideas – similar to the 21st century vogue for project-based learning.

I've watched my former classmates go on to live meaningful lives and build interesting careers – among them high-powered theatre executives, entrepreneurs, political staffers, artists and scientists.

Taxpayers should fund education that is accessible to everyone, not Olympic swimming pools and winter terms at the snow for elite schools. I agree with public education advocates who argue that accepting all students and not charging compulsory fees are fundamental to accessibility.

At the same time, we all have different needs and priorities and we would be impoverished by a cookie-cutter approach. Some children thrive in small schools, some in large. Some children are sporty, some are musical. Some children have special needs such as ADHD, autism, giftedness or a combination of the above.

Public schools do a reasonable job of catering for difference but not every school – public or private (including Steiner) – suits every child.

Families should also be allowed to choose an educational philosophy that is aligned with their values. As long as minimum standards are maintained and it is delivered within an agreed cost envelope, why shouldn't taxpayers accommodate some flexibility?

I support public education but I don't like the attitude that says families must like it, lump it or leave – and those who advocate defunding private schools are saying those who leave should be on their own.

My two children go to our excellent local primary school and will probably attend a public high school. Cost and geography would make sending them to my old school a difficult choice and I understand that my children are not me.

Yet I am not thrilled by the fact that iPads are used in the classroom at most public schools from a very young age. More funding would probably increase the prevalence of technology rather than lessen it since not everyone agrees it is a problem.

If they went to the Steiner school, they would instead be learning to draw, knit and play a musical instrument and be given access to computers – in the computer lab not the classroom – in year 5. The guiding principle is about learning to use technology as a tool that you put away when you are done rather than something to browse with no clear purpose.

Too often the public versus private school debate is seen through the lens of "getting ahead" and religion when sometimes it's just about a different approach.

Supporting diverse educational styles benefits everyone. It allows families to make choices about what is important to them, creates positive competition in the sector, and provides for innovation and experimentation so schools of all types can learn from each other about what works.

One idea is to support alternative models under the umbrella of the state system, which is done in a handful of Victorian schools offering dual streams of mainstream and Steiner education.

The danger lies in diluting the department's focus. Everything we know about the pursuit of excellence suggests we would be better served by allowing the state to focus on running a single system and doing it well.

In many countries around the world, these alternative schools are funded by taxpayers but not run by the state, under similar conditions to what Piccoli proposes.

Under our current system, we are not just funding diversity, we are also funding social inequality because elite schools get more than they need. Whereas the problem with the argument that we should defund private schools is that it means choice is a luxury reserved only for the very wealthy. We can fund choice without the side dish of inequality.

Caitlin Fitzsimmons is a senior writer covering social affairs.