I would be more inclined to agree with the author if he was to at least agree that public funding of school transport for pupils should be limited to the cost of getting them to the nearest public school's gate, with any excess to be met by either the school or the pupil. There is no social need which justifies spending social budgets (public money) for such private purposes.

Spending hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds annually in a manner which clogs peak hour roads and trains is socially unjustifiable and economically stupid. In a time and energy-constrained world, it is entirely irrational for public money to be wasted in this way. Costs, including environmental, financial and loss of public amenity through clogged transport systems in order to satisfy private goals and needs are only going to escalate with time and must be curtailed quickly and eventually stopped entirely.

If independent & Catholic (private) schools don't want so much government regulation, then perhaps they should not accept government (taxpayers') funding. And this ongoing argument about 'choice' really annoys me -- having choice in what school to send your children to is only available to those who can pay private school fees. They can then choose an independent, or faith-based, or government school. Those who don't have access to a spare $15-$20K per annum, have the local government school or, if their children are very academically gifted, a selective government school. The only 'choice' we have is the local government school. Don't get me wrong, that's OK by us. But could the private school sector please stop complaining!

The hypocricy of the closet communists on private schools is amazing. They bemoan spending while secretly sending their children to private schools because they know our public schools are a recipe for failure & illiteracy.

I don't see any attack on private schools. For eg, many did very well out of the school halls program. But does the general community get access to private schools as they do to state schools? Not in my experience. I recently approached private and state schools to ask if they would allow a local playgroup use their new school hall (built with public funds) when not being used by the school. The state schools were all open to the idea, but not the private school. Then there is the thorny issue of choice. Even if I wanted to send my child to the local Catholic or Anglican school there's no chance they'd get in. In reality I have no choice, but to send my children to State schools. Luckily, there are lots of great State Schools out there, but you wouldn't think it from the vitriolic attacks on them from some quarters. What I see is that State schools generally have less resources, older buildings, and don't discriminate against students with behavioural or learning difficulties like private schools do. But what they lack in smart boards and sporting facilities that many private schools take for granted, they make up with a generousity and openess of spirit from hard working teachers and parents. Private schools, even the most humble ones are elitist. They pick and choose who goes to their school, and they exclude children (as is their right) because of the family's financial inability to pay higher fees, the family's religious background or because a child has behavioural or learning problems, or even if the family recently moved to an area and wasn't able to get their child's name on a waiting list. Yes, they let in small numbers of exceptions, but let's get real, we don't all have equal access or choice when it comes to sending our kids to private schools.

Formersnag,
"public schools are a recipe for failure & illiteracy", what complete and utter rubbish!!

There is no threat to private schools from the Gonski Review.

The current funding system is absurd. It pays schools on the basis of the wealth of the other people who live in the streets where their students come from. It thus underfunds the majority of low-fee Catholic schools, which is why they need top-up funding to achieve the same level of resources as applied under the Hawke Labor government. It includes the cost of base funding that any school must have (which it is inefficient to duplicate by having two schools in the same locality when one will do) and the extra costs of students with special needs (e.g., ESL, disability, low family income) whether or not they actually attend the school being funded.

The problems with the Allen Report are that it spends 112 pages working out it is possible to work out a national resource standard without actually bothering to do so and that the methodology it proposes for someone else to do the job is not based on an explicit staffing formula for schools but on looking at the current funding of so-called successful schools.

The Allen report wants to work out a national resource standard by looking at the existing expenditure of what it calls “reference” schools. This is crazy. It is easy to work out a national resource standard as the major cost (c80%) in a school is teacher renumeration and the number of teachers is determined by a formula based on teaching loads and class sizes, all of which can be made subject to explicit decision at the policy level.