I have no brief for the Teachers' Federation, but nonetheless it seems obvious to me that an education which is subsidised by parental fees will cost less than an education which is not. Just as if I decide to buy a private jet for my own use, pay 50% of the cost myself and charge the rest to the government, it will cost the government less than buying a private jet for itself. So what? The real issue is whether I should have a private jet at all, and if so, why the taxpayers should be obliged to pay for ANY proportion of it.

If I choose to go out to films and shows when I could stay home and watch TV for nothing, I expect to pay the full price for my choices. Why aren't people who choose to send their children to private schools, when free schools are available, treated the same way?

Jon J, that argument sounds reasonable but it is not well thought through. Let's look at the bigger picture of public/private.
Private health cover - I take it out because I can afford to. It saves the government billions (not me personally!) but means on top of my premiums, I am always out of pocket when I access medical services.
By your argument, I have "chosen" this private service, so should pay the lot.
This goes for many other examples as well.
Education is the same. The government simply cannot afford to fund all education services in Australia, so private education exists.
Does the funding formula need to be looked at? Absolutely (and this from someone who works in private education).

I agree with the author.
The Government should be encouraging more private schools.

At least then, those parents that can pay more for their kids education would have to do so. Government schools should cater for those students with parents on low incomes , welfare payments and healthcare cards.

I do believe however that the Government should supply a basic education payment for every child...but not to the parents, to the schools.

Private schools should be prevented from indoctrinating their students with religious propaganda.

Schools should be completely secular until the student is seventeen years of age and is able to think for him or her self.

How else will we rid our society of the derangement and divisiveness that religion brings?

The author – like almost every person who has reported or commented on the Gonski review in every newspaper, magazine and blog that I have read – does not understand the current funding system or the recommendations. He says, “The Gonski review and its supporters suggests that private schools should receive(sic) less funding from the government determined by means testing the parents of students who attend.” This is the current system. Repeat: this is the current system. The means test is applied by calculating the SES of the neighbours of the students who attend the school via census collector districts. The Gonski panel proposes keeping this initially and then refining it to the SES of the mesh blocks and eventually the SES of the parents themselves. The current system and the Gonksi system are both SES models. Repeat: the current system and the Gonksi system are both SES models. If you oppose the Gonski SES model, then you ought to oppose the Howard SES model. Strangely, the supporters of the SES model (e.g., the Coalition) now oppose it, while its former opponents (e.g., the AEU) now support it.

The Gonksi panel has endorsed the Howard government’s SES funding model. You won’t read that in the press, as journalists have shown themselves to be credulous in the extreme.

I refer anyone who wants the facts to
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=ee/auseducation/subs.htm (No. 46)
http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/576719.aspx?PageIndex=1
http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/576719.aspx?PageIndex=6
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/SubGen/Documents/Curtis_Chris.pdf
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/SubGen/Documents/Curtis_Chris_Attachment_1.pdf
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/SubGen/Documents/Curtis_Chris_Attachment_2.pdf
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/SubEip/AtoF/Documents/Curtis_Chris.pdf
and
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/SubResearch/AtoM/Documents/Curtis_Chris.pdf.

I can’t be bothered commenting on the anti-union gibberish in the article.

Private schools give better education and cost the government less.

The Gonski proposal is to throw more money at the failed Union controlled public system. When this has been done before and failed, why will it work now?