"Critics like the Australian Education Union and Trevor Cobbold, from Save Our Schools, argue against funding non-government schools on the basis that such schools, supposedly, are elitist and exacerbate social disadvantage."

Thus proving only that the Australian Education Union think school funding is about class war, social engineering, and wealth redistribution, not about education. Perhaps they should change their name?

All conceivable arguments for state schooling are refuted in "Archipelagos of Educational Chaos" by Benjamin Marks: http://mises.org/journals/jls/19_2/19_2_5.pdf

Compulsory reading for the dull-boys of the union. Any presumption in favour of government "causing success" at school is laughable self-interestedness.

Imagine if our food was supplied from government-dictated recipe books, state funding on political considerations, government-monopoly cook qualifications, and compulsory attendance to consume the product, . How do you think the result might compare with what a free society can offer in terms of food? This discussion should have been redundant many decades ago.

Government-dictated curriculum, attendance, funding and teacher qualifications are a recipe for bad outcomes, not just in terms of education, but in terms of rampant state-worship, rampant state symbiosis with the intellectual class, rampant state take-over of all aspects of society.

Or imagine if a particular religion were given the power to compel the population to send their children for compulsory education/indoctrination/progaganda - the content being entirely in the discretion of the church. And the power to compel everyone to pay for it, whether or not they agreed, or even strongly disagreed on principle.

What do you think the union might say to that arrangement?

Education would be better in quality, diversity, fitness for purpose, and value for money if state involvement were abolished; and the established religion of the state sect monopolists had to compete for the public's patronage like everyone else.

Well I didn't expect to ever agree with this Author, but I suppose there's a first time for everything Kevin.

In essence the argument supports the case for the Gonski reforms; in total, and means tested student assistance. As well as, I believe, a return to phonetics, and learning some foundational maths by rote.

It also supports the case for funding the student, not the school! And with that change, parents will be finally free to send their kids where they believe they'll do best, rather than be governed by their financial circumstances, or lack thereof.

And far greater school autonomy supports that very outcome! The day of unions protecting blatantly incompetent teachers has to end! I mean, when it comes to instilling information by whatever means, rubbish in rubbish out remains a truism!

Even so, the emphasis must be on the best and the brightest; and excellence, rather than those with the deepest pockets!

When the nations best and brightest succeed beyond their usual expectations/financial means, so do we all!
Rhrosty.

Sorry Kevin, this is only partly true.

I had 3 kids go through the same large near city high school. They had, I think, the same parents, & mostly the same teachers.

The eldest did all the tough subjects, 3 math, physics etc. Demanded & had outside coaching where the teachers were inadequate, got her OP2, & her choice of universities.

The youngest took all the soft options, & floated through with things like dance, media studies, got a surprisingly high OP score for such non subjects, with little effort.

The boy however got in with the football team crowd, who thought it smart to not work & resist all efforts by anyone, & was doing poorly.

He expressed interest in becoming a fighter pilot, so going into year 11 I sat him down & explained the facts of life. It took a while to get through, but finally he could understand that his performance or success was a matter of total indifference to the teachers. They would still get paid & probably promoted regardless of his results.

He on the other hand had just one chance. Taxpayers had provided the educational opportunity, & he could use it to his advantage, or not, no one really gave a damn.

He liked the idea of grabbing his school by the neck & wringing what he wanted out of it, worked a lot harder, & did just enough. I believe it was the idea of making the school do his bidding that appealed to him, & got him working.

Three totally different outcomes from the same schools. I don't think parents have quite that much effect, except for the attitude they instill into the student.

Rhrosty, the flaw in the proposed Gonski reform is that the system as it stands is broken, and to simply pour more money (we don't have) into the broken system is not the solution.

I have said this time and time again as of the total kids at school, some either don't want to be there, or their parents don't care, either way, they won't be educated regardless of how much we spend.

The solution in my view is affordable tutoring.

A sound education starts at home, as the teachers can only do so much, but without parents reinforcing their teachings, they are often pissing into a fan.

Yes Has, couldn't agree more! And not only that, we also with our attitude and input, actually give our children permission or not, to succeed!

From a very early age children need to be programmed for success, or told what they can achieve, as opposed to what they can't; negative attitudes always rub off!

Success is never ever built on the negative imperative, which in golfing terms, means you focus on where you want your ball to end up, rather than the traps or the water hazard in between!

We parents need to convey these all important messages to our kids, and when they're still young enough to inculcate with your ideas. Raising Children was and remains the greatest privilege I was ever accorded!

Children, whether we like it or not, learn by example and inherit our attitudes.

Children learn what they live; and that's why your kids went as far and as fast as they did! No two ways about that!

My advice to mine went. Focus solely on what you would achieve; and overcoming any and all obstacles in between!

Even a thousand mile journey always begins with the first step; and completed just by placing one foot after another, and just not quitting!

You'll never ever know if you never ever try! Quitters never win, losers never try!

Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative and never be Mr in between.

Simply put, what you focus on is where you wind up.

Not for nothing is it writ large, what the mind of man can conceive and believe, the mind of man can achieve.

Or put another way, can't died in a cornfield over a century ago!

It's not the strongest fastest man that wins the race, but the one who believes he can! [I used to be a couch?]

I know you know all this stuff Has old mate, but there are guys out there, who need to learn it and pass it on to the next generation!

I like to think they'll get some of it from, hopefully, occasionally, positive guys like us?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

The Gonski system as I read it focuses, solely on comparative funding needs.

So in what way is that then broken?

And as I understand it, it places the available funding and the control in the parents hands, enabling them to chose their school on merit, rather than their particular means/limitations/district.

And given the best schools will inevitably produce the best results, invariably attract the bulk of the available funding, and by a process of natural selection.

Not everyone will agree with this, as did so many when the hugely resisted NDIS was first proposed then promised.

Yes there are those who will always disagree!

And usually because they're somehow adversely affected?

However, more local school autonomy, and the hugely resisted direct funding model, will add around 30% at the coal face where the funding is needed; rather than go as wasted finite resources, pumping up expensive salaries, of essentially double handling, state based management fee demanding, Bureaucrats/control freaks?
Rhrosty.