I am always curious why the focus is continually on "school quality" which is what vouchers are about when most of the reputable research such as PISA indicates it is a minor factor in outcomes.

Voucher advocates continue to reinforce the myth of school while it is parents that actually make the difference. Which is why of course private schools appear to do better while in fact the fees may simply keep the riff raff out. as a general rule students make the school not the school the students.

Statistical evidence would suggest that if the students were randomly allocated amongst schools the overall outcomes may be better.

If the Ch 7 show "It's Acedemic" is any guide, there is no gain in the private system, over the public.

Shonga,

I don't know of any program on channel 7 that is called "It's Acedemic". I do know one called "It's Academic". Perhaps what you needed was a private school education. I didn't have one, I went to a public selective school. Since the demolition of the selective school system by the trendy lefties many people have fled to the private system as the only alternative.

Well said, Plerdsus.

Corin McCarthy is probably right insofar as she says that a coalition voucher system would be unlikely to offer increased funding to people in poorer areas. Rather it would be yet another mechanism to transfer funding to the private system while allowing the mantra of 'choice' to be repeated ad nauseum as a defence.

If vouchers are a good idea they can not effect much change in the quality of educational outcomes unless they do take into account the resources available to the children including some realistic method of evaluating needs. This would most likely have to involve some kind of means test including both family income and assets rather than the discriminatory 'postcode' method of allocating funding as at present. On top of this there would need to be provision for those children with genuine special needs. Most of these children now are found in the State and Catholic systems where they are under-resourced.

This is a complicated matter and if an equitable solution is to be found, there must be open discussion and decision making free from ideology, something which I think is unlikely in either of the major political parties at present.

I must admit I find it very hard to discern any legitimate reason why someone would be against school vouchers. All proponents are asking for is that the money governments otherwise spend per child be given directly in voucher form to the parents to spend on the school of their choice.
If it should cost more then yes, use means testing. The whole concept of welfare is to be there for the poor, so I don’t think it is that outrageous to ask the wealthy to pay for their own children’s education.
If it would still cost more as students in Catholic and other non-elite schools currently receive only half the average education share in funding then that is hardly a reason to deny the voucher system. The fact that the govt has bypassed it’s education commitment to all moderate income families before now is no justification to continue to do so.
I find the argument that proponents of vouchers are just fanatical ideologues of ‘choice’ very interesting. One may ask the questions: Do they also make that statement in the abortion debate?; If the ideology of choice is a pretty much universally accepted one, (hands up those who are against choice in marriage, getting a job, buying a car, where you live, how many children you have, which religion you embrace, appointing politicians) then why not introduce it?
Where I really find the irony however, is that those against vouchers seem deep down to have an antipathy towards the whole concept of private education. So while they appear to oppose vouchers because they hate the ideology of private education, they have the temerity to label proponents as ‘ideologues’ despite them wanting parents to have vouchers so as to spend at either private OR state schools.