The solution is not to have "equal govt spending across the board", but to privatise all schools.

Let's start by getting the facts right. What was said about Federal school funding is correct. However it ignores state government funding, which goes exclusively to government schools. This changes the divide between public and private schools considerably.

Let's also discuss the reasons parents pay considerable amounts of money to send their children to private schools. One of the main ones is that the private schools can expel disruptive students who can destroy the educational experience for the whole class. Ideological attitudes by the Teachers federation and Labor state governments preclude any effective action against these students, and so we have a flight from government schools.

The first thing that would be needed to restore public confidence in government schools would be for the government to open a series of borstals for disruptive students, who could be taught about the meaning of the term "Botany Bay Dozen". Until something of this sort happens, we will see a continuation of the trend where the government school acts as a "remainder" school for all the difficult students.

I find it amazing that a Doctor (I assume a PHD) has chosen to deliberately lie about school funding or at best to skew a portion of the facts to facilitate a perception of school funding that favors privates schools.

The facts are that the total bucket of funding for schools in NSW is $10.42 billion of which government schools recieve 78.2% and non-government schools receive 21.8%. Now how is this fair when 33% of students attend non-government schools. The facts are, government schools are better funded than most non-government schools.

The non-government schools survive on other sources of income which include school fees. Many parents make great sacrifices to send their children to non-government schools and many of these are not well off. They do so I believe because they want their children to receive an education, not spend their time writing Howard hating banners for the Teachers Union.

Dr Leslie Cannold, it is disgraceful to blame the Federal government whilst completely ignoring the neglect that State Labor governments have for years foisted upon government schools for which it is there main responsibility.

You would have more credibility if you argued for greater funding for all children, regardless of where they attend school.

The source for my figures come from the Productivity Commission (Australia), Review of Government Service Provision, Report on Government Services 2007, Volume 1, Part B 'Education', published 31 January 2007. I note you have note sourced your figures.

The state provides an education system, if you don't like it you should pay your own way.

From The Age yesterday
"In 2004-5, Victorian government schools received $4.5 billion from the federal and state governments. Victorian independent schools received $1.57 billion. Each state-school student costs the two governments $9700 annually, while an independent-school student cost them $4547. Sorry to spoil a good story for you.

Robert Bradshaw, Melton West"

A rational person will only send their children to private schools that are better than the state school. If you have strong state schools then you will have a strong school system. If you have run down state schools you will have an expensive and weak education system as many baby boomers who went through secondary school in Victoria in the 1960s can attest.

Quote "ideological resistance persists to catering for kids who need extension rather than remediation."

Granted, this is a problem where it exists. But how is it related to the question of whether a school is private or public?

And why does she think it would be less common in public schools if there were no private schools?

What really puzzles me is that (as I gather from the general tenor of the article) she would object even more strongly if governments made it possible for her son to attend such schools, eg if they were fully funded and free to all, as in some overseas countries. (Of course this only applies to schools which can operate within the same funding constraints as public schools do).

According to the figures of the two previous posters, government funding provides 57% per private school student of what it does per public school student (Chris Abood's figures), or 47% (billie's figures).
Since 33% of students attend private schools (Chris Abood's figures),
this means that government provides 86% or 82% of the cost of educating all students (that is, under the assumption that private school students cost the same as government school students).

If there were no funding of private schools then government would pay the cost of educating 90 to 95% of all students. Does Ms Cannold think her son would be better off if governments assumed this greater burden?

She doesn't tell us much about private schools A, B or C, but for the record, the average amount spent per student in private schools is (depending on whose figures you believe) somewhere between slightly less and slightly more (ie only a few percent different) from the amount spent per student in public schools. "gardens, swimming pools, music rehearsal rooms, dining areas, grassy quadrangles etc" aren't the norm at private schools.

This from a lady who recently wrote that she had spent money on Botox injections and is considering cosmetic surgery and has the hide to complain that she cannot afford private school fees. And you people reckon John Howard has lost touch. Get a grip.