From my own first hand experiences I'd say that profit has no place in education. Period.
At a high school level it encourages eliteism, and we certainly do not need any more US style "us and them" introduced to society!
Privately schooled kids do not do any better at university despite the extra expense (profits must come from somewhere).
Profit motivation in universities leads to the creation of courses such as "wine science" and "forensics". These courses are snapped up by students looking to move into the next big thing to get some job security but really have very limited use in the real economy. Students are "the market" and they are sold to like soft drink consumers.
The profit motive also leads to multi-million dollar campus buildings that add "prestige" to an institution while the 1970s science labs rot. Priorities turn to marketing at the expense of teaching, and the values are picked up by the students.
Good teachers don't need excessive pay, just a sensible wage and management that treats them like humans. Managers, not teachers are the bane of the system. Good education doesn't need to appeal to investors or...this should be obvious...make a profit!

The whole "private" education argument is a smoke screen for the cultural warriors who want extreme variations in what kids are taught. i.e. Religious dogma that should be very concerning to most Australians. At least the teaching of creationism was an issue in the US. Here they just sneaked it in without any debate at all!
The fact that so many exclusive "for profit" companies are supported by taxpayers is a disgrace. If they cannot survive as private entities then they shouldn't be propped up, and if they won't teach modern science then they are not a school, they are a convent.
Calling religious indoctrination schooling is evil.

“He claims “for profit education has been a consistent failure in all times and places”, with some “limited exceptions” in vocational training.”

If the providers who provide such services are generating a genuine commercial profit, then he is clearly wrong.

If the providers who provide such services are free of subsidy or government support, then he is clearly wrong.

The providers of such services are free and able to decide how they will spend their time and deploy their resources and if they do not make a viable return, they will go broke.

These rules apply equally to motor vehicle manufacturers, education providers, preschool operators (ABC included) and every other commercial enterprise.

And as we see every day, it is only government and others with snouts in the public trough, who can endlessly squander resources, without consequence or being brought to account.

As for “Because the benefits of education are hard to assess in advance, and only realised over a number of years, short-term market incentives are ineffective or perverse. Only a long-term commitment to academic standards and professionalism can maintain the quality of education, and such a commitment cannot be driven by managerial skill or direct incentives.”

There are, supposedly, good cases, bad cases and special cases
.
The above statement suggests” education” is a “special case”.

But my, not inconsiderable, experience in business have lead me to believe that
“special cases” are but “bad cases”, trying to dress themselves up for exceptional consideration.

An excellent article… the final paragraph sums up the difference between a sense of moral accountability versus the spin of professional academics who are just looking for (but are undeserving of) the “special consideration” and soft grants with which to feather their own future.

Quiggin and Norton both provide thoughtful posts but I think that the tricotonomy among public, private not-for-profit and profit institutions is a false one.

A public university may on the one hand see its core vocation in dissemination of learning; on the other hand, find importance in spending vast sums as University of Sydney currently is, to landscape its grounds with fine venues that Baron Haussmann would have been proud of.

A commercial institution may, like Apple, see profit as a necessary side-effect of implementing great ideas, or like former milkman Eddy Grove with ABC Learning, as simply a way to become remarkably rich.

The private not-for-profits stand somewhere in the middle.

But I think Norton sums it up well:

"While there are historical reasons why institutions with different ownership structures service different parts of the market it should be a matter of public policy indifference who owns higher education institutions."

It should not be a matter of indifference though how well an institution serves its students. Surely that is the test.