With all her calls against the waste of public money, Jane Caro, conveniently neglects the sound economic reason for subsidising private education. Considering the federal grants, the state grants and other capital investment, a private school place costs the government in the region of 80% of the cost of a public school place.

The move to private schools has meant that these has actually been more money for public schools, and that there has not been a need for massive expenditure by the state on purchasing land and building more schools.

Even within the Labor government camp, this populist agenda is recognised to be founded solely on rhetoric rather than reality.

Jane also neglects to mention where her two daughters are educated and why.

Shadow Minister in first with an empty comment along Party lines.

As far as I can recall, having heard Caro on ABC radio from time to time talking about her book, her children attend/ed public schools in NSW.

Which one I have no idea, but 'public' anyway.

I dispute the 'subsidy' claims of SM here, where public schools are better off with private schools getting more than the entire university funding in the nation, and frankly, there is little point in descending into a 'is-isn't' debate here with SM and ilk... I accept that SM must believe this, and that s/he will not alter on this matter. So be it.

But an interesting area of 'education waste' that Caro fails to mention is that of the NSCP scheme.

Here is a new angle on it by Dr. Leslie Cannold, worth a read if you are wondering why Gillard would ever support unqualified, unprofessional 'support' for those suffering with 'mental issues' in schools:

http://www.cannold.com/media/2010-08-15-the-national-school-chaplaincy-program-is-an-accident-waiting-to-happen/

Here is a comment from an online punter on the 'value' our hundreds of millions of ATO funds buy:

"Chaplain is a fanciful name given to an odd person with low employment prospects that works (probably for minimal wages) for a non tax-paying company. These companies lobby politicians to fund these creeps without disclosing that they are really looking for cracks in these young people at a critical time of change in their lives. Once hooked, they can bleed them of money for a lifetime on the promise of life after death. Great business plan!" from CircusMaximus - August 15, 2010, 9:40PM on:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/god-botherers-infiltrate-brisbane-high-school-20100814-123qz.html#pol

Well said Jane - hardly a point on which any rational person would disagree. No doubt we will soon be hearing from Sells, Runner et al.
The flow of wealth to the private school sector to the detriment of the public school sector is in my view the biggest social problem faced by this country today - far outwighing the problems caused by the miniscule numbers of desperate boat people. We are heading towards a theocracy, run by the likes of Pell and Jensen, and financed by our own ridiculous taxation structure. The imposition of a faith based education on our youngest and most intellectually vulnerable children is a form of invidious child abuse, whilst the countless millions of dollars in public revenue lost at all levels of government to the church 'charity' taxation avoidance industry is an abomination to all rational thinking persons.

I have to agree with Blue Cross. For government waste and cynical pork-barreling, it's hard to beat the nearly half a billion of tax-payers' funds spent, or committed, to the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP).

The Australian Psychological Society has branded the NSCP 'dangerous'. The Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Report (2009),reveals that chaplains have been called in to help with children’s anger issues, grief and loss, bullying, peer pressure and self esteem as well as self harm and suicide. And yet only 2.5% of chaplains have qualifications in counselling or psychology.

The NSW Teachers Federation has told the government that what schools need is not chaplains but an enhancement of professional school counselling services. (Currently the school counsellor to student ratio stands at about 1:1000 in NSW schools - worse in some other states).

The Parents and Citizens Council says: ”Funding has not been available in another form that they [schools] could use so they have had to turn to chaplains. … We have received complaints from families that schools are having to rely on chaplains to meet the social and emotional needs of the students. In government schools there is a feeling that this should be delivered by secularly trained people.”

And yet, where has the government committed a further $222 million? To untrained, unqualified, evangelistic school chaplains with a religious agenda.

This is not just a secular issue, it is a mental health issue and I don't understand why there is not a national outcry about the fact that both sides of government are short-changing our children for the sake of economy and in order to buy off the right-wing Christian vote. It is nothing short of despicable.

TBC and Gym Fish

"Commonwealth funding per student for private schools increased steadily in real terms from 1974. State and Territory governments also continued to subsidise private schools after 1974, providing about one-third of the total subsidy from both levels of government (ie. the average State grant per student is around half the Commonwealth rate). State and Territory grants generally increased in line with Commonwealth subsidies (Watson 1998).

From 2005, the Catholic system has been incorporated into the SES funding scheme with over 40 per cent of its schools having their funding maintained at SES 96, which is 56.25 per cent of Average Government School Recurrent Costs (AGSRC)."

While the percentage has increased, the cost to the state per private pupil is significantly less than per public pupil.

http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/pdf/DP479.pdf

My "belief" is founded on unbiased detailed studies, Jane's and others' (yours too) is founded on what? Can you support your position on anything other than a reference to left wing diatribe? I think not.

No amount of funding will ever help a totally flawed system based on rotten theology. It time the secularist woke up to that fact and stop making excuses for their massive failure. The hatred and envy shown by those pushing there dogmas is amazing. Shadow Minister really sums up their hypocrisy.

'Jane also neglects to mention where her two daughters are educated and why.'

Couldn't agree more Jane,

If you want to send your kids to a private school, you should pay the full cost. The state should put its resources into state-run schools.

Presently a site previously used as a private school in my electorate is being advertised to be sold.
The buildings on that site would have received Commonwealth capital works funding to be built. The school is less than 12 years old.
Now if the site is sold the value of the buildings funded by the taxpayer will be part of the purchase price and the full amount paid by the purchaser will go into the pocket of the vendor.
But the capital works moneys paid by the Commonwealth to fund the buildings should be returned to the Commonwealth!!
This may be an unusual situation but nevertheless it is crucial that public monies put into education facilities are never used to provide private profit!!

Not so unusual Arbeze. With dwindling congregations churches are selling off land, often granted to them free by the state and subsidised by the tax payer through rate exemptions with no return to the taxpayer. This whole grants and exemptions to religions rort needs a major review, but which government will have the cujones to stand up to the churches? Certainly not Gillard's nor Abbott's.

Aha, Runner, never has a truer word been spoke....

"No amount of funding will ever help a totally flawed system based on rotten theology"... which I take to be your late but welcome admission that 'religion' should not receive any funding at all from the public purse.

There is hope for you yet, and maybe it's because I've been burning candles and saying secular prayers for your soul?

The power of the Great Nothing is unknown and yet magnificent, and wonderous.

He speaks to me often, and on your behalf, and I always put in a good word for you.

No need to thank me, I do it out of a sense of community... and love of course.

The only time I have had anything to do with private schools is when I, or one of my kids went there, as part of a public school sports team, to thrash those silver tails.

Despite this, I can see no reason why I, as a tax payer, should contribute more to the education of some public school kid, than I do to some private school kid. After all, they are all Ozzie kids aren't they?

This sounds much more like a continuation of the teachers union fight to get more money into public schools. Not a bad thing you say. Well try looking at what happens every time a bit of money appears in a public school.

By the time the teachers have stopped diving in, there won't be a cent left to spend on the kids. The teachers & their union will have snaffled the lot, & probably a bit more as well.

In the 10 years I spent as treasurer of a number of P&C associations in different schools, we always found the same thing. When ever more money was announced for schools, it disappeared into salaries, & we, the P&C & the parents, had to find yet more money for essentials to keep the kids learning

What about the huge fees the elite private schools receive as well as the subsidies from taxpayers? How much money do they need? Those who choose private education can pay for it. I am sick to death of subsidising the rich and I shouldn't have to. (Even when buying wine - if I buy just one or two bottles, I pay more per bottle to subsidise the rich who can afford 12 bottles and get them cheaper!) I work bloody hard but there's no way I could afford to, nor do I want to, send my kids to a school that will teach them that they're better than anyone else. OK, I'll stop now, but gosh it makes me mad!

Shadow Minister's claim that "a private school place costs the government in the region of 80% of the cost of a public school place." (implying that supporting private schooling saves the government money) is a claim that has a long history although it is based on analysis which has a very narrow definition of the costs of private schooling and no consideration of the external costs and benefits of private and public schools. Firstly, it assumes that the cost of private schooling to the taxpayer is captured by the value of the direct subsidy. But we know there are a number of other ways governments reduce costs of private schooling. By ignoring the money saved by private schools free-riding in a number of areas (the costs of conducting public examinations, the cost of curriculum development ...) the real subsidy to the private schooling sector is underestimated and the cost saving to the taxpayer overestimated.
Secondly, the analysis relied on by ShadowMinister ignores any externalities. An example of an external costs of private schooling is increased traffic congestion in urban areas. Based on personal experience, I'd hypothesise that anywhere up to 10% of peak hour traffic in major metropolitan areas can be accounted for by parents driving kids from one side of town to the other so Sally/Harry can attend the school of choice rather than Harry/Sally walking/riding a pushbike to the local state school. Haven't you noticed how traffic flows so much better when school holidays are on!

Can someone do a proper study of the real costs and benefits of private schooling to the Australian community so we can see if what we're doing is economically rational.

No intelligent decisions have been made over the last 40 years by our politicans. Private schools have been chosen by some parties to win votes, and the decisions as the first home buyers have all been very flawed. I know that the fanatical obscessed party faithful would praise any decision made by their party, and the parties using any avenue they could think of to buy more votes, have vertually put their head into a noose. Most of the decisions made before 1970, were done with intelligence, some improvements could have been made, but those elected in the major parties since then, just haven't got a clue, they have thrown away those rules that were made, put in their own, and the workers are paying for it. The reason why those people are buying junk stuff for entertainment, is that they can no longer buy a home, and don't want to deprive themselves of everything, but they would sooner buy their own home. The tax changes since 1970, have been for the benefit for the rich only, and the increased salaries etc they have taken, have caused the increases of all the goods and services.

Come on Bondi, all the costs you mention are all ready required & spread over the public school system .

As for little Harry private being driven to school, & Johny public riding their bike, how old are you mate? Haven't you seen the traffic jams outside public schools, besides those private school kids are probably driving their own new BMWs these days.

This riding to school was a big thing in my day. We had over 100 Sq Meters of bike racks. How many bike racks, or kids with worn out shoes do you see today in public schools today? Even in nice safe country towns that doesn't happen. Bike riding is a habit of the urban rich today mate, & then it will be some misguided greenie teacher with the bike, not a kid.

Yes misguided! Those bl00dy bikes stuff up the traffic flow so much, each one of them has the carbon footprint of half a dozen cars. Well, at least the CO2 helps the grass grow I suppose, so not all bad.

Their will be a backlash against private schools when their current students leave and discover that the indoctrination, whether it be religious or elitist, leaves them ill equipped to function in the real world. Private (and same sex) schools have a notorious reputation for producing less than fully rounded human beings.

The government has no obligation beyond providing a place in a public school for any child who wants it. That is the result of mandatory education policies.

Where is the "user pays" mentality now? If you want your sprog to go to a private school you should pay. The government has no obligation to subsidise your choice and the results of doing so are becoming all too apparent.

Greedy little suburban spivs always looking for more handouts.
Private schools with shooting ranges, heated olympic pools, stables, yachts, tennis courts, gymnasiums and masses of computers and IT.
While public schools have malfunctioning toilets, portable classrooms, toxic heaters, not a computer in sight let alone an IT department and they even get grief from the tories for getting a new hall or library under the stimulus plan (completely ignoring that the private schools got just as much. AGAIN!)

The education system works better overall when it is inclusive and comprehensive not divisive and ideological. The current system is damaging our kids and not providing them with a balanced and fulfilling education.
It must change.

Once again, I challenge anyone to produce a link to any independent document that actually shows that private school pupils receive more subsidy than public school pupils.

My claim has a long history, and is backed up (follow my link) by a study commissioned by the education department. The figure in the document from several years ago was more in the order of 60% to 70%, but I put it at 80% to be safe.

If the facts get in the way of your long held beliefs, please feel free to look it up.

PS I suspect that some are raving about private schools, and of the Church run ones on their religions principles, I suggest that next time they look into their bible, if it is the King James version, look up chapter 23 of the book of Matthew, and see if it has any affect on their beliefs of their religion.

Of course the problems are exacerbated by the tax exemption provided 'as of right' to religious institutions as though everything they do is a charitable work, without any oversight.

Private schools run by religious institutions I am sure are gaining tax advantages that should be counted as part of the cost to tax payers.

mikk "Private schools with shooting ranges, heated olympic pools, stables, yachts, tennis courts, gymnasiums and masses of computers and IT."

you're forgetting the personal servants all these kids have following them around, and somewhere to park their private jets and helicopters

get real .. stables, yachts .. in your dreams mate.

Look let's face it the parents of those kids pay more tax than you could ever even imagine, and then you want them to not only pay taxes to send your kids to school, but then pay again to send their own to school. You get that don't you - that they pay bucketloads of tax, so maybe they deserve some government handouts as well.

What if they said, fine, we'll pay for our own kids complete education, but reduce my tax by that portion? you'd be screaming they were getting a tax break you weren't getting

I suspect though, it's all just jealousy anyway - the kids in those schools all have to work hard, they have to pass exams and study the same as others at public schools

you seem to hate the kids for what you imagine the parents do

so that's socialism is it .. you can keep it.

Anyway, I rest assured nothing will change, especially the whining noise from all those that think someone else is getting something they are not entitled to - they might think the same of you.

typical class war politics of the ALP and the left .. I imagine you all teach it to your kids as early as they can listen to your war stories at the kitchen table, another generation of haters and whiners.

Well said once again Jane.

And perhaps some of those commenting (like SM) would like to read the article written by Professor Richard Teese in this morning's THE AGE, to clarify some of the rubbish they are trying to spin.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/suffer-the-children-left-behind-20100815-12557.html

ah yes pgr, let's drag everyone down to the lowest level, just because there is one.

That's Richard Teese's schtick, his trade goods, his reason for being .. of course he will write the way he does, it's what earns his living from .. sheesh!

Look him up, he writes many many articles and papers basically the same message .. of course the bleeding hearts all want "action now", but in a few days time, it will pass.

who are most likely to donate large sums to the political parties?

Private school parents or public school parents.

Shadow minister you imply in your first post that Jane Caro’s children go to Private schools? Do you have a reference for this? You say your “belief” is founded on unbiased detailed studies. Which Pork Pie shop did you get this “fact” from? Based on this should we believe anything else you have to say?

In your 11:22 submission you quote the report saying that the federal government pays 56.25 percent and the state government pays around half the Commonwealth rate for 40 percent of Catholic schools. That is 84.375 percent so your 80% isn’t that conservative after all. Please indicate where in the report you got your 60 to 70% data.

Anyway Jane’s point is that we have a formula for how much private schools should get and Liberal and Labor always boost it in an effort to buy votes. This is middle class welfare and if a dole bludger got extra he would be shouted down as a cheat from every corner of the country.

Do you disagree with this premise or do you just think that the amount that Private schools get should be higher?

The idea that private schools get 80% or 90% of the funding of public schools and therefore the government saves money for every child that goes to private school is based on the assumption that it costs the same amount to educate every child. The private schools know very well that it doesn’t cost the same to educate every student because when they get a difficult case they quickly ship him out to the public schools. Which kids that don’t pay their fees stay at Private schools? Which kids who disrupt classes stay at Private schools? How many teen pregnancies, child abuse and violent stepfather problems do Private schools handle? At the first whiff of “you’re not one of us” the questionable kids get kicked out. Public schools don’t have that option. They have to take everybody and they have to do as well as they can no matter what troubles the kid has.

The idea that a kid can get a good education no matter what his problems are, even when his parents aren’t too great, is one of the best things about our culture. Everybody gets a fair go is a very Australian concept and a wonderful part of the way we are.I hope public schools stay strong and can attract the best teachers and administrators because educating our children is the most important job we have to do, to ensure that Australia stays great and can help the world solve its zillion problems in the future.

I don't imagine for a moment that teachers in the State system would have any truck with the outrageous, one-eyed advocacy of this article. Most teachers are aware of the wedge politics that are played in education as elsewhere to avoid transparency, modern improvements and perhaps above all, adequate funding for necessary assets and curriculums.

That is my criticism of articles like this, that they divert attention from the real issues like funding and seek to disrupt the co-operation that is occuring between State and private schools. In my area alone, two large secondary schools, one public and one Lutheran, regularly share sporting fields and swimming pools. The public school for example has been devoid of a swimming pool forever, despite promises by the education department and politicians. However the public school is blessed with acreage for sports, but only because the area is flood land for a creek that is largely piped (a sad comment on the treatment of water features by government as well). Otherwise the 'surplus' land would have been sold by government years ago as has happened to many public schools that now have the restricted sporting and recreation space of a London school.

Through voluntary work for both schools I have watched with joy and a great deal of satisfaction as the frank and helpful cooperation blossoms between the schools. There are people like me who want this public school to be the first private public school. Its management is more enlightened and hard-working than the ham-fisted, paper-pushing bureaucrats that fill the education department high-rise in the metro cbd could ever contemplate.

One of the problems of responding to this article, as SM and others might agree, is that in doing so one inevitably lends some credence to the outrageous rhetoric and claims therein. That is a problem, but the good work of both State and private school teachers and managers needs to be defended and uncommitted readers need to understand there is a bigger game - fly with the eagles and seek a smarter, better way. Sniping is a downer, wasteful and de-motivating.

Amicus,

"..the parents of those kids pay more tax than you could ever even imagine...." is a very generalised statement.

Chances are that after mummy drops little Tristan off at school in the Range Rover, she's on her way out to spend her Family Allowance Supplement - paid to her because daddys business earns so little profit.

I've got no problem with her owning the Range Rover but I can't see why I have to help pay for some of it.

It's her choice to buy one - it's not an entitlement and it's actually the other taxpayers who pay for much of her childrens education and only get what's left over for their own.

Individual student subsidy is one thing but huge taxpayer handouts to the individual schools are another.

That's what evil socialism does for them - subsidises their personal choices.

Are you claiming such parents are victims?

I see most subscribe to the theory of divide and conquer. Where there is unity the blessing Is. All contribute to the Whole for we need farmers and fishermen, doctors and lawyers, the butcher, the baker,and the candle stick maker.
A kids story on who is the greatest! One day the eye looked down from his great height and said to the rest of the body "I am above you lot", the backside let out a rude noise and the nose said "you stink" , "are yes" replied the backside "if I don't work you all die". United we stand, divided we fall, and pride precedes the fall.

ritchie 10 - omg that's so clever, if only you could get everyone to subscribe, worldwide .. that's the solution to all our problems, if only we would listen to such things.

Your are missing the point Shadow Minister, private school shouldn't receive any subsidy from the taxpayer...they should fund themselves.

Phil Matimein, "Your are missing the point Shadow Minister, private school shouldn't receive any subsidy from the taxpayer...they should fund themselves."

Your reasons for declaring those children ineligible for government assistance are?

You should be applauding the choice offered by the range of providers and accepting as government already does, that education has to be provided and the government relies heavily of the private sector. An additional benefit is that the private sector can often achieve economies and efficiency that is impossible in the public sector. We should be thinking laterally and setting up some private schools within the public system.

To give you an example, how would children from remote areas receive an education if it were not for private schools? In fact many of the grammar schools for example were established for that purpose and have provided excellent education for donkeys years. By way of further example, many orphans from WW2 and farming accidents would have had led impoverished lives and ended up as State wards had it not been for the privately run boarding schools throughout Australia.

Ericc,

Catholic schools get in the order of 84%, and non catholic schools get substantially less based on their SES factor, and given the larger enrolment in non Catholic schools this brings the average to to under 80%.

My point which you have confirmed is that if the cost to the government is substantially less per private pupil, the premise of the article that the subsidies are depriving public school pupils of funds is a big pile of dung.

One of the main attractions of private schooling is that issues of discipline are dealt with. Bullies and thugs can face expulsion, and generally very few are actually expelled, as a single warning to the parents is sufficient to nip the problem in the bud. The only expulsions I am aware of were of in the schools I know were of students distributing inappropriate material. As for fees, a girl in my daughter's class parents went bankrupt. The school waved the fees for the remaining couple of years.

Given that most private schools automatically take the larger proportion of pupils from their junior schools which are unscreened, some with learning disabilities fall into the lowest stream classes which have differently structured teaching programs. However, these schools are not equipped to deal with the most disabled, and for the small proportion of kids that need specialist care, there are other schools that do this better.

With JC's kids, I spent a lot of time trying to find any reference to them and failed. Her personal decisions and motivations are completely hidden from the public, and given her unrelenting publishing of emotionally based half truths, there is an underlying grievance she is hiding.

As for some of the schools getting funded above their SES ratings, this has a lot to do with where their pupils originate. Some of the best schools are situated in the most exclusive suburbs, while a majority of their pupils are drawn from other suburbs, or boarders from rural areas.

Is your premise that Labor is trying to buy votes in the "marginal" suburbs of North Sydney and Vaucluse?

Wobbles,

Considering that Family benefits is means tested, none of the range rover brigade claim this.

While some parents are significantly wealthy, the majority of parents both work, and make huge sacrifices to give their kids the best, most well rounded education they can.

Given that most independent schools are not at the top end of the fees range, the scrapping of the subsidy would not hurt the wealthy parents, but the 80% of parents for whom the subsidy makes the difference as to whether they can afford private schools. These are the voters that would react viscerally.

Not that it is anyone's business, but my daughters attended the local public primary school from Kindergarten to year 6 and a nearby co-ed, comprehensive public high school from Year 7 to Year 12. One now attends Sydney University - a distinction average student studying for a teaching degree, and the other is doing a combined Arts and Fine Arts degree at UNSW.

My "grievance" is simply a passionate belief in the primacy of public education and a commitment to doing whatever little I can to remind people that a strong, well-resourced high standard public education system open to all children, regardless of their parents ability/willingness to pay up front fees is the cornerstone of a civilised democracy. We undermine the strength and resources of our public schools at all our peril.

Calling my arguments "emotional" and speculating that I must have some personal motivation for holding them is, by the way, a classic sexist putdown often made by men about women who argue vigorously for a particular point of view.

I am always open to rigorous debate about my views, I strenuously object, however, when opponents attempt to put me down personally. If your argument is a good one, it seems to me, you should have no need to resort to snide personal insinuations.

Jane Caro

Bravo Jane Caro for your tilt at those who pretend private schools are somehow the saving grace of public education.

Now Cornflower... you must be deaf, blind, mute yet still retain your typing abilities, somehow... "setting up some private schools within the public system"... means exactly WHAT, I wonder?

There is nothing else but 'private schools within the public system', it's just that people seem inclined to believe, somehow, for some strange reason, that a 'private' schools is just that, 'private'.

When it comes to funding these social bludgers, these educational pariahs, they are happy to grasp at ATO funds, as are their supporters.

They only become private when their students are caught drug dealing, raping, 'social misfitting', 'performing below expectations', thieving, and other sundry activities, when said student is sent packing to the local public school.

Oh, forgot, they are also 'private' when it comes to taking in the 'halt, lame and infirm', who are shunted off to the public system again.

Still, should Abbott get in, no doubt we'll all end up with vouchers, to send our kiddies 'where ever we want'.

Naturally, we'll all choose to send them to Kings, in NSW, on such largesse, and thereby free-up the public system even more.

A win-win situation?

Or a load of .... rowlocks?

Shadow Minister,

It's simple really. Private schools shouldn't receive government assistance because they are going outside the government system.

That is a conscious choice, and to expect funding is trying to have the best of both worlds. Make the decision - one or the other. If you want a private education then pay for it...don't expect others to pay for it. There is a perfectly adequate system which you could use.

Jane,

I respect your intelligence, however, you don't just hold a passionate belief, you are mounting a crusade. Further more, your main tenet that the partial funding to private schools deprives public schools of funds is as per the study to which I provided a link, completely unsubstantiated.

This leads me to speculate that you have a more visceral need to pursue this. I have seen similar passions in both sexes, but without feedback, what motivates you? Guilt? envy

[Deleted for flaming].

The Blue Cross, "..."setting up some private schools within the public system"... means exactly WHAT, I wonder?"

Simply put it means giving schools that are managing well and have a record of solid local support the independence to manage their own affairs without the BIG Sister of the Education Department hanging over their shoulders. Give them the money they are due and let them manage. Importantly, where they manage to raise more money locally or are able to get it done through local goodwill, do not 'adjust' their next annual budget downwards accordingly. Allow them the flexibility that private schools have regarding the skills they recruit, the source of the recruitment and the pay and conditions for staff.

Such schools would be managed by a board with local community representatives. A member or observer from the Education Department is not necessary and could be a constricting influence. It would be better to have independent representation on the audit committee from the private sector and that is often available free or at a vastly reduced rate. There are many public spirited professionals around.

Your insults reflect on your own credibility.

TBC,

A typical erudite public school response.

http://avn.org.au/

Please feel free to read the AVN website which in the words of the HCCC contains falsehoods and selectively excised information so as to put doubts in the mind of readers as to the efficacy of vaccination, with the result that children are dying of diseases nearly unheard of a generation ago.

While not vile as the AVN's website, JC's post employs the same tactics, hoping that a half truth if repeated frequently enough will get accepted as fact.

Oh Cornflower, you delicate petal, you... now, if there existed such a school as you describe, inhabiting within the state system, then clearly it is not being thwarted by the system, so I am not sure why it would need to be 'freed', just to be taken over by a cabal of over active 'well-wishers' to operate in total secrecy, as do the publicly subsidised 'not really private' private schools.

Please explain.

SM... you scrape the barrel in your attempt to compare Caro's words with that anti-vaccination mob, why do you bother to stoop so low?

I checked the first page, and recognised the myths of the private school lobby, with falsehood heaped upon sought-for privilege and demanded entitlements, coupled with beggar-thy-neighbour philosophy.

As for the 'public school' comment, why yes, I did attend a 'public school', but not in this nation-state, in another, formed long before the first white men even thought of coming here, and where Australian 'private' schools seek the inspiration for their Target-like derivative form, without any real comprehension of what they are, of what damage their existence has done, or why they should not be, any longer.

The boater, the blazer, the Oxford shoes, and yoiks tally-ho Rugbuggian nonsense, are all well known, sad to say, to me.

Welfare for the wealthy. Bloody disgraceful.

Below is a link showing the increase in tax payer money to private schools along with an, get this, an increase in fees! - so much for including lower income parents!

http://www.adogs.info/Statistics%2016.htm

A store of information can be found at the following website:

http://www.adogs.info/statistics.php

The Australian Council for the Defence of Government Schools -which has been following the shift from government support of public schools from as early as the McMahon government to date.

"Non-government schools receive substantial capital grants and land grants from government. And, when government school assets are sold off, the proceeds are returned to consolidated revenue, unlike non-government schools, for which the proceeds of asset sales are reinvested.

On an honest comparison, then, government school expenditure per student in 2008 was $496 less than Catholic schools, $5246 less than independent schools and $2415 less than all private schools.Based on a government school population of 2.3 million, bringing government school resources up to the average for all private schools would require an extra $5.5 billion a year.

But, for a given standard, government schools are more expensive to run. They must provide a school for all comers and in all places. They can't cherry-pick the market. This alone suggests that funding benchmarks should set a premium for government schools.The SES formula is a flawed measure of disadvantage because it is based on areas rather than families. But based on 2006 census data and the 2010 Productivity Commission report on government services, government schools - which take a disproportionate number of disadvantaged students - should receive 1.8 times the per capita funding of private schools, according to calculations by Trevor Cobbold, who maintains the Save Our Schools website. On this basis, Commonwealth funding for government schools should be increased $28.7 billion a year."

JR

An "honest comparison" from an unbiased organisation such as the "The Australian Council for the Defence of Government Schools"

From their website. This shoddy work does not inspire confidence in their "honest comparison"

Geelong Grammar
2009 - $26,260 2010 - $17,700 increase of 15.5%

Next time don't even bother to pretend, just make up the figures as you go along.