'the difference was that poor performance would mean the closure of the school as all the parents could easily move them over to the public school.'

You seem so upset about this. So why are you not concerned at all about the kids who don't have the choice to move to a private school if the public school performs badly?

Anyway, as I said, the school wouldn't close. They'd just charge more, and the parents would scrimp and save more. Well, those that had to in the first place.

Houle,

You are all over the map.

So now you admit that the smaller private schools should be subsidised, which is in cash terms the majority of the funds.

The means testing that is already in place for the top schools in that they get a smaller fraction of what the other independent schools get you want reduced to zero.

"The parents scrimping and saving should just scrimp and save some more" what a spiteful heartless thing to say. It just shows that your only motivation is envy.

I wouldn't be carping on about heartless if I was you SM.

Talk about being all over the map. You have no heart for people who can never afford private schooling, but now have all the heart for those who once could afford it but now may not. Unbelievable! Maybe once one has stepped into a private school they are now worthy?

As I said, I cant believe the middle class is so easily duped. They wouldn't have to scrimp and save if instead of trying to get one over the Joneses they hounded the governmnet to make the public system better. I'm sorry if my heart is all used up on the kids who will never be able to afford a decent education, with no heart left for the 'aspirationals'.

'So now you admit that the smaller private schools should be subsidised, which is in cash terms the majority of the funds. '

Ideologically No. In terms of your so called 'entitlement', definitely no. In terms of pragmatism and practicality (especially in country towns with less choice),and given the current state of play, yes.

I suppose in summary, I find it offensive this bleating by the rich private schools lobby about entitlement. I find it offensive this idea that everyone should get all their tax money back. I find it ridiculous that after having been provided schools via taxes, one decides they aren't good enough, then cries they are being 'punished' when they choose not to use the services the taxes provided. I find it even more ridiculous that people claim to be 'subsidising' the public system as if that's their motivation.

'It just shows that your only motivation is envy.'

Well, that's a simple way to dismiss anyone who dares to be interested in looking after the less well off in society. I'll see you envy and raise you snobbery.

I think you forget we are talking about children and their start in life and equality of opportunity. You are all about the parents and 'entitlements' and judgement calls about whether they 'care' enough to 'scrimp and save'.

My wife went to St. Peter's and attended a class reunion several years ago. The headmaster gave a talk and asked people to vote for Howard because the school badly needed a performing arts centre. My wife's outrage left her speechless so she said nothing to the headmaster but plenty to me which does no good at all except that I have something to post on this subject.

When Howard was introducing the GST the Catholic bishops were expected to issue a pastoral letter opposing the GST as it was a regressive tax. Howard announced $400,000,000 more for the Catholic school system, and there was no pastoral letter on the GST.

I was a delegate to an interfaith conference in Brisbane and attended a session on independent schools. The chairman stressed the fact that students were taught about other religions. I asked what programs existed for students to meet and exchange views with students of other faiths. He bloviated and then admitted there were none.

Get rid of religious apartheid and political catering to religious blocs. Let those who want religious apartheid pay for it.

Otherwise create a public school system good enough for everybody. Learn together. Live together. Work together.

Houle,

You are mistaking equality of opportunity with economic equality.

We are all equal under the law. We all equally have the opportunity to buy a porsche. However, the assumption is that we have the means and desire to do so. If you want to sell your house to buy a porsche most people could. However, the porsche would not be high on their priorities, and the fact that some people could easily buy a porsche does not imply that the state should provide everyone with a porsche.

There are very few people for whom the lower fee independent schools are out of reach if they work harder and save more. However, many make the decision not to make the sacrifice. That is entirely their choice.

If they should then be envious of those that do sacrifice to better educate their children, then driven by guilt they find it easier to try and pull down those that have focused on their children and not their selves.

SM,

Haha. Now it's coming out full throttle! Those poor people, they should just work harder. Then they wouldn't be poor. Maybe all the poor people are just Lazy?

'those that have focused on their children and not their selves.'

Selfish and lazy!

I see in your world, that scrimping and saving for a posh school, regardless of the effects on the family unit (unhappy tired parents, no money for other things, parents who rarely see their kids) is the only way to be 'focussed' on your children. It's a nice little excuse isn't it. Do you work 70 hour weeks for your kids to go to private school, or do your kids go to private school so you can justify your desire to work 70 hour weeks in the career you love that defines you? What's more important really, your career or the family happiness? The added bonus is the self righteous excuse of doing it for the kids, and you can look down to those who just don't care enough about their kids to 'scrimp and save'.

'You are mistaking equality of opportunity with economic equality.'

You are confusing opportunity of children with opportunity of parents.

'If they should then be envious...'

I'm not 'envious', I'm happy for middle class mugs to take it upon themselves to pay $20k a year for a service they could get for free, because they think that will buy them a better education. $20k a year could be $200k after 6 years, invested wisely, a fair deposit on a house. It could be a private tutor for 1 hour a day. It's when they decide the state should subsidise this choice it gets ridiculous.

'the fact that some people could easily buy a porsche does not imply that the state should provide everyone with a porsche.'

The fact that some people don't like public transport doesn't mean the state should subsidise their porsche.