"They forgo their entitlement voluntarily when they CHOOSE not to go to a governmnet funded school."

rubbish, why do they forgo their entitlement?

Is it because you personally don't like it?

No of course they don't and it is self evident, private schools DO GET government funding, or as it is also known, taxpayer funding.

Why would anyone forgo their entitlement? Whi is going to take it off them?

What a ridiculous notion, to want that is just plain mean .. of the school of thought "I don't like it or agree with it, therefore you shall not have it"

Also of the socialist school of thought, "everyone must be exactly the same" to which society replies, "no, I decide what I do and where I spend, therefore I can have it that way, it is the government's duty to comply .. and they DO! YAY!"

If you want to shut private schools down, then the government would have to build a lot more schools to accommodate the students currently in that system .. so the money that would be needed to pay for that, is currently being invested in .. wait for it .. private schools!

oxymoron of the day "If you want the best from your tax dollars, send your kids to a public school." That'll keep me going all weekend now, LOL .. toodles!

'oxymoron of the day "If you want the best from your tax dollars, send your kids to a public school." That'll keep me going all weekend now, LOL .. toodles!'

What I'm saying is that you know that the governmnet funds public schools more than it does private. If you are upset that the private schools get less money, and you think it's 'unfair', you are perfectly entitled to move your kids to a public school in order to have more of your tax dollars spent on your needs.

If you choose not to send your kids to public schools, you are choosing to forgo your entitlement to governmnet expenditure that the public schools receive. Pretty simple really.

The fact that the government has provided public schools, but you have decided not to make use of the service, means you forgo any entitlement. Happily for you, it suits the government to entice and support you in order to relive the burden on public schools, and save it unpopular tax increases. But that's hardly an entitlement, and if and when it suits the governmnet not to fund your school, you always have the CHOICE of that nasty public school if you don't like the extra fees.

'Is it because you personally don't like it?'
I just don't see the need.

Interesting to see that a lot of opinions are clearly "yes" or "no" for public funding of non-government schools.

What I have said before and I will say again is that I have no problem with public funding of non-government schools as long as they need the funding. There are some well-resourced private schools that charge high fees and have everything that a school could want yet there are some government schools that are not as well resourced (and yes, I know there are also well-resourced government schools).

Also, do the figures that get reported here and everywhere include all the income that non-government schools receive through other fees, funding drives or donations?

And, if as the author says:
"It should also never be forgotten that those parents who send their children to non-government schools, a right that is protected by international conventions and agreements, in addition to school fees, pay taxes that support a system they do not use."

Am I right in understanding that the author is implying that just because someone pays taxes for something that they don't use that they should receive government funding for something that they actually use?

If that were the case, then if I don't use hospitals or national parks can I get a subsidy for things that I do use? Taxis come to mind...

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Why should private schools not receive any funding from Government?

Government schools take in many students who are not Christian, which in turn, reduces government class sizes that non-christian school students benefit from in a number of ways.

Further, if one took all the privately educated students out of the private systems, government schools would be bursting at the seams, enforcing most parents to pay astronomical fees anyway.

Look at the broad picture and face the reality that the private systems/schools' have been doing most non-christian educated kids and their families a favour for generations.

Another poster stated that there are less privately educated students making or attending university. The point? Where are the figures for this statement [am interested] and if true, why a negative, when privately educated students may be either delaying their studies for one or two years after finishing year 12 [relatives in my family and friends kids who did this a few years ago], along with many kids who have completed Apprenticeships in their chosen fields.

After attending a large family 'do' on the weekend catching up with first cousins children in their twenties, most of these had been privately educated and have completed Apprenticeships or half way through Uni, a couple working in mines, some own businesses etc.

Both public and private system educated kids equally contribute to our economy regardless of whether 'University' educated.

Maybe we should turn this around.

Given that independent school pupils cost the state about 60% of the cost of public school students, and about 75% of the independent schools would close if subsidies were withdrawn, withdrawing subsidies would:

-Force the government to spend hundreds of billions on capital to fund the extra places,
-Having spent the money, the annual cost to the states will be higher,
-The average quality of education will be lower,
-Parents will have lost the choice as to how to educate their kids.

Based on this has anyone got more than a fuzzy ideal of equality to justify removing subsidies?

I really do love the concept that "All -people- are created equal..."
What a shame it is all so much crap.
Wouldn't it be nice if every kid was allowed at least an equal start in life? What happens after that should be entirely up to the individual, but is it so wrong to think in any race or contest(as all life inevitably is) everyone should start at the same line?
The author's argument that a steady flow of students from public to private schools justifies giving more money to the latter is really putting the horse before the cart. Most of those parents are taking their kids out of public schools because they are underfunded, and yes, in many cases, badly run.
If 'advantaged' kids didn't have a 'get out of jail free' card, then I'm pretty sure the government schools would have to lift their game.
In fact, we don't have to guess; we just have to look at recent history. In my day, public schools were much more comparable (in fact, often superior) to private ones.
The movement of 'economic rationalism' and privatisation has led us down the wrong path. If you know you are going the wrong way, why push ahead?
Some Human Rights should be inviolable and universal. Among these rights should be the right to education and health care, equal to the very best. Let all the children have the right to achieve their full potential.
The fact that it is Christians, of all people, arguing against this fundamental right makes me sick.
I don't think Jesus was placing himself in the role of private school Principal when he said "suffer the little children to come unto me".