As a Principal of a Primary school of some 800 students, and an educator for more than 20 years, I am yet to see an article that presents this debate with integrity. Everyone has a barrow to push and, as someone who is very aware of how the funding system works (or doesn't depending on your view) I feel I am in a position to see this. A couple of responses:
Deep-Blue - One size fits all is not where our society is at. Right or wrong, that's a fact, so you cannot expect a school system to reflect a society that simply doesn't exist. Bring on Utopia I say!
Vanna - you raise a very valid point but one that is (unfortunately) not politically correct to make. In my less generous moments (and I try very hard to keep these to a minimum!), I meet a new family, find out a few facts and start to make a decision about their child's educational prospects from there. Not fair but, sadly, often at least partly accurate. That said, research such as the meta-analyses from people in the field such as John Hattie, show that family background is not as big a factor as people assume. With sample sizes in the 100 000's, I am inclined to go with his analysis!
So what's the answer? i) Don't rob Peter to pay Paul. Improve funding across the board, which will include less funding for some Independent schools no doubt, and stop this petty, and unproductive, "Public-Private" argument. ii) Train our teachers better, so they can rise to the challenge of teaching children from disadvantaged homes. iii) Respect teachers for the job they do and support them (that goes for Police, Nurses, Ambos, etc - but that's a rant for another day!)

Vana
"I would be very skeptical of more taxpayer money being given to any school, as most of student performance seems to be connected to curriculum and teacher attitudes, not facilities."

GREAT! Parents with kids in private schools are deciding to pay twice for their kids education (once through taxes and once through fees) are usually doing so because of 'values'. In other words, they are paying to AVOID the indoctrination that teachers and the Dept of Education force down students throats.

VANA
"One parent families are also the most likely to live in poverty... but something I have never heard any teacher publicly mention...
The big question now is, if teachers are actually interested in disadvantaged children ... why don't they mention the main factors that create disadvantaged children?"

Great point... and the answer is that although marriage and stable families is best for children, it is hated by feminism. For the idelogical warriors of the education system, promoting their religion (feminism) is more important than helping children. IMHO

Rational-debate
There is actually a good description of what happens to disadvantaged children here.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2006/10/17/uk-child-poverty-the-facts-115875-17942883/

If at present, disadvantaged children in Australia are not so badly disadvantaged, then this may be because welfare payments are higher, but a government can reduce welfare payments at any time, or may have to reduce welfare payments because of economic necessity.

Those who want to remain numb regards single parent families had better hope the welfare payments are not reduced.

The Blair government set up a special task force to battle child poverty in the UK. They tried everything from special schools and special education programs for disadvantaged children, to food and clothing vouchers to tax credits to employment programs. Not much worked, and it finally prompted a senior official in the task force to say to the media that the best thing for disadvantaged children was for the mother to get married.

Subsequently that official was moved out of the task force for politically correct reasons, but the number of disadvantaged children or children living below the poverty line in the UK continues to grow, and in numbers, there are now more children living below the poverty line in the UK than the elderly.

Apparently this is the first time in UK history that this has occurred.

rational-debate.......well thank-you for that rational post instead of Shadow Minsters ridiculous Communist plot he believes Iam behind, along with Al-have-a-chat and his new bride, that loves to read/hear his/hers own voices:)

Bring on Utopia I say!......I feel more for the families with bright kids that will never have the chance to live the dream, which is all comprehensively wrapped into our currant belief systems of " All Australians will have the right to a fair educational system without prejudice and all shall benefit with no-child ever being left behind.

Quoted from a Former PM.

Its a one sided affair, which only the wealthy can enjoy, while the rest just have to watch as their children fail in life.

Yes....they do just love it, when the three levels of society are all put/belong in there slave-masters delusions of a fair go Australia.

I'll just add...............No child will be in poverty by.....! You wonder how they live with their BS.

If Australia wants smarter Australians...........Cough up the funds......for all.

BLUE

I find it absolutely offensive that I must subsidise private schools. If people want to pay huge amounts of money so their kids get the benefit of manicured sports fields and old boys' networks, good luck to them, but why should I have to pay for that?

Gillard goes on about 'choice', but only the rich have a choice about what school they send their kids to. And I'm happy for them, but leave me out of it!

Western Australia's highest ranked student in 2010 Yr 12 results was home schooled until Yr11. When are the secularist going to admit that funding is not the issue but the hopelessly flawed social engineering that they are bent on carrying out. Droves of unbelieving parents have seen the rotten fruit and care enough about their kids to pay considerable amounts of money to have their children in a civilized environment. Showing politically motivated warped tables does not change the fact that it costs less to the tax payer for kids to be in private schooling. The dishonesty of the secularist know no bounds.