Vanna and Flo,

The simple maths is that every child in an independent school is saving the state between 30 and 70% of the cost of a child in a public school. Thus removing the subsidy, reduces the amount of money available for public education.

The government knows this and cannot afford to stop the subsidies. If they did, they might save some money in the short term, but in the long term it would cost a fortune.

Surely the point is that we don't really have a private system: it's a public-private one which means that the government is funding every school nominally outside the public system, as well as those within it. Even the highest fee-charging schools - $24,000 per annum - get $3,000 or so of the taxpayers' dollars.
If people want choice, fair enough, but not at that sort of cost to those in the public system.
A second, and critical point, is the proportion of students disadvantaged in one way or another who are in the public system. They're there probably because, for reasons related to the barely relevant posts about single-parent families, they can't afford the choice of going elsewhere. But whatever the reason, the fact is that the public system has a far higher proportion of disadvantaged students - who need far higher funding if they are to have a chance of overcoming their difficulties.
Surely government should be funding schools so that all students get the chance of a good education? That means targeting the funding to give opportunity to those who have no choice in the matter of their social or financial wealth.

OK so education is compulsory. Isn't the easy solution that the State Governments pay the tachers' salaries in all schools. Private schools if they want more than that fund it themselves.They've already got the buildings, trust funds, facilities etc. What more do they need?

"It wouldn't save that much money to remove the 612,000 disadvantaged children in the country, now a direct result of the 800,000 single parent families'

Are you suggesting that all children that live with single mothers are disadvantaged or deprived? It might then surprise you that some of the most disadvantage children live in two parent families. Being in a family with mother and father married does not necessary make good parents.

I am afraid that yours and many others reasons for children being disadvantaged is too simple and black and white.

The causes are more likely to be poverty, drug, alcohol, and mental illness. All these occur in single and two parent families. One of the greatest causes is domestic violence.

Sometimes children suffer by the parent not leaving a dysfunctional family. Single parent household could save children from being disadvantaged, not the other way about.

To understand and solve the problem, people need to look beyond their prejudices. You are right about one thing, these children will be in danger of repeating their parents lives if they do not get appropriate support.

Flo

Visit any prison in the country and you will find 95% plus of inmates who grew up fatherless or without their natural fathers. This is an indictment on men more than woman. However woman denying reality don't help the situation by being defensive. Drugs, poverty, mental health come as a result of being fatherless not the other way around.

You will find about the same number cannot read or write. Is it being alleged that all children reared without their father end up in prison?

Many families separate, and the children retain strong links with the father. Being separated does not mean the father no longer has a role.

I question your figures, which such a high number come from single families. Many come from violent homes. Some follow their father footsteps. Many have parents who were in prison as well.

I go back to my earlier comment that putting the blame on single mothers leads you nowhere. You have to look at why the mother has gone it alone. You will find there is much more involved than being bought up by mother on her own.

Most children in single families grow up to be well-rounded adults.

Being fatherless or in a single family is a symptom of what is wrong, not the cause.