There are many sensible things in this piece but its final conclusion, that equitable education policy means rigorously equal funding per student, leaves a dilemma; parents would have to be barred from contributing further to their children's schooling once the level of funding at a school is deemed to have reached "what is needed to achieve a proper education". Setting aside the obvious question of how such a level could ever be determined, such a ban would make the Williams policy unworkable in our version of a free society. Far better to fund all schools from the public purse at a minimum decreed level and then permit parents, or whoever desires, to add personal funding to the mix. I believe it's called the voucher system.

Dear Mr. Williams,

Kindly tell us where one can find some 'Education' for sale.

The many shops and market stalls I have visited so far do not stock it.

Excellent and relevant paper. Tombee has commented helpfully but I would suggest not "minimum" level of payment but rather "optimal" for what is regarded as a reasonable level of education to be offered to all children. If parents wish to contribute in order to provide "add–ons" then this is their right and prerogative.

Obviously, the school system failed me badly, because I could make head nor tail of this article. Is it proposing a voucher system? Is it having a generalized whinge about "the continuing project of undermining our state education system?". What's going on?

What to make, for example, of the sentence:

"The only strategy is to discredit the concept of a public good, which in the wrangling over state education is often disguised as the pursuit of excellence."?

Someone is discrediting the pursuit of excellence, apparently, which is quite an extraordinary thing to do. But who? And how? And why?

Another mystery:

"Research by Richard Teese and Stephen Lamb at the University of Melbourne shows that the current system of funding has tended to widen the achievement gap between schools rather than diminish it"

It intrigued me that these scholars had tied the widening achievement gap to the "system of funding", rather than overcrowded classrooms, poor teachers, disengaged pupils etc. Money, surely, judiciously applied, will alleviate overcrowding, encourage higher quality staff etc. - so how is the "system" of funding preventing this, rather than the sheer availability of money? I can make a semi-educated guess, of course. But that's rather more work than I signed up for.

And this is even more confusing:

"Schools are for children and young people, all of whom deserve an equal chance. Choosing a school for your child is not the same type of decision as choosing a mechanic for your car. Children are not possessions. They have rights in their own regard, irrespective of who their parents are, and the protection of these rights is the responsibility of the state."

Let me see if I have at least managed to understand this correctly.

The State is responsible for choosing the child's school, because the child is not a car.

That really doesn't sound right to me.

It's not so much as to who should pay for education. The real question should be who should receive education to go on to Uni.
Our Unis are so heavily laden with no-hopers who are wasting so much needed funding for the intelligent students.
Make University entry what it was decades ago, a real test & if you fail you start a trade. None of this going to Uni & not being of any benefit to society.
When you succeed in University & you end up being a useful individual with a good career & make money then you pay back some of the money spent on you.

The premise of responsibility for education can sometimes be lost in the mess of debate we have about it in Australia, being one of the earliest countries to establish a universal education system, and a country with a very advanced system of education. The first premise and the first thing about education that might be taught is that all children get their primary education from their mother therefore women (girls) must be priority to be educated well. The second premise is that all children must be educated to a basic level and that it is the responsibility (primarily) of the father to ensure this education. "Basic education" is an interesting concept that I won't try to nail down here. The third premise of education is that everyone should continue their education over life, enhancing their contribution to society. The key issue is that, if this was a cultural norm, mothers and fathers would themselves be attending more to their child's education than currently. This then has a major influence on the behaviour of all adults and their socio-economic lives. Indeed, it is this attitude that has been at the foundations of all successful communities in the world. Striving to be educated and to educate creates its own communities of engagement. Without suggesting that the Australian systems of education should be dismantled, a great deal more shift of responsibility from the State to the parents which implies a far greater engagement in community, and oh, yes that would mean a change in political processes. The cost and who pays? Worry about that when the mass of people are engaged in education. After all the education system itself needs to catch up with society's aspirations.