Pouring more money into State schools is like pouring more money in Aborginal affairs. The reasons for failure are never addressed. Now the social enginners want successful indepenant schools to adopt the same recipes for diaster. They never ask why so many parents are voting with their feet and wallets even after paying tax to fund the public system.

Runner, not all state schools are basket cases. In my local area, we have 2 state schools with catchment areas. There are people who would like to send their kids to these schools, but can't because of their popularity. I personally know of 3 people who have left the private system and sent their children to state schools. Not all private schools, are all they are cracked up to be. I went to private and state schools as a child, and I have to say there were good and bad schools/teachers in both systems - making state schools out to be failed schools is simply wrong and a massive overstatement.

Like it or not, we need a strong state school system to ensure ALL children have access to a great education. If we underfund them they will certainly fail, and we'll worsen any issues of social disadvantage we have. Not all children would be accepted in a private system - that's kind of the point of them isn't it? Their exclusivity is part of their cachet.

It is all very well saying that non government schools have a greater percentage of students entering university. What percentage of these students actually finish their courses, compared to the government schools. My experience was that the ex government schools students did better. What say, Kevin.

My suggestion is that all parents pay fees based on percentage of taxable income (eg 10%)to schools where their children attend; govt or private, for their childrens education. Then be given tax deductions and credits for volunteer work done in the school. This is the way parent controlled schools work. Parent representatives interview staff to employ and dismiss. They pay above the award and get better teachers.

I am so relieved that at the end of this year I can at last turn my back on this argument.

My view is that I have been fortunate, in that I have been able to determine my kids' education on the basis of what best met their academic needs, and at the same time provided the best possible spectrum of opportunities for them to progress in the direction they chose.

It has been expensive, of course. I'm sure that I could have used that money to buy a second car, or a bigger house, or some more exotic overseas holidays. And yes, of course I have the advantage - that I have worked hard for - of being in a position to make those choices in the first place.

But to me, it still comes down to the availability of those choices. I would hate to live - correction, I would certainly not live - in a country that was so mean-spirited and envious of success, that it would not permit its citizens to choose where to spend their after-tax earnings. That tax, of course, having already made a contribution towards the State education system.

The obvious answer, which would immediately illuminate the barrenness of the "kill the private school" argument, would be a voucher system. But of course, that would not bring about the lowest-common-denominator system that the control-freak levellers have in mind.

They also have the greater number of parents that can assist their children to go to university.