CARFAX, you must understand that as soon as you turn your post into anti-left rant you sound like a right wing nut shouting at the wind to stop. It's clear you hat....
The thing that is missing from this piece as other have said, is what does Autonomy mean? The author is well known for his ideas, but he lives in a fantasy world however his ideas never have to be tested. Where he can cherry pick the stats to fit his conclusions. My take is to always mistrust someone who can’t or won't tell the down sides of their ideas. It means they either have thought them through or their ideolog, either of which disqualifies them in my view. No system is perfect.
I also can't help but notice that most people pushing for "choice" in schools are likely is from a dogmatic religious background as well.

The author comes off as a cultural warrior not an education academic.

I think the NBN will make a national curriculum easier to impose; and give recalcitrant teachers far fewer excuses; for quite deliberately disadvantaging those placed in her or his charge; particularly when inculcating the basics, which become the foundation stone and building blocks; upon which the rest of a child's education is built!
[And indeed, whole of life academic outcomes and career pathways.]
If a few teachers find that "boring" and want to experiment; I say, get a job in a lab. For mine, it is never boring imparting new information,[for them,]to young children. The trick is to make it interesting.
If one wants to argue that the curriculum ought to be changed or updated; to line up with our most successful school's topic choice and methods? Well who could argue with that?
Only rebels, without a stated cause; seeking to impose an entirely inappropriate and unacceptable Ideology, perhaps?

Autonomy in the hands of a really good leader is excellent. Autonomy in the hands of a tin-pot dictator is disastrous.

Those who want a detailed account of recent educational history in Victoria can go to:
http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/462500.aspx.

The question of autonomy is connected with the notions of “public” and “private”, words thrown around in so much discussion of education, and thus with funding systems.

My submissions to the Review of Funding for Schooling argue for an explicit staffing ratio for all schools (18:1 for years 3-6 and 15:1 for all other levels), a student learning entitlement sufficient to support those staffing ratios ($6,993 for years 3-6 and $8,320 for all other levels) ands a base funding amount of up to $250,000 for each primary school and $1,000,000 for each secondary school. These amounts would fund two and eight teachers respectively plus other costs. All schools whose fees do not exceed $1,000 would get the full SLE from the state and federal governments on the same cost-sharing basis for both public and private schools.

Sadly, the federal AEU’s submission was so poor that it did not even attempt to make a case for any particular staffing formula or any particular funding level. This has lessened the chances of the review making a recommendation in the best interest of the students and teachers (i.e., the AEU’s own members) in public schools but not the chances of the federal AEU complaining about whatever the recommendation is.

Links to my submissions appear at:
http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/542494.aspx?PageIndex=2

There is one rule that every school should have to observe under pain of losing its operating licence: no school should be allowed to coerce children to believe theories that do not enjoy at least close to unanimous endorsement from the people and organisations in the world best qualified to appraise them. This, of course, would mean that there would be no place for schools that require children to hold to certain beliefs as a matter of mere faith. It would not mean that schools would be unable to encourage children to appraise certain beliefs in which significant numbers of adults have faith but it would mean that schools which chose to offer children this opportunity should do so after the manner described by Foyle in the first post on this paper, not after the manner beloved of hell raising preachers in pulpits.
Assuming a person to be a Christian or a Muslim or a Keynesian or a Socialist presupposes that the person has made a decision typically only capable of being made by an autonomous, well informed adult. Schools that assume that their students are little Catholics, or Mormons, or Muslims or capitalists, and which claim the right to indoctrinate them in the beliefs of those faiths, assume a role that should never be allowed by an intelligent country anxious to minimise the reasons its citizens can find for hating each other.
Does Mr Donnelly have any evidence to refute the suspicion that the more autonomy schools have, the more likely they are to use it ensure that undesirable and difficult students never enter their hallowed halls nor imperil their value added scores?

Ah Kenny an 'ad hom' response followed by a false dicotomy, stock in trade tools of the 'true believer'
If advocating choice for all families and better opportunities for all children, rich or poor, is a right wing rant then I am pleased to plead guilty as charged.
I was not aware that advocating anything other than left wing ideology in education was shouting against the wind.
Looking at Federal LABOR and various State Coalition initiatives on increased school autonomy it seems that winds of change may be upon us.
Do find yourself a suitable coat.
It could be chilly.

Choice in education is there, the problem is the unfair divide of the education funding. Also if these schools want autonomy then they should forfeit some of the taxpayers funding to them.