I have a few issues with how the "Schooling Challenges and Opportunities" has been characterized here. You describe it as a consultant's report as distinct from something that a think tank or other institution could produce. It is in fact the product of a consortium including Nous Group, the National Institute of Labour Studies and the Melbourne Graduate School of Education – involving a team from each partner. We also engaged with internationally renown experts (Ben Levin and John Hattie) to provide input and criticism.

You said the research was “selective”. The report drew on around 100 references including several OECD reports and and discussed them at length in appendices as well as the main report. You make an arguement also for more "real-world evidence". I wonder if you looked at the four regional case studies in the report that were based on extensive interviews with principals and teachers from the three sectors in each location?

You assert that the findings were predicated on a belief that “non-government schooling exacerbates educational disadvantage” when our point was that selective schooling does this, noting that public schools are becoming more selective.

You refer to the “fallacy that private schools discriminate”. They do, as do a lot of public schools who have the luxury to prioritise applications from out-of-zone students. But the universal nature of public schooling means that they are the last resort, or the only option or the only free option. This is not to deny the fact that many schools, particularly in the Catholic sector, provide fee relief and other help to ensure that lower income people who want to have their kids attend are not barred from doing so.

Finally, on your point that “factors like expectations and the school environment are important if we cared to look at this”, we did look at it extensively which is why we said that investment should be focussed on those schools – regardless of sector – that did not have those attributes.