Dear Mac,

Thank you, I truly appreciate your detailed explanation, so far we agree.

Re my first comment: Graham already explained the case where both private and public schools teach the same prescribed curriculum (I oppose any state-prescribed curriculum, but given that you are on the left side of politics this is something that even you should agree on), but suppose a private school teaches 65% of the same subjects and same contents as public schools, then so long as the rich receive 100% free public-school education for the 100% public curriculum (which is probably wrong, ideally perhaps they shouldn't, but so long as they do), it only makes sense that the private school should receive 65% of that for the common teachings.

In other words, if you are only 35% independent, then you should receive 65% for the non-independent portion.

Kevin, can you give us a link to the scientific research of how student performance is lifted by "competition, diversity, autonomy and choice in education". For example, effect size on student performance would be good. Until then I will just assume your argument is just based on supposition and prejudice. Why is so much air in the "education debate" taken by political war-horses like Donnelly when there is so much serious educational research available that points to the stuff that really does make a difference in the classroom - (PS - and it ain't increased "competition, diversity, autonomy and choice in education")

How fortunate we are to have a totally ideology free commentator such as Mr Donnelly. Otherwise he would leave himself open to accusations of hypocrisy and being two faced.

Forunately Mr Donnelly is totally unbiased and wouldn't dare superimpose his own ideological values onto an article posing as a faux neutral assessment of a policy he is fundamentally ideologically opposed to.
Lucky aren't we?

Yuyustu, and Graham Y,

"In other words, if you are only 35% independent, then you should receive 65% for the non-independent portion."

Don't agree. If the board of an independent school( ie independently funded) chooses to teach !00% of the public curriculum, the school should have no claim whatsoever on taxpayers' funds as it's an autonomous decision.

What you are suggesting seems to be a regime of tax hypothecation.
The Social Democratic principle is that a government is elected to administer particular fiscal policies, taxpayers funds are used to provide public goods, such as education and infrastructure. Those citizens who find the services provided inadequate, or unacceptable for other reasons, are free to make their own arrangements or campaign for changes.

So the answer to --"The current system discriminates against those wealthy people who choose not to send their kids to state schools." No, it doesn't, they made a choice to send their children to private schools, in fact, unlike lower income people, they have a choice.

Tax hypothecation is attractive at first sight, many taxpayers would be delighted to specify how their tax funds should be spent -- however, administratively, it would be chaotic.

Graham,

The point you make is a very significant one, and all those foolish people demanding the unamended implementation of the Gonksi report seem not to realise that such implementation will lead to exactly what you imply. The flaws in the Gonski report were obvious the day it was released, which is why I submitted a letter to the editor of The Age pointing them out on that day. I have submitted 43 letters in total to The Age on the Gonksi review, the most recent being sent today. Not one has been published, which is why members of the public do not know what the Gonski report actually proposes.

The Gonski report endorses the Howard government’s SES model. The report comes right out and says:
“The panel considers that basing public funding on the level of private resources a school is likely to be capable of raising for itself is preferable to relying on the private income that it actually receives. As argued in Chapter 2.3, linking public funding directly to a non-government school’s private income, expenditure or assets would be inherently complex and difficult to implement equitably given that different schools finance their recurrent and capital needs in very different ways. It would also accentuate disincentives for parents to invest in their children’s education.”
(page 176, Review of Funding for Schooling, Final Report)

This means that schools would continue to be funded on the basis of how well off the people who live in the area the students come from are. The report wants the area to be made smaller, but the principle remains. The endorsement of this principle of funding schools on the basis of supposed parental capacity to pay rather than on fees actually charged will increase pressure on the public school sector to charge fees based on parental income (which news reports say SA has already introduced in a very small way), but the public school advocates seem totally unable to see it – yet again missing the point, as they have done from the moment the Gonski review was announced.

Even Kevin Donnelly isn't arguing against the idea of universal compulsory education in our society…

So it seems to me the only argument that would support the claim that the current system discriminates against wealthy people would be if they were denied enrolment of their children at state schools on the basis of their parents 'wealth'.

A corollary would be people being denied a seat on public transport because they were wealthy enough to own a Rolls-Royce.

If they were and chose instead to use the Roller – or send their kids to Geelong Grammar or Kings – that is not state discrimination against, but personal discrimination in favour of one's self.