Surely in a democracy the children of all citizens should receive the same level of government contribution to their education. If parents chose to pay more that should be their right.

If you want to start reducing the equal treatment of children, it would be better to fund the children of tax paying citizens, in preference to non tax paying folk. It is the children of these folk who are proven to be less likely to contribute to the society, after they have been educated.

Yes I'm sure the bleeding hearts will have a dozen excuses,{reasons they will tell us], for this non contribution, but after 30 years of following their beliefs, nothing has changed. How much longer do we spend wasting our efforts.

Yuyutsu, if like me you had been to 16 different schools, in 3 states, you would be demanding a totally inflexible national curriculum, to give the kids of mobile families a chance.

After 18 months in NSW, where we had not even heard of algebra, I found myself in Qld, where they had all ready had over a year of it. If it had not been for a kind math master, who gave me a couple of hours a week after school help, I would never have caught up. It was lucky really. His help gave me a love of math, that helped me right through to my B Sc.

Gillard's draft bill denies nothing. All going well it only insists those looking for an elitist education for their brats pay for it themselves. Gross wealth disparities properly have no place in a democracy, and if the only way to exact taxes from the wealthy and savy classes targeting goods and services, then so be it. As was espoused today on Counterpoint, the modern anti-ethic is to capitalise on opportunity without any sense of gratitude or indebtedness.
Quite apart from all that, children are surely our sacred cows and there shouldn't be educational double standards. By refusing to subsidise elitist education the government at least discourages the practice.
There should only be State education--the wealthy would then ensure it was world's best practice. Until then I say make the bastards pay!

Squeers,

The draft bill does not say anything about excluding some parents, no matter how wealthy, from education funding. Nor did the Gonski report make any such recommendation. The Gonski report recommends a minimum payment of 20-25 per cent of the school resource standard to those school whose parents have the wealthiest of neigbours. Such schools would be free to put their fees up as much as they liked without losing one cent of government support, just as is the case under the Howard government’s SES model. In addition, the Gillard government has already guaranteed that no school will be worse off per student under the new system. I suggest you read the links I have given above because the mainstream reporting of the Gonksi report and of the existing school funding system has been very poor.

"Ignored is that while geographically a part of Asia, Australia is a liberal, Western democracy and that the political and legal institutions that guarantee our freedom and prosperity are based on the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage and Western tradition."

Australia is a European-derived society. Our culture, way of life, traditions, political institutions, and economic system all are derived from Europe. Furthermore, most of Australia's population is of European descent.

Yet, the new national curriculum virtually ignores every aspect of Australia's European heritage. Indeed, based on Labor's ultra-left, Asia-centric curriculum, one would hardly know that Australia had ever had a distinct polity and society related to European civilisation.

Australia owes its relative success as a nation to its European, namely British, heritage. It is a heritage that should be celebrated, not ignored.

Drab,
Are you joking? "Ignoring Australia's European heritage" - please read the ACARA history curriculum and familiarise your self with it before making really uninformed statements.