Well, Hasbeen, I have to agree with you on this one.

When young people are given the opportunity to apply their knowledge or to learn by life application, they are furnished with a sense of continuity....it makes "sense".

It's all very well to think that you can merely stuff children full of "knowledge", and at some future juncture they'll have the opportunity to apply it. But that's not how humans work...they need to experience the knowledge and the application coming together in a life situation for it to attain true meaning

Good article.

In response to an early inane comment: It is government responsibility to provide an effective education for every school student, within the limits of the individual student's capabilities. Doing that by partially funding Private schools is demonstrably highly effective, keeps school fees down so that more parents are able to take advantage of the private school system, and maximises public expenditure. Whereas, reducing this partial funding, or eliminating it, would cause their fees to escalate, so Private schools would have to become elitist - with only the children of well-off parents being able to attend. A definite Lose!
And what then of the public system? More students, more money wasted in a flawed and failing system - failing the students that is.

Want top-class education? Then support the development of more Private schools.
Support for students with special needs: Some can only benefit from attendance at Special Schools - and there should be more of these.
Also, I personally know of one Private school which went the extra yard with a student with some reading/writing, and hence learning, difficulty. (And, he's now at University.) His former PUBLIC school offered Nothing!

There are so many lousy public schools, simply throwing money at them could never remedy their inherent systemic problems.
The private schools have an effective formula, at a lower cost to the public purse per student, so it would be far better if there were more of them and fewer (and much improved) public schools.
Fewer public schools, with fewer students, could then be upgraded (by applying similar employment and resource-use measures applied in Private schools), facilitating greater attention to students with 'needs', so as to possibly become 'best practice' schools serving the needs of lower income families and 'troubled' or disruptive students.
If public schools can still not rise to the mark? Go Private altogether. (And, take Education Off the States!)

At last I think I'm getting the idea. Every time you add another private school, you increase the number of kids who finish up above average and you reduce the amount it costs to educate them. So if we replaced all government schools with private schools, in no time at all every school kid in the country would be above average and the cost of educating them would have dropped to nearly nothing.

Why has it taken everybody so long to twig to this?

Why has it taken everybody so long to twig to this?
GlenC,
Not everybody, only those academic bureaucrats in authority !

Glen C, you comment "Could you please identify the law that you claim prevents private schools from turning away students they don't want and explain why, if such a law exists, the great majority of difficult and disadvantaged students are cared for by public schools, not private. Are you saying that private schools habitually flaunt the law?"

The law is the Disability Discrimination Act, a federal act, and it applies to all schools in Australia. Any hint that a school, public or private, had breached the act, would be followed up. To date, not one school that has been charged, has been successful in defending itself.

Could you please give me one example of a school, private or public, that has breached this act? Put up or shut up.

As I said earlier, it is generally parents of disabled children who choose not to go to Private schools, because they see that the funding is simply not available to assist them.