I note that you still decline to engage with the questions around practicability of implementation David. Reiterating your belief system is no more convincing than runner is when he bangs on about his.

Given your background, this lack of engagement presumably reflects your understanding that homogenising a highly heterogeneous mixture of groups which is also resistant to such homogenisation is not simply a matter of applying force, or demonising those who don't agree that your belief system should be adopted universally.

Failure to explicitly acknowledge that is just as petulant as a schoolchild's refusal to acknowledge that his failure to do the work is the reason for his low marks, preferring to believe that the teacher must hate him, as my own son has tried in the past.

I'm sure you would never have accepted such an excuse from your children.

David,

Life is inherently unfair. The government job is not to make everything equal, but address the worst cases of inequality. The closest anyone came to total equality was the communist system which provided a shoddy quality for everyone.

My objective should be to provide the best education possible for all for the lowest tax dollar. And spending less on independently educated pupils frees money for disadvantaged students. This is a win win for all except those blinded by political dogma.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I agree. Life is inherently unfair. However, our government policies can add to the unfairness or they can try to make things less unfair. We are never going to have complete fairness.

The Soviet which you have referred to was an unfair society. By suppressing dissent it made it impossible to redress unfairness. You call names like socialist and bring up the Soviet. That, unfortunately, seems your mode of argument. It is rather barren. Grow up!

Davidf,

The Soviet union is the prime example of when "equality for all" ends up as misery for all. Your particular blend of envy politics is common amongst those economically challenged who think

Accusing me of being childish when you are advocating magic pudding economics is a joke. Just where is the extra money going to come from to educate all the pupils that will leave the independent schools?

I wonder if it would be useful if teaching students were taught - taught themselves - to teach their classes with minimal equipment, the barest of gear.

A bit like some of us oldies were raised on, a black-board and a bit of chalk, and that was it.

Just a thought.

And like Peter van Onselen wrote today, good schools need good universities, good TEACHING universities. After all, our teachers need the best education and training to be of use to ALL the kids they are going to teach. Not one kid should be left behind, and it's a tragedy that you can't say that these days without somebody calling you a Bushite. But it's true: not one kid should be left behind.

The research side of unis can largely take care of itself.

Joe

Dear Shadow Minister,

I am for getting rid of the subsidy to private schools - not equality for all. I did not advocate getting rid of private schools. The United States has private schools but no government subsidy for them. The United States is not a socialist country. The US is relevant to what I advocate not the USSR. Why did you bring in socialism and the USSR? Because that's the way you choose to argue, I guess.