There are a huge group of people who Gonski Gillard and the other sychophants totally ignore in their stupid argument about who should pay for the public or private education.

Why should taxpayers who don't have kids at school subsidise the education responsibility of anyone with kids at any school?

This whole stupidity of Gonski sickens me in that I subsidise the electrical costs of everyone. I subsidise the transport cost of everyone. Since I live on a boat,I produce my own power, water and transport Why the hello don't you people all give me a great big thank you. I get absolutlty no benefit for anything. I'm a self funded retiree.

This is the crappy way our society has embraced socialism. It sickens me.You are all arguing how you best spend others money. Yoowhooooo why don't you all take responsibility for yourselves.

Kevin Donnelly’s claim that “that non-government schools, even those in disadvantaged areas serving poor communities, will have to contribute at least 10% from local funds like school fees and school fetes” is untrue, and he knows it is untrue because following the last time he made it in The Australian, I had a letter published correcting it.

He made this claim at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/misguided-gonski-model-threatens-the-quality-of-schooling/story-e6frgd0x-1226575704696.

I corrected it at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/competition-wont-work/story-fn558imw-1226576487152.

He is wrong when he says that private schools “will be have to contribute at least 10% from local funds” to the basic funding per student. In fact, they will not “have” to contribute any amount at all. Private schools will be entitled to up to 90 per cent of the school resource standard. They are perfectly free to set their fees at five per cent or even zero per cent if they think that sufficient.

This the same as the present SES system under which private schools are “expected”, but not required, to get at least 30 per cent of their resources from local fees or state governments because the maximum the feds pay is 70 per cent.

What the Gonski report actually says is:
“Australian governments should base public funding for most non-government schools on the anticipation that the private contribution will be at least 10 per cent of the schooling resource standard per student amounts” (Recommendation 17).

There is “have to” about it.

Education is compulsory, and good quality education is in the national interest.
Therefore a portion of our taxation should go towards the effective education of every child, irrespective of the choice of school by the parents or the student - and poorly performing schools should either shape-up or be shut down.

Although it could be argued that the better results generally achieved by non-state schools ought be rewarded by higher state funding per student to those schools, the reality is that there is a form of non-discriminatory asset-test being applied, such that state schools receive higher per-student funding. The argument then becomes whether such asset-testing would be better applied to the funding provided towards the education of the individual child, rather than via the choice of school, for, in fairness, not all the parents of children attending non-state schools are wealthy, and may well be struggling to meet the relevant fees.

We have a strange set of blinkers, where non-state students are assumed to come from a 'privileged' household, yet those attending childcare or early education are considered to come from an homogenous background (no asset-testing on childcare rebates, no sirree). What a strange fish we are (or at least our governments are - too much influence of Labor state governments for too long, perhaps)?

If everything were equal, then there would logically be equal per-student public funding, to state and non-state schools alike, but some people can't help but hold prejudice against the supposedly 'denominational' schools. (Perhaps under a misapprehension that such schools make religious studies 'compulsory' and inordinately demanding? Do I smell some misguided bigots?)

So, compromise. Non-state schools receive lower per-student public funding than state schools. Not really justifiable, but a fact of life. But, to propose to further reduce the level of funding to non-state schools is nothing short of blatant and totally unjustifiable discrimination. Asset test parents if you like, but to asset-test a school is sheer folly - unless it be to provide additional funds to overcome deficiencies.

Look out Australia, your bias and bigotry is showing.

So where are you do gooders lining up to thank me for giving the government the funds so you can make yourselves feel good about having this debate?

Nowhere in sight. You people are totally oblivious to the bloody obvious.

If I was in government there would be a debate. But it would be about how cheap education would be without me funduing it. It would also focus on how much help, responsible parents, would give to ensuring their own (Unfunded Baby Bonus)children were educated to a standard the parents themselves set.

Come on now argue that point. Don't dodge it. If you do your children won't be able to. Because of the coming great depression, caused by you and your mates desire to borrow to finance the short fall in funds that people like me no longer raise and in future refuse to finance, they will have to face this issue in their lives. You people are far too self-centred and short-sighted.

Don't suggest I'm selfish ... I haven't received one skerrick of income or benefit from 'Government' in the last 40 years. Ops sorry I and my wife before we divorced got the child allowance. (Let's go back to that as the only assistance to families) After our divorce and after I had paid maintence for 5 years I took over responsibility for the children. I then got nothing, but so what it is what you get used to when you take total responsibility for yourself.

Don't grizzle that I'm well off, that to is the usual result from taking total responsibility for yourself.

There you go. Argue with me, you can't because you all expect me to supply you with some of or all of your money

imajulianutter,

Did your children attend school?

Because if they did, their places were funded by state and federal funds. Those funds were provided by other people, some of whom did not have children, or whose children were grown and out of school. Did you ponder how cheap your own children's education would be without other people funding it?

We homeschool, as you may be aware. Our child's education costs the state and federal governments zilch. Do you suggest that everybody do that....because I don't think it's going to happen.

I can assure you Poirot that my contribution in Taxation far outweighted any return I ever received in Education, health or any of the other 'services'.

Youcan't say the same thing.

I've also ditched all real estate. Guess what that means?

Now Poirot I pay for everything with cash, or shop on the net. I cop the discount and then ask the seller to deduct a futher 10%.

If others in my position start doing the same ... well you blokes will soon find yourselves up the proverbial.

I'll sail past and will give you a wave .