“Critics argue that the then Howard governments' socioeconomic status (SES) model of allocating funding is inequitable, overly complex and lacking transparency.”

It is, but then the Gonksi panel endorsed the SES funding model, so if you disagree that it was “inequitable, overly complex and lacking transparency” under the Howard government, you must also disagree that it is “inequitable, overly complex and lacking transparency” under the Gonski panel.

“The Rudd funding model, otherwise known as Gonski light, is also inequitable as it discriminates against parents wishing to send their children to Catholic and independent schools.

“Wealthy parents sending their children to privileged, well-resourced state schools will receive the full amount of state and Commonwealth funding. Parents at Catholic and independent schools, on the other hand, are financially penalised as they are not entitled to the same amount.”

This is exactly what happened under the Coalition government, so if it is inequitable under Labor, why was it not inequitable under the Coalition?

“Even less affluent non-government schools serving disadvantaged communities will have their amount of government funding deducted by at least 10%.”

Whereas, under the Coalition, “less affluent non-government schools serving disadvantaged communities” had their federal “amount of government funding deducted by at least” 30% and did not have it all made up by state governments.

“While the original Gonski report argued that funding must be based on the needs of the child, regardless of school attended, the Rudd model penalises parents who want school choice.”

In fact, the Rudd model is exactly what the Gonski panel recommended:
“Recommendation 21
For the purposes of allocating public funding for non-government schools, the minimum private contribution should be anticipated for schools with SES scores in the lowest quarter of scores. The minimum public contribution should apply to schools with SES scores above around 130. The precise school SES scores and the shape of the anticipated private contribution between these two points should be set in a way that balances:
• minimising the extent and incidence of any differences between the schooling resource standard required by each non-government school and system and the resources currently available to it from all sources
• preserving reasonable incentives for an adequate private contribution towards the schooling resource standard across non-government schools with various capacities to contribute. (p xxv)”

Far too much money has gone into australian education already. We don't get to see where that money is gone. Yet teachers are still asking for more. I have no objection to giving more but for crying out loud let's have some evidence of it being well spent before we give more. As it stands there is no indication that the billions given to education have actually done anything useful to our society. all I ever see is handsome Superannuation schemes for education staff, nothing else. Our young can't read, write or add up so what is being done with all these billions ?

Private schools are never located in disadvantaged areas for the simple reason that people in these areas cannot afford to send children to such schools. Private schools encourage elitism where often the mediocre student is made to feel they are endowed with more ability than they have. A good example of this can be found in the British army pre world war one.

On a general note, it is not right that public money be allocated to rich Private Schools. The rich parents who send their kids to such pretentious places have already fleeced the public enough and paid little if any tax. That's why they're rich!

It's time all students were treated the same and if the wealthy want their kids to have better education, let them pay for it or send their silver-spoons to Public Schools which, with the money saved, should be turned into Centres of Excellence!

P.S. Unfortunately, all the money spent on 'Individual's' Education was completely wasted.

Private schools should remain just that, private, owned & funded. On the other hand public schools must set benchmarks for either enabling students to go onto higher education or not when there is sufficent evidence that continuing to educate them does nothing more then keeping them in school & costing the rest of us good money. One just has to look at the situation now in public schools when not even the teachers can spell properly nor instill a sense of responsibility in the kids.
Everyone has a degree of some sort & the attitude seems to be that by having some meaningless degree those of us who work owe them a living. This mentality does not appear to emanate from private schools because private school teachers are generally better adjusted & have a healthier mentality.
Private school graduates generally become more than just useless bureaucrats & that's why they generally end up in positions so envied by the not so smart.

Apart from the always informative comments by Chris C other posts to this and associated opinions from David Robertson and Dean Asherden indicate the lack of explanation given to Gonski by the ALP while the coalition has followed suit by building on the community's uncertainty of what's involved in school funding to all sectors. Pyne needs to move beyond the continuing funding mess of dysfunctional inter-government relations to accept Gonski's positive elements within a funding structure that equitably distributes money to the states for public schooling while determining a stronger student-based needs formula for independent schooling.
The coalition faces a massive communication issue to explain any revised approach to the community no less so than independent schools which are perceived as money-grabbing educational exclusionists. Throughout this political haggling students remain the real losers.

Throughout this political haggling students remain the real losers.
bennery,
Not as much as trade apprenticeships. There's always so much focus on students & literally none on apprentices. The average apprentice will out-do three average uni graduates anytime with regard to usefulness in society. No attention at all is given to them. It's constantly about students. On average my guess is that nine out of ten apprentices go on to become useful, with students I have observed a much, much lower rate of about one in ten.

The handling of the Gonski issue by Abbott and Pyne shows clearly their lack of competence, lack of intellect, lack of morality, and their inability to tell the truth.

How did we let such duplicitous fools get into senior positions?

How did we let such duplicitous fools get into senior positions?
David G,
Only a bludger with enough ignorance would make such a comment. How come you never asked such a question when the morons were in power ?