The author states, "... the Howard years where Federal Government money ... was disproportionally directed to the non-Government sector." Others also make this claim, but where is the evidence of 'disproportion', and on what basis has it been assessed?

I agree that it is time we focused on addressing underachievement, "and the situations in which it occurs." The Gonski Review found the engagement of parents to be one of six elements critical to achieving highly effective schooling reform.

There is a strong imperative for Australia to start taking significant forward steps in parent engagement if equity in education is to be addressed and all of our students given the best opportunity to reach their potential.

Research has shown that while a growing number of parents lack knowledge about their role as primary educators of their children, they do not lack good will. Most parents want to see their children do well at school and in life. When parents understand they have a role to play, that what they do will make a difference and are provided with encouragement and support most will engage happily and effectively.

Governments, policy makers and educators can no longer continue to pay lip service to parental engagement as a critical lever for schooling reform. The blinkered approach that sees the vast bulk of policy, resources and effort poured into schools ignores the engagement of parents with their children’s education which takes place every day at home, in the car, at sporting venues and elsewhere.

School leaders and teachers must make way for approaches that acknowledge and bring parents back to their role as the primary educators of their children. Parents will then be able to equip their children for the lifetime journey of learning in ways that enable educators to achieve optimum results for their efforts. and governments to get maximum return for their spending.

I may be wrong, but I cannot find any reference to the impact of the non-English speaking children of new arrivals.

Surely by volume and location, that would have a major impact on the ability of a school to perform, and be reflected in the lower levels for success, for pupils and teachers.

Not saying that the need shouldn't be catered for, but it must impact on teachers loads and outcomes..as well a student outcomes beyond the outstanding success of a few.

...which then raises the question of genes and culture, and the role they play in success rates.

Read the ACE submission and thought it was an excellent document.

The jury is out on school funding, there are studies which find that poor students do no better when funds are increased and others which find the opposite.
"Disadvantage" is a problematic concept, most "disadvantaged" people are actually incompetent,competent people from poor families usually do alright, so the question is should the state give more or less funding to incompetent students? It answers itself when so re-phrased.

In response to Ian D the break up of funding is on page 33 0f the Gonski Report:
Government schools: 85% State 15% federal
Catholic schools: 26% State 74% federal
'Independent" 27% state 73% Federal.
You also need to take into account that State's ability to raise taxes was greatly weakened by the GST so the Federal Government has a far greater share of income.
To Bigmal thanks for your supportive comments. There are actually two broad categories of those for whom English is not their first language,which are hidden when they are grouped together in NAPLAN results- there are those who come from areas of civil war and conflict like Somalia who are a challenge, but there are also those who come from places like Hong Kong whose Confucian values lead them to actually out perform students for whom English is their first language because they are committed to overcoming any barriers this may place.

To Jay of Melbourne:
"Incompetent' is such a broad term as to be meaningless. And if parents ( or more commonly a single parent) lacks skills there is no reason why their children should be penalised and not given the opportunity to participate fully in society.The article pointed out that to ensure that money directed to schools in disadvantaged areas 'was well spent, a significant portion of the money would need to be dedicated to research into what actually works and in on-going evaluation of the project.'

In the Education section of the Melbourne Age during this year there have been examples of schools with strong dedicated leadership teams that have turned Government schools around - and money is only a small part of the equation.

"a 'recent study' rated Australia 27th among English speaking countries in both literacy and numeracy."

Well, the teacher might be speaking English.
But half the class don't understand her.

Incompetent isn't a broad term, it's specific, the question is are all children competent scholars? No, they're not, disadvantage implies that something has been taken away from or denied to badly performing students, that's not the case. Money and extra tutoring can't make dumb people smart so why not put more funding into psychological and aptitude testing of students then stream the competent kids into one system and the intellectually inferior into another. I've often expressed the view that all elite schools should be open to academic entry only with the state providing full scholarships to bright kids from poor familes, that way rich morons are kept out of the "old boy's" network and bright kids from poor suburbs are allowed social mobility.

Reply to Ian K
That is a very selective way to consider the notion of disproportion. The complete picture is that the 66 per cent of Australian students who attend government schools attract 78 per cent of public funding, while the 34 per cent of students attending non-government schools receive 22 per cent.