Unashamedly, the author treats children (other than his own) as objects, as "human capital", locking them up in schools in order to achieve his ambition of building a society.

Rather than the good of the children, he holds in his mind the desire to indoctrinate them so they get to serve in his "work force".

The argument posited in this article has three fatal flaws:
(i) Australia already had a need-based funding system, however it only operated in the non-government schooling sector and eventually failed for the same reason as the 'Gonski' model has - no government was prepared to provide it with the level of funding required to enable it to operate as it should have (remember, Labor didn't provide funding for it beyond 2017 either);
(ii) there is no acknowledgement of the contribution non-government schools have made to educating new arrivals to this country. Many refugees and migrants have opted to have their children educated in the non-government sector; and
(iii) the author is apparently not aware of the role that the non-government schooling sector has played in Australia's development as one of the most successful multicultural nations. Interestingly, he acknowledges that "Diversity is a strength for Australia," but then proceeds to try and argue that diversity in schooling choices for parents is a bad thing (a choice that is valued by many of those people he is purporting to speak for!).

Just another rent seeker. We already waste a huge amount of money on this nonsense and it just encourages the rent seekers.
Public Service salaries and conditions are a national disgrace and there should be a real cut back to what they are getting, starting with the teachers Union. Take them on and thrash the life out of them and then ensure we get real value for money. No stupid Uni degrees for studying soap operas, real subjects and proper evaluations not more money.

"the cost of properly educating students from non-English speaking backgrounds was greater."

Yet another reason to stop the absurd pancultural fairytale.

Most Very High Human Development Index countries are either English speaking (UK, US, Canada, NZ, Ireland) or learn English as a second language in school (most European countries).

Immigration from only the most advanced countries means most immigrant students are already familiar with English.

No extra cost or "support" required.

"To invite migrants to this country, and to then fail to properly fund the schools their children will need is short-sighted"

Who invited them?

"Failing to give all children an education that allows them to make the most of their talents is short-sighted."

Bringing in 69% of immigrants from less developed countries and 80% non-European is "short-sighted".

"The first step" would be to wake the hell up and stop "inviting" hard-to-employ immigrants with hard-to-teach children.

Spot-on, Shockadelic,

Isn't funny that when we are preached to about the benefits of diversity and multiculturalism no one seems to remember the costs!

How do they get here?
Migrate?
So why aren't the responsible parents ensuring that both they and their kids, have a fundamental grasp of english, before they get here or go to school!?
What does different needs really mean?
Madrases, where the kids can be thoroughly indoctrinated and radicalized perhaps?
Separate gender schools?
Good special needs idea, particularly when puberty raises its head, and distracts from all the reasons we send our kids to school; namely, to get a good education, and then do well in later life, thanks to it!
And if kids fall behind for any reason, including lack of insufficient english, then there's special ed, for genuine special needs!
A bit of difficulty, can be character building!
Been there done that!
We have it all covered, except say, where miscreants make excuses, in order just to serve another, possibly nefarious purpose.
We already have too many ghettos, and all the harm they do, without some separatists, [apartheid by another name,] trying to inculcate the very mindset that grows even more.
Or warmongering racialists?
Why do people who think it's better somewhere else, always complain about us and how we do things?
If the Author doesn't like us, our customs and traditions, and our universal education system, then he/she remains free, to go where it is more to his/her liking!
I'll even pass the hat around.
Rhrosty.

All the extra money thrown at education has produced little in the way of student outcomes. The basic system has become flawed and no amount of money will rectify it whether the student is a migrant or not. Time for a big broom. http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/06/28/anyone-for-a-gonski/

In the U.S when Black students in poor areas were allocated more funding, the best teachers and facilities there was no difference in educational outcomes over time:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
It's impossible to "close the gap" between the different sub-species of homo sapien, nature doesn't do equality of outcomes.

It seems impossible to get across to commentators that the so-called “needs-based funding model that came out of the review” by the Gonski panel was the Howard government’s SES funding model or that (recommendations 2, 3 and 21) or that the government accepted this recommendation and legislated for the Howard government’s SES model in Clause 54 of the Australian Education Act 2013.

The reason it is impossible to get this across is that newspapers like The Age have refused, with the exception of one letter to the editor from me, to point our that this is so in the last two and half years and that pro-Gonski websites like Save Our Schools -Canberra have refused to publish every one of the explanations of this fact that I have submitted to it.

Those who want a an account of what the Gonski report actually recommends what is wrong with its recommendations can find one in my submission, No. 42, at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Submissions.

Those who do not want to be taken in by the nonsense claims of increased education spending can find a debunking at:
http://theconversation.com/abbotts-gonski-backflip-will-wreck-school-funding-accountability-16662.

So now Chris C is telling us the Howard model is perfect. In that case, why the hell did we have a hugely expensive enquiry run by a bunch of lefties? Was it to funnel some money to the lefty friends on the enquiry, or to try to find a reason to funnel more money to the teachers union?

We have been pouring far too much money into education for far too long.

Part of this was to try to hide the high unemployment back in the Hawke era, by keeping kids in school, despite the fact that it did nothing for them, & probably did harm, & to continue to employ useless arts graduates, keeping them out of those unemployment figures.

Hasbeen,

I am telling you the complete opposite: the Howard model is deeply flawed, for exactly the same reasons as the Gonski model.

We have never been “pouring” money into education. We have spent a modest amount that has basically kept up with economic growth and student numbers.

More utter rubbish from a well fed and over paid snout at the trough.

Looks like another "unless you give us a lot of money to solve the problems that people like us created through our stupid immigration polices, these children are going to become an real problem and you will suffer"

Ri-i-ight. THAT is why we should never have imported them in the first place, and why we should discriminate against third worlders today. Looks like this author is running a protection racket aimed at taxpayers.

This author should click on Youtube's "Detroit" presentations and figure out that this will be our sort of society in a generation or two unless we stop this multicultural madness. It is no good being a social reformer and a social crusader on the public purse when the money runs out.

Hey Pino Maglirino. When you have destroyed this nations prosperity, where are you planning to head to next? Just in case you haven't noticed, successful western countries are all in financial trouble because of people like you already. You may see third world immigrants as cash cows and a way to expand public service empires, but shiitting in your own nest in order to self aggrandise yourself is not a good idea in the long run.