Chris, sorry but I disagree with your assertions and assumptions!

Giving parents the choice regardless of their means, would integrate schools rather than segregate them!

Particularly if we retained my info, to allow them to actually discriminate positively, and on published results!

And creating a climate where there were no other choice but to clean out the dross, must improve classroom results!

What this or any other debate could do without are complex rationalists simply muddying the waters to achieve a less than best result?

But rather one that seems to protect unionists, regardless of incompetence?

And given one can't be half pregnant, one can't have a system that is only half autonomic!

What we really need is an ability to deal state governments and their admin costs right out of the equation, which given the possible savings could free up as much as an additional 30% for use as coal face funding?

Which could in the first instance be used as funds that allow teachers to upgrade their science and maths skills?

I mean, the only reason so many kids leave school illiterate is entirely down to totally incompetent teachers!?

We need to send these people on, either back to school; to in fact, learn what they don't understand and therefore can't pass on!

Or failing that, just sack them as hopeless incompetents.

Simply put, it's all about our kids rather than recalcitrant teachers trying to protect a patch; or indeed, an essentially unearned pay packet!

When I was just a kid on a dairy farm, we used to use a separator to separate the cream from the skim milk.

You however seem to want to homogenize it rather than allow the cream to rise to the top?

Which is what we'd get if the funding was connected to the students and modified by published results and parents free to choose, rather than be constrained by their own economic circumstances; or little tinpot tyrants; but particularly those who always know why real reform is impossible!
Rhrosty.

Is this seriously the image Catholic schools and the Catholic Church want to portray in debate over education? As if they didn't have enough PR problems at the moment.

Indulging in sectarian accusations and crowing over their latest funding deal while waving two fingers at those advocating for the Gonski funding model, which helps those children who need it most.

And cop this, next we're going to Canberra to bully them into giving us even more cash. We don't care how much more money our schools (with their cash reserves, bequests and trusts) have got than public schools teaching the working and lower classes, we're going for more. Sod you and sod Gonski.

The author actually seems rattled by criticism of the latest Victorian funding deal, dodging the detail of the matter.

The content and tone are unbecoming of the chief spokesperson for Catholic Education. The church and even parents of children in Catholic schools want to ask themselves if the sneering, uncharitable Elder is face they want for their school sector.

For those catholic haters, & the rabid unionists here, my only contact with catholic or other private schools was on the sporting field. Due to a couple of teachers, our amateur sports coachers on the side, we were mostly victorious in those contacts.

I can't stand this communist tendencies becoming more rampant by the day in our society. To each according to their needs is always going to lead to discrimination, as one sector gains more access to the government funds.

Chris C, your "has been, Some students cost more to educate than others because they have greater needs. Giving everyone the same is not just and would reduce the overall educational achievement of the nation", is a perfect example of this.

If a group really only have the ability to push a broom, for god sake, teach them to push a better broom. Trying to make astrophysicists of them is counter productive.

Somebody has to push brooms, so let the natural order take control. If you are going to spend more money on any group, it should be those with the highest ability, not the lowest. This is how you advantage society, not throwing money at dead wood

WTF?

I taught in a private school at one time.
The school did attract the cream of students - rich and thick.

Rhrosty,

Your system would not give parents choice “regardless of means” as the rich would top up their payments and segregate themselves, while the poor could not. In fact, that is the current Howard/Gonski SES model except it uses the neighbourhood not the individual parents.

Parents already have choice and have had for decades. Parents in Victoria can choose any school, government, heavily subsidised private or lightly subsidised private, with room for their child.

There is hardly any state administrative cost in education. When I checked a few years ago, Victorian education employed about 40,000 teachers, 10,000 student service support officers (library aides, lab assistants, bursars, etc) and 2,000 regional and central staff. That means we have over 96 per cent of employment in schools.

I have never seen any evidence that the system protects unionists and no one who claims it does ever produces a single example.

has been,

It’s common sense not communistic to spend more on educating a child with a disability or one with a non-English-speaking background as the sate has an interest in the successful learning of every child.

Dan Murphy,

The Howard/Gonski SES model does not help those who need it most. The Victorian model is superior to the Howard/Gonski SES. I have explained why in my first two posts. You will find more at:
http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/victorian-school-funding-model-laughable-on-gonski-fairness-test-20150312-141ev1.html
and
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/state-labors-big-mistake-on-school-funding-20150315-142q07.html.