Maybe Mr Elder needs to check his facts before continuing to launch into print. His April 1st contribution contained a number of errors, some of which are addressed in my blog at http://www.edmediawatch.com/
Rather than representing a saving, the amount given by governments to run Victorian Catholic schools each year is over $50 million dollars more than that given to similar government schools.

Now to his current article. I can't comment on his guerilla warfare with the AEU but once again he has used misleading information. Some Catholic schools do "sit shoulder to shoulder with government schools" in disadvantaged areas but they actually enrol kids who, even in those areas, are more advantaged. Anyone with the time can check this on My School.

But his biggest error is his claim that Victorian Catholic schools still operate on 10% less resources than government schools. If he is referring to recurrent funding (he doesn't say) this is not the case. My School shows that, when you compare groups of schools enrolling similar students - a far more honest comparison - Catholic schools operate on a net recurring income per student which is mostly higher than that available to government schools.

The reality is that the availability of school data on My School has started to change the debate. Mr Elder needs to catch up.

Well, I mostly agree with the Author and Chris C's take.

The original Gonski proposed means tested funding of school children alone, then left the choice of schooling and attendance to the responsible parents.

And I agree with the original idea of just subsidizing the bottom quarter of so called disadvantage, to more or less eliminate that disadvantage/contain costs.
And that still remains the choice for all federal funding of all education!

And no it not the actual funds just the choice of where they're spent by far better informed parents! And indeed, a better model of all Federal funding of all federally funded service provision!

Which would all but force the available providers to compete via massively improved service models, for that funding, with not for profit models leading the way!?

Albeit, and thankfully, forced to remove the non performing drones from their staffing ranks, and a win/win all round, expect the affiliated and obstructionist unions, only ever concerned with retaining numbers, regardless of how well they do or don't perform!?

And while we're talking education, we need to include a similar funding mechanism for higher education, if only to end the sham some of it has become, which has the potential to flood our health services/surgical wards i.e., with folks who just shouldn't be there?

Given they don't yet have enough english to take our courses or pass our exams, and have allegedly have paid others to do so (before and after) for them?

[You vant vot? A cataract removed? Vots a cataract?

Ah Jess, body of vater flovink true a narrow gorge?

You vant encheneerink I tink Senor Pine, Jess?]

But golly ghee buddy, that's the American way and free enterprise we all Pyne for!? Doncha think?
Rhrosty.

I like the under & over game when talking about school teachers.

Primary school teachers,
Over educated, over paid, over unionised, under employed, under worked public servants.

High school teachers.
Over paid, over unionised, under educated, under employed, under worked public servants.

And that's just the good ones.

Hasbeen, I've volunteered at my children's state school, and I can assure you the teachers I've seen have been dedicated and hard working. They stay up to midnight planning and marking. They are up at the crack of dawn preparing for the day ahead. They volunteer at after hours school events and extracurricular activities. I am proud of my children's state school.

I challenge anyone to control, nevermind teach a classroom of 25 students and keep up with a very full curriculum when a quarter of the students have not eaten breakfast. Then you have a child on the autism spectrum, then you have a child with dyslexia who can't write and can barely read, but dyslexia is not recognized in the Australian school system, so they aren't eligible for extra assistance, then you also have to attend to those children who need extra work as they are gifted.

We need to start funding schools based on need. If we believe in a fair go, it is the only way to make sure every Aussie kid gets the start they deserve. Are we all in this together or not?

David F, correct

You are pulling my leg aren't you BJelly?

My lady is a librarian. When she was a city librarian for city/shire of 60,000 people, one of her duties was to give lessons on library use in all the schools, from 1600 kids high schools to 100 kid country primary schools.

In the larger primary schools it was normal for them to dump 3 or 4 classes, up to 100 kids on her, & all pee off to put their feet up for an hour. One high school actually dumped 130 kids on her on one occasion.

Do you think they would do this if they actually thought handling 100 kids was impossible? Yes I guess you are right, of course they would.

My wife & I established & ran the school textbook hire scheme for the P&C of our local high 1700 student school for just on 15 years. This not only saved parents money, but put $170,000 into the school each year, once fully established.

With just 3 exceptions I have never dealt with such a slack incompetent bunch as those heads of departments we had to liaise with to earn that money for the P&C. We had to damn near nail them down to get them to do the job they were paid to do, & give us their textbook requirement for next year so we could do our volunteer work for the school & the kids.