Private means private.
You want to send your kid to a private school then you pay for it. Stop bludging off the welfare teat.
If you can afford to pay private school fees then you dont need money from the government.
Stop the private school welfare dependency!

@Rache... The AEU figures on their own tell very little. If you unpack the reasons behind the increases you find out so much more. The AEU of course doesn't want anyone to actually understand this as it doesn't suit their agenda. They are masters at the art of misleading information.

Firstly, percentage increases are relatively meaningless on their own. If the increase is off a smaller base (as it is for independent schools) then the % is likely to be greater than if it's off a higher base. Secondly, the rate of increase in enrolments in independent schools of students with disability and other disadvantage has for some years been significantly higher than the overall enrolment increase - and per student funding increases as a result, as it should. The data will show this to be the case. When independent schools are enrolling more of these students it's disingenuous to complain that their per student funding increases at a higher rate.

Thirdly, why is a non-government school any more a "lifestyle choice" than a government school? If I have two children and one attends the local public school but the other goes to a non-government school because the 'standard' school system isn't going to meet their needs properly, why should I as a taxpayer be further penalised for that? The government is already getting a good deal by only having to partially fund that child’s education.

The notion that school education funding should only be for government provider is ridiculous - we don't do it in health, childcare, tertiary, public transport and other core services so why should school education be sacrosanct? Non-government schools provide a public good/benefit and by choosing a non-government school I'm saving YOU and other taxpayers as the govt doesn't have to fully fund my child's education. I'm totally OK with that. But as a tax-paying citizen I absolutely expect that the govt will make SOME provision towards my child's education regardless of the type of school they attend.

As Spencer points out, percentage increases mean nothing without their starting points and finishing points and there is nothing unusual abut private bodies receiving public money to achieve pubic purposes. Indeed, I have never heard all members of the public education lobby happily accept public money that goes to the private GPs, the private pharmacies and the private childcare centres that they use.

I will add two points.

The first concerns the AEU, which goes on and on abut Gonski and yet failed to make submission for a specific funding model to that review. The AEU, by which I mean its rank and file membership, has failed to win back the conditions stolen from teachers by the use of retrospective legislation in 1992. In 2004, instead of insisting on the return of the stolen conditions, the AEU even agreed to an increase in average secondary teaching loads of 70 minutes, thus reducing the time allowance pool to zero minutes. In 2010, it failed to take the opportunity presented by the Gonski review to propose a funding formula for schools derived from an explicit staffing formula based on decent working contains. Now, it stands by while schools increase the number of teaching periods in defiance of the 2008 agreement on the length of the instructional day.

The second concerns the common international practice o publicly funding non-government schools. Australia spends $US6137 per student in a non-government school. Austria spends $US7373; Belgium, $US9773; Denmark, $12012; Finland, $US9266; Norway, $US12155 (OECD Education at a Glance 2015, Table B3.3) – and that’s not the full list. 25 of the 28 countries for which data is given fund non-government schools, 11 of them more generously than Australia.

@mikk... do you have any ACTUAL argument or is repeating a few mindless slogans on a topic you clearly barely understand sufficient?

First, the 'private' in private schools actually means 'not owned by government'. Second, why should only government schools be funded for providing this core service? Non-govt schools provide the same public benefit (i.e. their students are members of 'the public' after all), deliver the same curriculum and must comply with government legislation to be an education provider. We fund private providers in numerous other core service areas and choose which ones we access (health, childcare, transport etc), why should it be different for schools? Funding private providers of important public services reduces the cost burden for governments, that's why they do it.

Third - students attending government schools are fully funded and those at non-government schools only partially funded, so surely those on the 'welfare teat' must actually be those getting the most funding? And that would have to include the 50% of high income earners whose children attend government schools. They're clearly wealthy and can afford to pay for private schooling and don't need money from the government, so why don't we force them to send their kids to a non-govt school? That way we can justify taking all of their funding away since they obviously don't really need it.

The vast majority of 'private' schools and the children attending them are not wealthy. That's a fact, not a mindless slogan. Do you really think that 35% of our population is 'wealthy'?

"And sure to make state based pollies and bureaucrats scream blue murder and invent all manner of spurious reasons to continue with the current for them, gravy train, or cost adding counterproductive control? And you won't have to hold your breath!
Alan B."

Perhaps another solution is to take the corporate welfare out of the private education system or take the private out of the education business industry so the parents concerned pay only once, one or the other.

Why should my taxes go into corporate welfare?

Spencer,

I agree that the government should make some contribution to your child's education (and they do) but it should be an equitable one.

It should be no more than what they pay for the basic public system and it's the amount that's what appears to be in dispute.

The taxpayer already provides a standard basic range of services and to go beyond them is a personal and thus a "lifestyle choice".

You can catch the same universally subsidised bus or train to work as everybody else but it's your choice and your own responsibility if you decide to travel via a chauffeur driven service. I shouldn't have to pay extra for it.