I agree with Pericles in that if people want to pay for the privilege of sending their children to a private school, I won't have any objections - but why should my taxes be used to support that personal choice.
If use my private car rather than public transport, I don't expect the government to subsidise my running costs. The sort of arguments Arjay uses could apply - if everybody using private vehicles opted to use public transport, the government(s) would have to increase expenditure , meaning either increased taxes or charges, or both.

Current Australian university agency agreements with offshore private providers supplies us with an apt model of what to look forward to with further privatization, unless very costly strict governance measures are put in place. Here, already, all too many offshore private providers recruit students, who often have not achieved matriculation into their home country's universities.

In this "student" pays for the qualification environment, owners place significant pressure on lecturing staff not to fail students, lest the business be harmed by word of mouth. Soft marking, selective assessment of learning outcomes and plagiary quickly follow.

In secondary schools, I see politically motivated principals and their whimpy direct reports quashing staff having genuine academic concerns and issues with students; wherein, parents run the school and the teachers take orders and receive the brunt of cover-ups, favouritism and towing the commercial agenda.

Pericles,look at the total State and Federal funding for each child.You are only looking at the Federal funding per child.At a state level it is less per child for non Govt schools.At a Federal level it is more.Let's have some honesty in the equation.

Schools basically reflect your community and there are still a lot of good primary and infant scools in our states,still with committed teachers and parents with high expectations.The number of good Public High schools have declined over the years,due to lack of discipline and falling teaching standards.We now have a high school system that selects the best for Schools like James Ruse,Manly High,North Sydney High whether you be rich or poor.Many rich attend these schools with no additional impost.They have the best teachers and good facilities all at the cost of the tax payer.

When I first started teaching high school in Western Sydney in the mid 80's I was appalled at the lack of discipline and lack of support particulary for female teachers.No one really cared.Many of these male students were totally out of control.I was determined at this point to leave this perverted system.There have to be serious consequences for bad behaviour,and under our present soft option lefist mentality nothing has changed,it has got worse.

Arjay, I have taught at UWS, where I found no behaviour problems. Maybe, a few students struggled with courses. Perhaps the latter situation is merely a reflection of the University's sub-70 TER, low entry requirements. By third year the remaining students were typically good achievers.

As for secondary schools, some Western Suburb schools have suffered from the combination of really poor teachers and unmotivated students, since Adam wore short pants. On the other hand, in the West, there are some very good schools in the Hills District.

Not quite sure what you mean by "Leftist". Marx was a middle class intellectual.

Bravo Julie! It is refreshing to read such views in the education sector.

Private participation in education is much more widespread than most people recognise and encompasses a wide range of activities. This document provides some detail: http://www.educationforum.org.nz/documents/speeches/private_sector_participation_1092004.pdf

Forum members might also be interested in an online discussion on contracting in education that the World Bank is currently hosting (until 1 April). Those intereted can join in the discussion at:

http://rru.worldbank.org/Discussions/Topics/Topic61.aspx

Arjay, you ask for honesty, but carefully avoid the question.

"Pericles,look at the total State and Federal funding for each child.You are only looking at the Federal funding per child.At a state level it is less per child for non Govt schools.At a Federal level it is more.Let's have some honesty in the equation."

So tell me, "honestly", by how much would taxes have to rise if these funds were invested into the public school system? It was your claim, remember, "If all the private schools both Catholic and religious others were closed tomorrow,our Govt would have to increase taxes immensely" that I am challenging. It is an argument that is regurgitated every time this topic surfaces, and is entirely specious.

As I said before, I have absolutely no problem with people paying for their children to be educated. What disgusts me is that commercial enterprises should extort taxpayers' money before they can provide this service. Please, "bring some honesty into the equation" by justifying why the ordinary taxpayer should pay twice, once for his own kids' education and again for the rich kids'.