Pericles,now we have to look at the total picture.Capital cost of land and buildings,plus cost of employing staff plus administration,plus the total costs of all students divided by the number of students.Can some one please supply this data.I'll gladly do the arithmetic.

Arjay, I'd just like to point out that it was you who made the claim in the first place. Now that it is clear that you have absolutely no evidence to back this up ("Can some one please supply this data.I'll gladly do the arithmetic"), it would be the honest thing to do to retract it, with an apology for wasting our time.

Pericles ,I herad the stats about 2yrs ago,I dont have the memory for the exact numbers,but since you have issued the challenge ,I shall find out.

I look forward to your numbers Arjay, but I promise not to hold my breath.

Think of it logically for a moment.

For land and buildings, governments can borrow more cheaply than commercial concerns. As a result, debt servicing costs (cost of equity) will be lower for a public school.

Cost of staff, administration etc. is the same.

Take out the profit element which has to exist in the commercial sector, and public is cheaper still.

There are any number of reports available on the topic, for example on PFI in schools in the UK. Many of them detail the financial sleight-of-hand required in order to present a win-win proposition.

Please note, I am not talking about the better facilities etc. that can be obtained if the parents throw in extra cash, just the like-for-like comparison of the cost base. There can be absolutely no circumstance in the real world where a totally public school system can become the additional drain on the taxpayer that you suggest.

Which brings me back to my original point. If parents wish to allocate a portion of their after-tax earnings to the education of their children, that should continue to be their absolute prerogative. If companies wish to cater for this need by establishing themselves as profit-making entities, this should also be their absolute prerogative. What is iniquitous and indefensible is the allocation of our taxes to achieve this. This is not even economic rationalism, it is an open subsidy of a particular market - the private education system - from the public purse. A form of market protection that we would be well rid of.

I just took another look at the Australian organizations involved in the joint venture Julie Novak mentions in relation to the Springfield QLD project. The body that will receive the government funding is - as required - a not-for-profit organization. But the entity that "provides services" to this company (ABC Learning) is a listed public company that expects a 20% return on its investment from year one.

It is a shameful system that allows an essential service to be subverted to the greed of the entrepreneur, by allowing public funds earmarked for the education of our children to be diverted into their pockets.

Pericles: You think that is bad. The financial arrangements and iffy goings-on of many offshore private providers offering Australian university courses are far worse, as I think we touched-on in another Forum:e.g., "Holding" Strategic Business Units milking other education SBUs. Hence, my unsolicited advice to always look at the total organisational structure and ownership.

It would be interesting to see how this NPO's Memorandum of Articles is worded, as to allow the situation you describe: But guess, we wont have that opportunity.