In my reading of Don's Article I see no reference to denying parents choice as claimed by some of the comments - rather he is advocating choice by suggesting we need to give parents the wherewithall to have a choice.

Similarly nowhere does he argue that people should all go to University. What he does argue is that the evidence is pretty overwhelming that people given the opportunity can and will do all sorts of amazing things - including being a good plumber.

Don, I agree with the need to fundamentally re-examine education. But I don't think eliminating parental choice is part of the solution.

Currently we have an illusion of choice. Most of the private schools (especially the "elite" ones) are based on the principles Don disparages. They're well-resourced, but the same paradigm.

There's a lot of heat generated in 'debates' about public vs private education, but there's no serious discussion of why our education system ignores so much hard data (from Gardner and many others) and trots out the same old approaches that were rubbish when we and our parents were at school.

Our university entry system is a joke. One number, from a fairly arbitrary exam system. How can this measure the suitability of a would-be student? It's certainly convenient for the unis.

How can we get good education at universities that reward "research" over teaching quality? What makes us think our universities are any good at teaching when the majority are not even attempting to measure teaching quality?

There are too many critical issues that we're not even permitted to debate. They're given. Tenure is strenuously defended to "protect academic freedom". How's that work when tenure is granted by those in power to those who share their views. How can public school teachers challenge the orthodoxy when their employment choice is "work for us or...". How can we get bad teachers out of the system when we aren't even allowed to criticise them? How can we pretend they're all "dedicated, hardworking etc" when most of us can name one or more sadistic bastards who taught us X years ago?

I think we need a public debate that genuinely considers the issues - without making ANY elements of the status quo sacrosanct. This needs a lot of time, a lot of thought, and a willingness to accept that our education system should be MUCH better. But every time the topic comes up, we get sidetracked into issues like public vs private; government funding; teachers' wages; school league tables; "better" HSCs - or student unions.

There is a second article on this subject, a continuation of the first. It is at New Matilda but not yet on Online Opinion. When it has been up for a week I will respond to all those who have posted comments on either or both, whom I thank.

My continuation piece has not made it to Online Opinion (but then I don't know why the first one did). Here, anyway, are my responses. Kenny rather misrepresented me, and was corrected by Penekiko and Col Rouge for doing so. Most importantly, I do not think that 'any child can be anything that they want to be'. Only one of us can win Wimbledon, because that is the way we have constructed tennis. I would like to see thousands of highly competent tennis players and hundreds of competent orchestras, rather than a single triumphant Davis Cup team or the world's best orchestra. I want lots of 'winners'.

Rather, I think that any child has the capacity to be very good at anything that interests him or her, provided that the child receives the necessary amounts of encouragement and preparation, and is sufficiently motivated to continue.

What I contest is the notion that some children have some kind of 'natural ability' that others lack. I am not wholly sure of this, since some children can draw, even at quite young ages, in a mature and realistic way that others simply can't match. But I also know that any adult can be taught to do the same later on (see the book Drawing on the Right Side of your Brain).

Vern Hughes wants parents to have a choice. On the whole, I don't make parental choice the discriminator, because only a few parents have the ability to make the effective choice to send their boy to, say, Sydney Grammar. Why? To do so costs around $25,000 a year. No disposable 25 grand, no choice. Others have pointed this out to him.

Crabby and David Glover want an enquiry into education. On the whole, I think a widely ventilated public debate is better. Any enquiry set up now will perpetuate the status quo.

My chief moral point is that governments in a democratic society have a duty of care for the whole society. To recognise that every child has great ability is both morally sound and businesslike in the long run.

Another nurture nature article. If you believe in nurture Don's your man but if you believe in nature then this is nonsense. As parents my wife and I worked very hard to give our children every advantage that we could. During the prime family raising years our total focus was on our children. We did not care about the education of other children, we were totally focussed on ensuring maximum benefit for our own children. I suspect that we were not alone. For Don's world to work you have to change people like me and judging by the forty per cent of Victorians who send their children to private schools it is going to be an uphill battle.

We were winners--our children won scholarships and made it in to the top five percent. This of course makes us proud because it meant that had access to a scarce commodity, a university education that would result in a money paying career.

Was I selfish as a parent, absolutely, one hundred percent. I am also not going to share my superannuation with the third world and I am setting up a trust fund to make sure that if I am lucky enough to have grandchildren then they too can have a running start at gaining access to a money paying career through attending a private school.

How do you change me, well the short answer is you can't. The instinct to seek advantage for one's children is far far too strong. Humanity has already experimented with changing society, the lessons of the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Nazi Germany and China should stand as vivid lesson of how dangerous it is for intellectuals to postulate on what should be instead of what is. Don't mess with parental choice.

Mate have you read Machiavelli's The Prince? Because it doesn't look like you have. Sorry about the mate bit.

Arguably if you were both wealthy enough and intelligent, you would instead choose to send your kids to victorian state schools where they could get a real education, without being baby sat and spend your money on paying their hecs fees upfront. Or if you really wanted them to succeed in life, allow them to pay their own university way. The best thing for children, which you've said is what all parents want, isn't having things handed to them on a silver platter.

Statistics are that university places are filled with a disproportional number of private school kids, but that they drop out and fail at a disproportional rate. On the other hand the more real education given to state school kids makes them more independent and street-wise.

Of course this is all very personal given that I don't know which private school you sent your kids too. But let me have a stab, to which private school with harbour views did you send your children to? the wiseness of your choice is about which school they went to, not so much whether it was private or state.

Long live Mark Latham our lord and saviour, it won't be long until irish catholics start taking down statues of mary and replacing them with mark!