Parental input into curriculum development is a good idea, so is diversity within schools. The flaw in the solution put forward by this article is the reality of compulsory schooling. The author acknowledges schooling should remain compulsory, thank goodness, but does not explain how this would work in a competitive marketplace. Would all schools have to accept any kid who turned up with their voucher? Or would we still only expect government schools to accept responsibility for compulsory schooling? If we have vouchers, they must be of equal value for all students, otherwise, if some parents can add their own funds to the voucher and get their kids into "better" schools, such a system would only lead to a further ghettoisation (if there is such a word) of our school system. Government schools for disadvantaged kids, because they cannot pick and choose their students, and private schools for the more advantaged, because they can. If we are going to have marketforces running education (and I'm not sure we should), then we should apply them as they are applied in the real marketplace, without asking one lot of competitors (govt schools) to shoulder all the social responsibilities of education, and then tell them to compete with their metaphorical hands tied behind their backs. Either we pay govt schools more because they shoulder more responsibility, or we relieve them of that responsibility, deregulate completely and forget compulsory schooling. Now that's a frightening thought.

As a general rule parents may know their children best equally they may not. I have no idea whether my son will make a good handball player or my daugher a good fencer. I leave that to their coaches. Most parents could not teach their kids chemistry or even know what a good science curruculum should cover. I have not a better understanding of my children's medical state than our family doctor.

The free market of the economist knows no restriction but choice is always limited by imperfect knowledge or a imperfect market. Also I expect parents risk too much by overzealous shopping around as stability may out weigh any gain from frequent swappping. Also perhaps the Law of second best applies if a free market is unobtainable. Curiously the best statistical predictor of "failure" at school is family background which may tend to undermine the argument. I believe that it is a distinct advantage if parents are involved in their childrens' education but I am not at all convinced I can decide the curriculum to the degree the writer wants me to do

“Schools are accredited if they meet the following two standards: first the school is obliged to make its curriculum available to parents and to explain in plain language what it intends to teach students; second the school must demonstrate that it is in fact teaching its curriculum to its students.”

Can’t see too many problems with that. I think there would be many parents who would like to know what their children are being taught, and probably many students also.

But of relevance is not just what students are taught, but “how” the students are taught to learn and to study. This is relevant as learning becomes lifelong and does not stop at the end of secondary or tertiary education. Training courses are quite frequent within employment, and if a person can learn something quickly they become a great asset to any business.

So teaching a student how to learn (eg teaching techniques in speed reading, note taking, memorisation, assignment skills, revision etc) becomes highly important in the longer term for that individual, but unfortunately I think that such skills and techniques are not being taught well enough in some schools at least, and this then disadvantages many students.

This comment is probably a bit pedantic but 'Christian’s' in the article is actually does not require a possessive apostrophe. It should read 'Christians' - back to pedantry school ;-)

"Should the free market decide school curricula?"

To an extent this is happening through the range of schools on offer.

Within the Christian community, parents assess public, church, so called christian schools and even home schooling.

Whilst it may be said that private schooling discriminates against poorer families the level of Government support can keep fees to between $3,000 and $4,000 per child and even less (on a per child basis) when discounts for additional children are taken into account and further means testing to reduce fees even further.

Free market schools and home schooling are simply code for small groups who wish to teach their children fairy tales as fact.
If parents wish to teach their kids particular values then spend some time with them after school. We only have to look to the US to find what happens why parents are able to set school policy. The parents groups get over run by special interest groups and are by no means demographical diverse. If you want to reform schools in Australia start by closing all non government schools.