If public schools do such a rotten job - and my kids and many hundreds of their friends would appear to give the lie to that - not to mention the 68% of kids who still attend public schools in Australia - most of whom are perfectly fine kids with good values and good opportunities - how come study after study has shown that kids from comprehensive public schools outperform their selective and private school peers at university? One study said that by the end of first year, they were outperforming them by an average of 5 marks. Their level of drop out is much lower also.
Does this perhaps indicate, amongst other things, that our much maligned public comprehensive high schools actually teach kids to think, rather than simply pass an exam? Does it actually help students, rather than hinder them, to get used to learning amongst kids of different backgrounds, beliefs and ability levels, rather than sitting in one-note class rooms (you know, all the same religion, or same sex, or same ability level, or same SES level)?
I stand by my previous post, don't believe the propagandists, if you're choosing a school for your kids, do your homework, go visit them, talk to the principal, tour the school, talk to current parents. You'll get a much clearer view of your local schools than by listening to ideologues busy justifying their own decisions.
And if your local public school looks good, you'll save yourself a bucket of money, which you can put towards your kids uni education, or invest in their name. A much firmer guarantee of a secure future than any of the dubious claims made by some private schools and their supporters.

Graham Y: Thanks for the link, but I essentially posted the same information in my post three before yours.

aqvarivs: I was being somewhat sarcastic and more than a little absurd with my comments about Roman tax.

Celivia: Whether I agree with what gets taught in a private school, or how they determine who they will or won't accept is, frankly, largely irrelevant. If they want to behave in a certain way, that's largely up to them. If there's a niche for that, then they'll continue as a school, if not, then they'll have to change or go under. I don't believe it's the role of government to legislate morality any more than it is the role of any church or other organisation to do such.

As for referring to those overblown nanny states in Europe, the great irony will be that within the next couple of decades, when they realise they're being outbred by Muslims, they'll drop the PC facade and go back to doing what Europeans do best -- running a good old-fashioned inquisition, pogrom or holocaust. It's precisely because no one can mind his own business on that continent that they swing from one extreme to the other. I'd hardly look to them as an example.

ena: You might well be right. However, I wonder then why all those top businessmen and high level professionals who seem to be really good at investing in shares and property, and often make quite sound financial decisions in running big companies would make such poor financial decisions regarding the education of their children. Something doesn't add up in your analysis.

As a Depression kid who left school in early October 1934 to drive a wagon team carting wheat, might say the only thing learnt about religion was how to say a prayer about Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild, saying God Bless Everybody besides ourselves. Also we had reminders from our part German mother about the Sermon on the Mount, which we always thought meant not so much to think about bettering ourselves, but to help others, still giving reminder about how us boozy ex-army guys back in the bush all joined in and helped out a badly burnt neighbour by putting his crop in.

It was so interesting that a couple of well-established farmers who had had special permits to keep on cropping during the war, did not join in to help the injured farmer.

Maybe these so-called select farmers thought us too boozy, it is hard to say, but later experience does show that it is not always the so-called good Christians that help each other, but more the no-hopers, as some used to call some of us trying to get going with a young wife and kids just after the war.

After studying about all religions using a background of Greek philosophy during retirement, have become concerned how our Hale-School tutored grandkids seem more concerned about getting on personally than working in with neighbours as we tended to do, especially while battling after war service.

One often wonders what has caused the change, yet has it always been this way, as people get richer and have their kids go to special schools, they think far more about themeselves?

Shorbe

Sorry for the late response.

As I said in my previous post, teachers within the state school system are not anti-private. Many of us are products of a private education. Many of us send our kids to private schools. Two teachers from within my staff room hail from the glorified Brisbane and Melbourne Girls Grammar. Three are from Lutheran, Catholic, and Anglican schools. Another from a Pentecostal school. The rest are from state schools. It's a non-issue and one that we do not judge each other on in regards to professionalism or 'quality'. We're loyal to our students and their families.

We would argue that the funding in many state schools is appalling, and undermine our teaching and student learning.

'I'll freely admit that I have almost complete contempt for the government system and see those who are very opposed to the private system receiving funding as leeches off someone else's tax dollar.'

I think your comments are misguided on a number of levels:

* You have misinterpret opposition as opposition to private schools receiving funding altogether, rather than opposed to an inequitable distribution of funding

* That those who oppose the distribution of funding are 'leeches off taxpayers', rather than tax payers themselves.

* That everyone who sends their kids private are taxpayers.

Regardless, for the wellbeing of the country's future prosperity, we should educate ALL children, and care about the education of ALL children, that includes yours, mine, the neighbour's down the road, and particularly that kid that's going off the rails in some far-flung suburb...particularly them. Might keep them off the dole in future.

Good luck on your homeschooling. Apparently kids who are home schooled do extremely well on average. As do the kids whose parents participate in their education ... you know, sit down and ensure they do their homework.

Liz: My experiences have been that there is considerable anti-private school attitudes within the public education system, but maybe they're just my experiences.

I don't believe there is inequitable distribution of funding. If we did an analysis of money paid in (via taxes) versus money received (via funding to schools), we'd see that people who send their kids to private school pay far more in than they get out. As such, I don't see it as inequitable that people should expect to get back what they put in.

I'm not sure what you mean by your third point. Presumably, there are a few people who do slip through the net and don't pay any tax. I don't know that there's a whole lot that can be done about them anyway. Perhaps you mean people who find ways of minimising their tax? I think whilst they may minimise tax, they still pay a lot of tax into the system to begin with.

As for educating all children, I don't believe this to be a necessary thing for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I honestly believe a lot of what is taught, as well as the way it is taught, is wasted on most people. Most people neither use what they learn in school to benefit the economy, nor do they use it to enrich their own lives.

Secondly, if we were really serious about education as a means to improving the country's prosperity, we'd be really, really hardcore about turning everyone into a budding scientist or entrepreneur, and we'd also be devoting a lot of time to an area that presently receives little to no attention -- financial literacy. I personally believe one of the biggest challenges/threats we face in this country is that many people are completely irresponsible with money. We shouldn't/wouldn't accept anything even remotely mediocre in the field of education, and we shouldn't/wouldn't make excuses for anyone.

As for social consequences of failure in school, I don't believe in the dole, and I think we make too many excuses for people to fail in our society.

Shorbe

There is an inequitable distribution of funding, even amongst state schools. Some state schools receive a lot more funding than other schools. It's how they market themselves basically, and what funding they are aiming for, and what area they are located in.

My third comment related to the private school sysem, particularly schools such as Catholic schools, that often take in students although the child's parent/s is not working. Essentially, it is a charitable act. The parent is a non tax payer. Therefore, the assumption on your part that private schools students are from tax payer families and state school students are not, is not correct.

We'll have to agree to disagree on your belief that not all students are worthy of an education. I believe that students benefit from it significantly, particularly if there is early intervention. I am sure you would not like others deciding your child/ren are not worthy of an education.

Also, remember that I am not against private schools receiving funding. However, when I go into a classroom and I have to provide my own supplies, and the photocopier is dodgy, and there are not enough computers to share, and so on and so on, and I get to make comparisons with my friends that have moved over to the private school system, then I think between us we can see where the funding is not going.