The irony of it all is that the kids who go to the government schools generally have more successful outcomes at tertiary level. Of course that is if they manage to get a place because they have to compete with the spoon fed kids from the private schools who get better marks in year 12.

This isn't a recent phenomenon either. It has been happening for at least the past fifty years. Parents who want their kids to have a successful tertiary education are better off saving their money for just that instead of squandering it by sending their kids to prestigious private schools.

I think the answer is simple. These so called "Christian" schools that the author discusses are not - going by his description alone - actually Christian schools. I think Capitalist schools would be a more apt classification. The word "Christian" seems to be used in the same way that a Communist would use the word "freedom", ie a total perversion of the concept. I would call it blasphemy, but i'm no priest on a pulpit. I imagine such "Christian" schools maintain their status as "Christian" by having some watery Religious Ed class and saying the Lord's Prayer at assemblies and Grace at supper, and that's about the extent of their "Christianity".

The author conveniently ignores the fact that many middle and low income parents make great sacrifices in order to send their children to a school where there are at least some resemblance of Christian values. The hopelessly drugged filled, discipline free public social experiment has proved a miserable failure. At some schools the only thing free are the needles and condoms.

Whinging about the Government spending money (less per student than public schools) on private schools is a convenient way of not having to address the failures. As Frank Gol points out that the Pollies on all sides of politics send their kids to what they perceive to be the best schools. Many even on the left of politics who supposedly champion public education don't believe their own rhetoric.

FrankGol

I am a supporter of good public education. Have been for years. I have worked in the public edcuation system and presided over bodies advocationg for community involvement in public education. Both my sons went to state schools.

What has always disgusted me was less how many politicians send their children to state schools, than how many teachers and vocal AEU members send their children to private schools.

I was shown a document by a principal a few years ago in which the AEU expressed concern because in one state, slightly more than 45% of its members had enrolled their children in private schools.

In my own experience I have been offended by educrats with whom I have worked deinging to tell me what is good about public edcuation, and why I should desist from being critical, while sending their own children to high fee private schools.

Makes you wonder about quality, when the providers won't use the product!

I think we need to simply the funding for education. I favour a school voucher system where every child receives the exact same dollar value per student.

The more complicated you make it - the more chance of abuse of power.

In this way if a school can provide better education to students, parents will gravitate toward it.

http://www.stewartglass.net/policies/education.htm

Wees don't need no schools or edgymication we gots the newsprint to keeps us informed and how wees shoulda feels about stuffs. Those riches gots the money cuz ther dads gonna look after us. Theys owes us tax monies and a lotta others stuff from before that thes stol from us ans the unions. But my ol lady says the kids gotta have some place to go wiles shes watchn the soaps. Ohterwis hows she gonna no how to be a sucsesful woman an stuff.