"These schools would be accused of stunting children - of forcing their minds into politically pre-approved moulds."
But that is precisely what the Liberal and Labor government have been doing including closing down schools: A market for education is in the making. That has been taking place since the mid 1980's and that is a right wing perspective. Clearly, to undermine and degrade the social infrastructure of learning and subordinate it to the profit considerations of Big Money. Despite how many times education is paid for over and over in taxes. Big Money gets first and final say. Objectively, to turn education before all else, into the holy dollar. In consequence, they then start cutting into everything that interferes with the process of profit making including the replacement of experienced and well qualified teachers. The 'political pre approved mould' is the "Australian values" parochial agenda designed to manipulate youth as recruitment material for Howards ongoing wars.

I am intrigued to know why "Cornflower" considers "Dawkins (The God Delusion) and atheists like him prove to be just as bigoted and prone to logical fallacy and 'brainwashing' as the organised religions they decry."

I would have thought that Dawkins was the epitome of logic with the whole of his belief (or disbelief) based on the fact that religion had no evidence other than blind faith and was not logical at all and had no scientific proof on which it could be accepted.

The governments and politicians of all stripes are against society; they stand for the private individual - albeit a wealthy individual - privatisation - private wealth. The right to a proper education is a universal right; however that would be horror upon horror for the politicians. That is why we can pay for education again and again, over and over then the politicians declare "there is no money for education." And there is no better way to undermine education than to bring big profits into the learning process. They are anti-social in every sense of the word. We should never forget that the politicians are a grasping and opportunistic layer in society that pitch their appeal to all on election day but represent themselves and Big Money. Objectively, bombing people in Iraq is far more important on their list of priorities than creatively developing higher learning.

Communicat,

If you have some evidence for your claim that “[t]eachers' unions have been opposed to a national curriculum because it would need to entail balance”, please supply it.

The only advantage of a national curriculum is consistency. It may be consistently good, or it may be consistently bad.

We tolerate the various state curricula because we elect those governments in preference to their oppositions, whose education record, if Victoria’s is typical, are dreadful.

Victorian state curriculum is not in the slightest narrow. One could argue that it is so broad as to be unachievable in the normal 24-25 hour school week.

More schools doing the IB would mean a lift in standards compared with the VCE. I do not know about other states.

Sure Chris, not a problem - all you need to do is look at what is currently taught. You get taught state geography and history (and, I suspect, sports teams) in something euphemistically called 'social studies'. You have state based curricula boards, state based examination systems, state based university entrance. Teachers in South Australia were complaining loudly that, if we had a national curriculum then the South Australian focus would be lost and the children would not be taught about their home state. I understand that there were similar complaints from Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. Even when it was suggested that there could be a state component they were unhappy with the idea.
You are right though - there are far too many things that are supposed to be taught. We could do away with a lot of it, especially in the 'social education' area. We could cut back on some of the other material too. It might leave time for some basics and perhaps allow some time for children to learn how to entertain themselves instead of relying on computers, television and adults for before, during and after school entertainment - that's my quota for the day so I won't be able to respond to the arguments I suspect you will try and put.

I find it peculiar that the writer and so many comments seem to accept the false dichotomy - that it is possible to have two types of education, one biased by values/ideology/moral standpoint, and the other one free from any of these things.
Of course, this is a nonsense. All teaching is influenced to one degree or another by the particular viewpoints of the teacher/principal/testbook writer/university lecturer/curriculum consultant etc etc etc.
The only real issue is, does the particular flavour of bias reflect your own?
As for the example cited - the complaint with political ideology in schools is not that there is some - but that it is not the same ideology as that of the parents. Do you really think that anyone would be complaining if the children were being taught from the same viewpoint as the parents? The 'right' tends to complain when teachers push a 'left' ideology and vice versa.
As for funding schools, surely parents have the right to determine what and how their children are taught? IF parents want their children to be taught with a particular moral/religious emphasis why should that be forbidden? And, why should some parents who wish their children to be taught a particular way be denied the financial support their tax dollars pay for everyone else to receive.
Of course, the above should be restricted to ensure that fundamental educational outcomes are being met - but that is no part of the complaint against faith-based schools. I am yet to see any evidence that these schools fail their students in imparting key skills in literacy and numeracy. On the contrary there is some anecdotal evidence suggesting they are, in fact, better in this area.