I am concerned at the trend towards greater federal funding for private schools. Public schools teach almost 70 per cent of the kids but now only receive 35 per cent of Federal education funding.

Yes, the state governments are responsible for funding government schools, but they also fund private schools. In SA this means that they pay for the School Card (subsidy for school fees), for fee remissions (picking up the tab for non-payment of fees by non-School card parents), contribute towards boarding costs, pastoral care for boarders, Aboriginality, index of rurality for country schools, funding per student based on an index of disadvantage, special needs funding, plus a per capita grant.

Independent? No. Private/sectarian? Yes.

Surely the only obligation on government, as an executive of social responsibility, is to provide quality public schools throughout the community. If people wish to opt out of this, let them do so at their own expense.

Unfair? Hardly - or at least no less unfair than the social responsibility of governments to provide quality public roads.

No-one suggests that private roads be built at taxpayer expense for the drivers of luxury imported cars, or for left-hand drive vehicles, roads from which the Private Roads Board could exclude Toyota drivers and Datsun drivers. And imagine the public derision - comparable to that directed at the bunyip aristocracy in colonial times - that would erupt if our elite and sectarian car owners did start to duplicate the public road system!

But we let it happen with schools - the very institutions in which we impart our values of fairness and equity. And the real losers? Amongst others, and ironically, those very parents who succumb to the ideologies of "private is better" and "choice above all", and who pay, on top of their taxes, fees of hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be better spent, as someone pointed out, on helping children getting a start with a house or a career.

What a shameful con job is "private" education. And how contrary to the ideals of the great country I'm still proud to call "home"!

"No-one suggests that private roads be built at taxpayer expense for the drivers of luxury imported cars, or for left-hand drive vehicles"

True. However, next time you see a road being built (or repaired), have a good look at who is building it (this will often be indicated on the road-builders' vehicles). Chances are (this may depend on where you live) it will be a private company. Of course, that's no reason why drivers who choose to use that road should be charged even part of the cost of building it. And since they're not charged for using that road, it will be a road for everyone, not just those who can afford luxury imported cars.

What no one has mentioned here is the importance of where public schools are located. Public schools in wealthy areas are generally very good. Parents are very involved and donate extra funds to the school. I know quite a few wealthy professionals who send their kids to such public schools (at least in the primary years).

On the other hand, most public schools in poor areas and ethnic ghettoes are, frankly, not fit to board your dog in.

Well said MLK.

Dr. Cannold, when your bright child attends university, you will see the wisdom of your decision to send him to a public school. Having saved countless thousands of dollars, you will then be in a position to help him pay for his doctorate, which he will most likely obtain due to his ability to work independently, an attribute not so readily acquired at a private school.

David

This article is all too typical of the diatribe offered by people for whom the facts are not as important as their preconceived notions. As has been stated by many respondents to the article there has been considerable bias in the presentation of the information, which only falls slightly short of downright deception. The least sense-check would show that private schools are not Government-funded to the extent that public schools are; if that were the case public schools would not need to charge the fees that they do.

What is remarkable about the responses to this article is that I find myself on the same side of the argument as runner (may his chosen deity smile upon him), which must be a first!

The thread so far would give the perception that most parents of children at independent schools are wealthy, this is absolutely incorrect.

My wife and I both work and scrimp and save to send our kids to private schools, the cost is that we cannot afford to buy a house or new cars, but from having our kids in public schools we can see a massive difference, mostly in attitude to learning and competitiveness in achieving.

This makes it worth our sacrifice. If the subsidy was stopped, the number of children that could no longer go to the private schools would swamp the public schools which would be forced to take them, and the state goverments would face massive costs in funding the extra places.

Those that say we don't deserve to get any of our tax back are either jealous and vindictive or guilty about the life choices they have made and want to impose their choices on us.

The problem is not that the private schools are so good, it is because the public schools are so constricted by regulations and unions that teaching suffers. This is from my wife who has taught for a short time in one of the "better" public schools.

The tall poppy syndrome is alive and well and trying to stop all those that do not conform to the herd.

I don't tell others what choices they must make and I resent others telling me what choices I must make especially for my children.