Sacrificing for your children is all well and good, but such assertions detract from the real argument - that public education is for the public good and is the cornerstone of democracy.

"Going without" so that your children can attend a "good" private school is your business. What about those children whose parents, whether by accident or by design, are unable to enjoy a stable and supportive home environment?

Is it the fault of those children that they cannot attend a good school? Should we be saying to those children "Tough!"?

And enough of the ridiculous argument that subsidising private schools saves the taxpayer money. Such arguments are spurious and based on misleading statistics, as I asserted above. If you bother to read the link I provided above, you will be able to read one calculation which shows that by directing the current government subsidies back into the public system (where they belong), the taxpayer would be better off by 2 billion dollars per year.

There are arguments to be heard and debates to be had for all aspects of the public vs. private debate. Over time my views have changed considerably and no doubt, should I ever become a parent, may well again.

I went through the public system at a variety of schools. It is often observed that more private school students gain university places- well of course they do. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to justify their fees. What schools fail to measure is life outcomes. Yes, I am the only person from the school which I was enrolled in for the majority of high school that has gone on to further education, but my best friend laughs at me through each exam period and states that 'I will retire by the time you get a real job'. I have no doubt that this is true. He is happy and successful business and home owner but still can't spell and spent year 12 in juvenile detention.

My friends who all went to private schools did all indeed go onto university- most have ended up as teachers, but acknowledge that this was never their burning desire, nor do they feel literate or knowledgeable. A close friend who graduated year 12 with the Premier's award in science failed the first semester of her science degree. Another asked me recently a question about politics and followed the question with "I know it sounds really stupid, but I am ignorant. I spent my life sheltered in my private school world". The look on her face was saddening.

So yes, if you measure a school's success on university degrees or swimming pool lengths, private schools will win hands down. But one must realise that you cannot measure how equipped your child is for life and post- secondary education or employment until they are thrown in it. University is one option from many, but we must be conscious of the inherent values we place when measuring success.

To me, it seems there's a simple solution that's fair to both parties.

Absolutely equal funding from the government purse based on student numbers, coupled with rules regulating whether private schools can pick and choose students. Unless a child has a very extensive history of disruption and more than one expulsion, they shouldn't be able to reject their entry.

I guess some parents will cry foul that their kids are being made to learn alongside more difficult students, but quite frankly I don't have all that much sympathy for them. The most disruptive students won't be admitted (there needs to be some alternative education model for these delinquents anyway) and I think that learning to cope with difficult people is a key part of the education process anyway.
Besides, all parents have a blind spot when it comes to their own children versus what's best for society, and that's as it should be.

If parents want to send this kids to private schools, then fine. The private schools can use the tuition fees to improve the school how they see fit - private schools will still have additional funding because they're receiving additional investment from parents who should be allowed to make that choice. In this manner, parents can still have that choice to invest in their children's education if they genuinely believe it is going to make a difference.

This would also ensure that public schools aren't hobbled - if private schools are made to educate all students (bar the small percentage of genuinely disruptive as opposed to troublesome students) then it will square the ledger somewhat.

“But the truth is that there is something horribly rotten going on in my personal world and - because the personal is political - this nation.”

That is a bit of indulgent projection of self onto the rest of us, who also comprise “this nation”.

I would suggest, put yourself in context, this (nation) is not all just about you!

I would suggest anyone who can state “I feel guilty my son is at a public school”
Is advertising the possibility that they cannot deal with the “ethicacy of their actions” in other words, their own hypocrisy.

Which makes the authors “effectiveness” in her position as “medical ethicist at the Centre for Gender and Medicine at Monash University” difficult to comprehend.

Personally, I have no problem supporting the “ethics” of the views I hold, the choices in make or the actions I pursue.

I have no problem in parents deciding to support their children in their developing years (schooling) and beyond. I only hope such assistance does not smite the recipient of such largesse with complacency, indolence or unreasonable expectations of what they “deserve”.

I have no problem accepting that the world is not always a fair or righteous place. However, I am not responsible for the hypocrisy of others or their inability to align their actions with they ethics.

We live in a world of personal choice. The worst thing is when the state is empowered to make the choices for us and we are, in turn, disempowered.

As dearest Margaret (who introduced the voucher process into UK education system) wrote

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state. “

Buying one’s child an education really does exemplify another of Margaret’s famous statements

“There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

Reading Leslie Cannold's article is depressing in so many ways. She presents a very common middle class mantra which is 'My child is too bright/sporty/senitive/artistic for a govt secondary school'. The default is I want to/can not afford to send him to a private school with a myriad of resources and programs- what she does not say is that she means elite private schools($17K + pa)-she does not mean low fee Catholic schools who often have poorer facilities than the equivalent govt school and worse VCE results. Govt high schools in Melb(where the author lives) are split between those usually inner & eastern suburbs who are moderatley resources but highly supported by middle class families with long waiting lists and many govt schools in outer areas that the middle class have deserted. Many other govt high schools are undergoing transformations as educated professionals move into areas and send their kids to these schools-guess what standards improve. Leslie is talking about inner bayside Melb where fairly wealthy professionals have almost totally abandoned stae high schools-Albert Park closed last yaer with less than 200 students. Untill the middle class make a stand and decide to send their kids to the local high school these schools will get worse and worse-then again maybe they just love to spend $17k+ pa on natty uniforms, green sports ovals and very expensive ads on the sides of Melb trams.

I congratulate you on a well written piece that sums up how many of the silent majority feel about public education. It is a shame that voters can't shake the two party mindset. We could be a great nation if our priorities were right. Education, health, housing, environment, public transport. So basic yet because most people don't vote reflectively or for the common good, the wealthy or religious will prosper and our society will continue to split into the haves and have nots. It's criminal because the children - our future are suffering. Now if only people will forget about the exact amounts of funding and focus on the fact that the public schools don't get enough. To sum up, please make public education an issue in the upcoming election. Give parents a real choice.