"The only indicator of the veracity of school choice is DEMAND"

I might as well say that the "the only reason parents put their children into private schools is because of the prestige factor".

Both are equally unsubstantiated and unjustified opinions.

This article is nothing but propogandist rubbish.

No independent school accepts or rejects children on acedemic or behavioural merit. (with the exception of the one or two selective schools) The schools are meticulous in being fair in the award of places.

The only exception is the scholarship program and the expulsion of extremely difficult children which accounts for less than 1%.

Again the proleteriat poison comes out: "how dare they do better than us, it's not fair. Cut them down to size. bring out the guilotine" etc etc

Choice is the air we breath, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. After the freedom of education is gone which freedom is next.

The federal government started funding private schools because compared to public schools they were suffering from under-investment. That's still the basic rationale, and the reason that the federal government gives more money to schools who draw their kids from lower SES areas.

I'm always bemused when people say the federal government is doing it to punish or destroy the state system. By spending money on private schools, and by more children going into private schools, they actually increase the resources available to state schools, unless the state governments decide to economise and cut back the amount they allocate to state schools - which they appear to have done.

So let's look at the state governments' performance rather than the commonwealth's - it's where the problem appears to lie.

True, Graham, however the States can only spend what money they have, for which they are reliant on GST revenue.

Further, I'm not sure we can assume spending money on private schools "increases resources available to state schools".
For a start, if the private schools were suffering underinvestment, then the money going towards them was to correct that problem (lack of resources etc.), NOT to boost their enrolment. Secondly, if the pool of funds that is allocated to all schools is essentially constant, then every dollar put towards private schools is one less dollar put towards state schools. E.g. if the funding split was originally 80%-20%, but then changed to 70%-30%, then private school funding has increased 50%, while state school funding has decreased 12.5%. If the private school funding increase was largely to address underinvestment, and prompts only a small increase in enrolment, it's quite possible that enrolment into state schools drops by considerably less than 12.5%, meaning that there is less money per student available (and further, while having less students obviously somewhat decreases funding requirements, it's certainly not a linear relationship - there would be extra costs associated with downsizing, such as having unused classrooms removed etc., and much of the infrastructure would still cost the same amount to maintain.)
Now, I don't have actual numbers at hand, but my point is that your claim is only true if the numbers back it up.

Lastly, why is it that in most other OECD nations (including the U.S.), government schools are able to cater for the vast majority of the population (~90% in the U.S., vs 66% here), and there is often no or very limited funding of private schools? What makes Australia special?

It's a peculiar education revolution. It's course is circuitous and, while private and public schooling will always a topic, the issue of choice remains a fundamental right for Australian children.
More serious business, referred to in the article, is the shameful way in which primary schooling in Australia is treated by the fat-cash controllers. As parents we are forced to send our children to a school. Okay.
All primary schools schools offer a similar curriculum. Each, in other words, undertakes to lead children through learning experiences that we believe to be useful for them to undertake.
All major parties, at present, are advocating a fear driven curriculum. If you little folk don't pass our [not your] tests, we will punish you, somehow.
We trust the school, whether it is private or public, but these external forces are very, very overpowering. Eventually, these tests overtake our curriculum. History tells this clearly.
This is very, very serious business: the business of what is inflicted on tender primary-aged children.
If folk want their children to achieve because they are force-fed to pass tests, then so be it. Why not allow those children who are motivated by a desire to learn without fear or ridicule, however, to say that they do not want to do these politically motivated tests? Parents can be told that, if they do not want their children to do the tests, they can simply notify the Principal. Have you, Mum and Dad, tried this ?
What rights do parents have who do not want their children to be graded like eggs [A to F. Why not to Z ?] nor to be used as a measuring stick for others ? This assault on the dignity of over half of the school population in scandalous and immoral.
It's a serious issue, far greater than any other schooling issue at present. While the test movement is certainly in line with the Coalition's thrust to erode the values and spirit of Australians, it seems such a shame that the Opposition is we-tooing on such a large scale.
Filip

Doctor's Wife Luvie. Problem with parents asssement is the their children are experiments of one or two with no controls.

To assess educational outlcomes you have to rely on statistical data. A rational person then makes the decision on probabilities as nothing is certain. Most people I assume who read this type of pubication know the problems humans have in assessing the evidence of their own eyes, eg problem of salience, suggestion etc. Any good book on thinking would illustrate the problem.

PISA is the OECD's program of Program of Interantioanl Student assessment. Well worth looking at for any one interested in commenting on education.
The data about University success: Monash University. Dobson, IR and Skuja, E, Secondary Schooling, Tertiary Entry Ranks and University Performance. People and Place v13 no 1 2005 page 53- 62 or http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/view/issue/?volume=13&issue=1

This is not a unique bit of research. It has been confirmed a few times.
The most comprehensive research on school choice is IS GAINING ACCESS TO SELECTIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS GAINING GROUND?
EVIDENCE FROM RANDOMIZED LOTTERIES
Julie Berry Cullen
Brian A. Jacob
Working Paper 13443
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13443 - available for U$5

The real power of this research is the random allocation of students to "magnet schools". they conclude that chosing makes no differnce

"Not what it's cracked" means that no one can demonstrate choice makes any difference to educational outcomes.

I try not to be too dogmatic. This a prabablistic world and you generally do better if you bet with the odds There is no certainty.

However, "School readiness" is the most best predictor of educational success. The obvoius collorary is school choice is irrelevant.

The point seems to be missed that from available evidence public schools are as good or better than private so why should governments waste money on pandering to parent's desire for a non education advantage for children. ie the old school tie. I would assert the very thing that is perceived as a weakness is the strength of the public education. Kids will learn more and better in the diverse environment and not molly-coddled in private special schools.