This issues is not about the economics of funding arangements. It's about two ideas about what service government should provide. On the left is the goal that every child has the right to the best free education reguardless of were you live or how much your parents can pay or wish to. On the right you have the idea that Governments shouldn't be in the education game and are running down the Public system bit by bit.

We don’t divide children in education on the basis of the political, economic or philosophical beliefs of the parents. Why do we do it on the basis of the parents religious beliefs or wealth, or the belief that, “My children are superior to the other kids.”
Dr. Worringham states that in his area the local state schools would be overwhelmed if the private schools closed. No they wouldn’t; the facilities that are already in the area could be leased to the state and the teachers utilized by the expanded state system.
The present system cannot help but mean that children miss out on interacting, in the educational environment, with other children from different religious, ethical and social backgrounds. This is to the disadvantage of them all and our Australian community itself ultimately.
Some private schools exist to ensure that some children can be indoctrinated with religious beliefs that are unsupportable by evidence.
I have in my possession a teaching position application form for a private school where Christian background is given priority over teaching skills. Children in those schools are taught creationism in parallel with real evidence based science under the influence of the deformed intellect of a ‘true believer’. That is a substantial disadvantage to the intellectual abilities of the students and should be a criminal offence. The State should not be providing any finances to support such activities.
Our education system should teach children all the time to ask, “What evidence is there for me to believe what you have just told me?” In science and math for example, a competent teachers can easily answer that question and should. If state schools were to introduce a Philosophy for Children programme it would not be long before private school children would be being left behind. That type of programme was introduced in Clackmannanshire in Scotland, and one school in Brisbane and the academic result has been outstanding and behavioural problems have nearly disappeared.
Please read and understand the article on 21st August by Stephen Law or do a web search.
www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6268

Foyle

If evolution was based on real science then the theory would not have to be changed on a regular basis. There would also be a singular view from science. Of course their is not and the textbooks and theories will continue to be revised. Honest thinking people could not be blinded by such dogmas. The fundamentalist atheist continue to push their dogmas knowing quite well that a new dogma will replace the old like it has done many times in the last couple of hundred years.

As you should know that most people sending their kids to private schools are no better off than the general public. Many are not even religous or certainly not as religous as the earth worshipers. Parents however do appreciate the fruit of biblical values taught in some of the private schools and the discipline which is totally non evident in many troubled public schools. People are voting with their feet and money. The Governments of all persuasions know that they are saving huge amounts of money on education because of fee paying private students (or should I say parents). Sour grapes and dogmas seem to fill the anti choice lobby. They fiddle with figures and then accuse the private schools of dogmas conflict with their dogmas.

Runner,
All scientific theory is subject to change if an improvement is found. For example Newton Motion Theories were found to be just the relatively slow motion case of Einstein’s Relativity. Biology is not as firm a science as physics but Darwin’s ideas have stood the test of time and mainly been modified on occasions when a new idea has been added such as when nuclear mutations were recognized.
Whose biblical values do you favour; the one which says, ‘Thou shall not allow a sorceress to live” or the ones which instructed Joshua and his men to slaughter every man, woman, child, servant or animal in at least one city (heaven only knows what the animals or the women and kids did to bring the wrath of the Lord). Or maybe you are a New Testament Christian and believe that someone died to save you from a sin committed long before you were even a gleam in your father’s eye. That concept is as bad as Abraham’s idea that his son should be murdered as a blood sacrifice.
Could I suggest that you read the chapter, ‘Religion as Original Sin’ in Christopher Hitchen’s book “God is not great”. Or maybe the next chapter, ‘Is religion child abuse?’ or even better the whole book. Written words cannot hurt unless you want them to.
No decent person would tell a vunerable child that he or she is a sinner. Recently for some stupid reason the "Jesus loves me" tune ran through my head. What an evil thought it finishes with; 'I am weak but he is strong.' Undermining the confidence of a child should be a crime.
Did you read the article mentioned at the end of my comment? Maybe check out the four sites below.
Philosophy and critical thinking in high schools (Peter Ellerton)
www.criticalthinking.net.au
Buranda State School (Queensland); their philosophy course for children
www.burandass.qld.edu.au
Aude Education Consultancy (Philosophy with Children) (Paul Cleghorn)
www.aude-education.co.uk/philosophy
Philosophy for Children, New Zealand (P4C)
www.p4c.org.nz

Increasing private education in place of public will lead us down the path of reduced, inadequate funding as parents struggle to keep up with the Jones. All education should be equal, if parents want to supplement it then go ahead, but over-and-above the equivalent education provided for all. Private education leads to elitism, in my view unhealthy for any society and causing many of the problems we have today.

As for the religious argument - I don't believe anything that can be A) disproved or B) has no evidence to support has a place in education. As a parent, I have the responsibility to ensure my children verify information they're provided with. Whether it be advice about a drug they've decided to take, or what someone tells them happened 2000 years ago.

While 'popular belief' has a place this is all it is, there is no evidence. Fine, some religious 'values' maybe desirable, but not at the expense of filtering fact from fiction and taking away the questionable nature of the child, perhaps exposing them to believing other non-verifiable facts. Remember the old smoking ad's - "smoking is actually good for you" - look where that mumbo-jumbo led us. Telling a child 'you should just believe' (about anything) is equally irresponsible.

Foyle

I certainly don't support the human secularist religion where they murder the unborn and use words to disguise murder. It is quite evident to me that Christians value life a lot more than the humanist despite your dishonest attempts to discredit the God of the bible. The sinful or fallen nature of all is evident from an early age. You don't need to teach your kids to do bad. You do however need to teach them to do good. Your philosophies demonstrate sadly why private schools are necessary. To be brainwashed by the dogmas of the humanist in the name of science is a great injustice to not only society but to science itself. We are now see the fruit of your dogmas and as I said before believers and non believers are voting with their money and feet.

How on earth did this get to be about evolution.

The article was a balanced commentary on the marginal values of private school funding from someone who obviously has a modicum of training in public economic theory.

While I might quibble about the fixed nature of the % he has suggested, I applaud his reasoned approach compared to the emotionally based opinions I have seen previously.

As for the evolution debate it is essentially between science and faith which can be won by neither side. Please keep this pointless bickering to a more suitable discussion.

Shadow minister,
In my first post I pointed out that the motives behind some, not all, private schools were against their students’ interests. I have had problems with the public school system in the past and many years ago sent several of my family to private schools late in their school life but I always worked carefully to undermine any consequential indoctrination which, because the school was not of a fundamentalist nature, was fairly minor.
I have also worked to try and improve the public school system as I believe that it should not be possible to buy a better education than that which is available in public schools. Indoctrination of young minds by religious people of all persuasions I see as seriously unethical or, in religious terms, evil.
I see a main purpose of education being to teach students how to evaluate evidence. Faith has no place in evaluation of evidence and therefore no place in an education system. In a just society public money would not be supporting any of the many faiths.
If you don’t use the subsidised public transport system you pay for your own car and get taxed extra to do so. What is fair for transport should be fair for education.
For the above reasons I have been impressed by Stephen Law’s book, “The War for Children’s Minds" which I have read and drew attention to his article posted on OLO on 21st August. The purpose of my initial post was to influence readers to look at the improved outcomes available to public school students by the adoption of Philosophy for Students in early primary school years. Surely improved intellectual outcomes and a reduction in adverse behaviour by unruly students are worthy results and aims.
Runner always objects to any posting which criticizes Christianity as a faith or the religious motives of the faithful. I tend to respond to his postings in the hope that a waverer or two will be enlightened.
I suggest everyone read some of the material on the web sites I listed.

Foyle,

The ideal that it should not be able to buy a better education than the public school system is laudable as are your efforts to improve it. However, by its nature any state system has to be tailored for the majority needs and while some tweaking is possible, the independent system will always be able to provide a differentiated product. And as long as it meets the state curriculum requirements, it is not in the state's interest to penalise anyone who wishes to follow this path as shown in the article.

The example of public transport is actually a good example of this. The fact that petrol and licenses are taxed, motor transport is extensively subsidised indirectly by the provision of roads and other infrastructure. While my wife takes the bus to work in the city because it is quick and fast, the multiple changes I would need to take would make my trip lengthy and expensive and so I find it quicker and cheaper to use my car. Penalising me for the failure of the public transport system is both unfair and counter productive.

finally while I agree with you on the issue of religious indoctrination and feel that church schools should make religious instruction optional and the teaching of creationism should be banned (as in the US), this is so far off topic that it in effect highjacks the discussion. As it is an issue of faith the argument can only be circular and the best result a migrane.

I personally prefer to ignore the flat earthers and hope they will go away.