Excellent article, Irfan, although think describing John Simpson Kirkpatrick as an "illegal immigrant" is a bit disingenuous given that he was British and Australia was a British nation in 1914. Immigration controls were hardly the same then as now. The same label could be applied to many diggers and servicemen of both world wars.

My experience of private or religious schools is slight, but I have had this experience of government schools- my child had to move from one where the pupil mix had a heavy preponderance of Muslims, followed by lesser numbers of Pacific Islanders, Asians and eastern Europeans. Few Anglos- and my child complained that discipline was lax and that the few pupils actively interested in getting an education were extremely disadvantaged. The result was enrolment in a distant, more selective school.

My child's comments at the time were that Muslim males' interest in schooling was slight, that they'd rather talk about fast cars and harass female teachers.

Personally, I dislike the idea of "religious" schools, and agree with comments that relgion should be kept completely out of schools except perhaps the teaching of "comparitive religions" as part of social science.

Hirsi Ali's comments quoted by Irfan are spot on. Creationism and its offshoots are religious dogma better discussed at Sunday School than in an academic scenario.

Evolution and its offshoots are religious dogma better discussed at earth worshippers school rather than in an academic scenario.

Fractelle

You said...
"I have no issues with the children of wealthy people attending public schools - where did you get the idea I did? Also, I am not so ignorant that some people struggle to send their children to private schools - but that is their choice to make. Should we subsidise people who buy Bentleys while the rest of us drive Mazdas?"

Where did I suggest that you HAD a problem? I merely pointed out that your argument ought to lead logically to such a problem.
The Bentley-Mazda analogy is hardly appropriate since motor vehicles are not subsidised or perhaps you are suggesting that Mazdas should be handed out to everyone for free.

You also said...
"One of the benefits of public schools is the diversity of its students from all socio-economic levels, ethnic background, religious and non-religious alike."

Public schools only reflect the socio-economic, ethnic, etc background of the population local to each school. Many are actually remarkable for their lack of diversity.

Then you said..
"Besides if more wealthy (and the wealthy do pay taxes like everyone else - mostly) sent their children to public schools, this would be of benefit to those schools, would it not?"

Perhaps it would if they were made to pay the full cost of attending that public school. Your comment regarding tax is interesting since parents who send their children to private schools also pay taxes (mostly) and if they are wealthy they pay quite a lot of taxes. The reality is that they are currently paying twice for education, once through taxes and again through school fees. Why should they pay for the education of children whose parents have CHOSEN to send them to public schools and who have CHOSEN to spend their money on other things than their children's education?

Rainier

I add economists to that list.

When I was at uni back in the 80's, students from the Architecture/Engineering school studied some humanities subjects as part of their compulsory curriculum. Humanities were subsequently dropped, I think around the time that HECS was introduced, so this was well before the Howard government. But we have certainly lost track of what is important, it is all about the dollar and so tertiary studies are designed around that. And where you find this type of conservatism you find a certain type of religiosity creeping in - (I had followed Howard's career path but I did not know he was a 'devout' christian until his close relationship with Bush). It was not long then till the far right shift occurred in primary and secondary schools as well, hence the money shifted toward private and/or religious schools. Public schools suffered, and the wheels were set in motion for people to aspire towards that offered by private schools, even if the parents weren't necessarily religious they still sent their children to religious schools.

waterboy

'Analogy' - look it up.

Don't try to divert the topic into absurd tangents. If you favour funding towards private schools at the expense of public schools, then just say so. But don't waste my time on irrelevancies.

Strange reasoning from waterboy here. Earlier in the thread he suggested that sending kids to private schools is somehow a "core Australian value". I would have thought our national commitment to universal free public education is far closer to the Australian egalitarian ethos than his apparent resentment that such education is funded by all taxpayers, including those who choose to send their kids to private schools that function to create a stratified education system that benefits the relatively wealthy.

How's this for a better analogy, waterboy? Some people prefer to use private hospitals and health services, although their taxes contribute to the public health system. According to your logic, they shouldn't have to "pay twice" for health services. Is that what you really mean?

Fractelle

Analogue - process of reasoning from parallel cases (Oxford Dictionary).
Neither Bentleys nor Mazdas are subsidised. The case of the cars is therefore NOT a parallel case and is therefore inappropriate.

I notice you are retreating from rational argument into condescension and abuse. I am much encouraged!

CJ
The core australian value I refer to is 'FREEDOM of religion' ie the right to CHOOSE! Did you miss that or are you being deliberately obtuse