You already have freedom of choice.

Just stop expecting that 'choice' of yours to be subsidised by the Australian people. If some imaginary man in the sky floats your boat, then good luck to you, but these non-government schools, with restricted access, must stop their parasitic, whining behavior and same goes for their supporters too. Ironically, many of you lot are well-off and would probably preach that people should be self-reliant, so if the cap fits.....

Ah Col Rouge,

If only we were all more like you. Life would be so simple... and dreary.

As for society's opportunity structure being a simple matter of choice - all in the mind - your fatal blind spot is that you can't begin to analyse the structural causes of poverty which lie in the necessary relationship between poverty and wealth. People can only be rich if sufficient others are poor.

You might move in different circles to me, but I know no-one who chooses to be impoverished. And I know plenty whose whole lives revolve around the acquisition of money and material possessions and who think of education as a commodity to be bought for their kids and to be displayed just like the vulgar 4WD vehicles that are the ostentatious shopping baskets that hang around the private school supermarkets.

Of course you totally ignore the first of my two sets of options for explaining why two-thirds of all parents send their children to public schools. As one who chose to do just that - and the benefits have been amply plain - it is just silly prattle for you to talk about 'the old green eyed monster'. I know you are omniscient, but perhaps you misread your opponents' motivations.

What I resent is the taxpayers' money being drained from the already under-resourced public education system for the benefit of those who can easily afford another couple of tax-deductible grand to put into the college building slush fund. It's a wicked waste of money that could be spent where it's really needed.

Dr Prosser has writen a number of articles for OLO and in general I have found them to be interesting, well argued and based on reality. It is hence sad to see such a poor article from him. A couple of facts: The smaller fact for this discussion is the fact that all syllabuses in all subjects in all schools at all levels are the same, emanating from the Queensland Studies Authority. Secondly and crucially the choice that Dr Prosser (rightly) wants is simply not possible because there is NO DATA AT ALL on which to base a decision (choice). That is the reality on this issue and Dr Prosser ignores it totally. Consequently his article is based on imagined circumstances that simply do not exist. All very dissappointing. I appeal to Dr Prosser (and anybody else who is interested in this most important issue)to find an OLO article of 12/10/2005 entitled 'Choosing a school in a knowledge vaccuum' by John Ridd. That dealt with the reality - the poverty of available reliable information about any school, and points out that you know much more about the content of a tin of peas than you actually KNOW about a school.

Governments know best ... “Surely grown-ups do not believe that any more.” Amazingly, many do, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Re “market failure” for example: markets are very efficient devices for providing and processing information, for organising production and distribution of goods and services so as to allocate resources to their highest valued use and thus maximise community income. Their superiority to central planning is well attested.

There may, however, be cases where markets do not produce the most efficient outcome, where there is “market failure.” This tends to arise in particular circumstances, for example when there is a natural monopoly, where externalities are not taken into account, where there is information asymmetry or in the case of public goods.

The identification of market failure alone is not, however, sufficient reason for government intervention. There can be no presumption that governments outperform markets: indeed, “government failure” is more common.

The World Bank advised that “the countless cases of unsuccessful intervention suggest the need for caution. To justify intervention it is not enough to know that the market is failing; it is also necessary to be confident that the government can do better.” (World Development Report 1991) A Bureau of Industry Economics paper assessing the 15 major interventionist policies of the Commonwealth Government from 1970-85 found no positive outcomes: 13 had negative returns, while for two the net outcome was unclear. The Economist noted that “The skills of government in addressing market failure are often exaggerated. Government intervention must overcome three formidable difficulties: the tendency of regulated firms to “capture” their regulators, weak incentives for efficiency within the public sector, and missing information (where markets lack it, governments are likely to lack it as well). … The record of intervention is poor … history suggests that the burden of proof should lie with those who would extend the government’s role.”

billie, my kids were always going to go to university, we wanted the best schools for them, rather than wealth a combination of scholarships and frugality put two through private schools.

Spikey, as mentioned above, we looked for the best schools for our kids, in broad development terms as well as academically. All three got scholarships to private schools, in one case we decided co-ed Brisbane State High was more suitable, even though it was more PC and ideological. Like Col, we choose a modest lifestyle which extends ourr capacity to choose in areas we deem important, such as supporting our kids.

When government extends choice by, for example, education vouchers which can be used at any school, it will enable more parents to seek the optimal school for their children, and will surely drive improvement in the system.

“People can only be rich if sufficient others are poor.” Unbelievable, there has been a vast increase in wealth throughout the world in the last century, those in the lowest quartile of world incomes in 2000 had incomes similar to the second quartile in 1900. Incomes at all levels and in all parts of the world were similar and static for about 2000 years before the Industrial Revolution, and have advanced at a great pace since. What is considered poor in Australia today would have been undreamed of wealth to me as a child.

Des Moore noted in a 2006 paper that if Queensland adopted policies to raise the number of students in non-government schools to the national average, the net savings to the State Budget by 2011 would be $1-2bn, but total spending on schools would rise (The Role of Government in Queensland, Queensland Commerce). The Budget had already benefitted from a rapid switch to private education and medical care, and in prevailing circumstances encouraging those trends will surely be necessary

A few thoughts from a private school graduate who is now a state school teacher.

1) Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family suggests that non-government schools should not be government funded. At least, I think that's what he/she is suggesting. What people forget, though, is that the parents who send kids to these schools pay taxes. Those taxes fund government and non-government schools alike. They are simply willing (or, perhaps, able) to tip a bit more into the kitty to buy a 'better' education for their kids. My parents were never rich - in fact, they were closer to the other end of the scale. But they found the money. Their tax dollars funded the state school up the road AND the private school I attended; on top of that, they paid extra for a private education. If non-government schools ceased receiving government funding, I would expect a tax refund for parents who chose that path.

2) Spikey raises two solid reasons to explain the choice of parents to send their kids to state schools. It is certainly true that many people can afford to send their kids to private schools but choose not to. Not long ago, a student of mine - at an outer suburbs state high school - showed me pictures of her parents' stables and airstrip on Google Earth. They had the choice to send their kids to a private school but decided not to.

3) In 2006, approximately 67% of students attended government schools; these schools received approximately 78% of government funding. It is hardly true, then, that the government favours non-government schooling - the extra fees paid by the rich 'parasites' goes towards bridging the gap in funding - many private schools do little more than this.

4) It is certainly true that there are private schools out there whose filthy rich clientele could afford to live without government funding. BUT - why should those parents be denied the funding that others - some of whom pay a fraction of the tax they pay - receive?