I love these black and white, good and evil, right and wrong arguments.

But idealism is rarely a complete answer.

So how about instead of asking "why isn't it so", we explore the "what if?"

As in "what if the government stopped subsidizing private education".

The first thing, of course, is that the private schools would have to jack up their fees.

Fewer parents could afford it, therefore many would close.

The few that remained would continue to hire the best of the best in the teaching profession, simply because they would be charging the earth.

Meanwhile, the government would have to open a whole new bunch of schools, and pay the (so we are told) peanuts to a whole new bunch of teachers. Overall, this might not be at all beneficial to the quality of education in public schools.

Which would pretty much guarantee even greater inequality between the Haves (who would now of course be limited to the Have-gazillions) and the Have-nots.

The quality gap between public and private education wouldn't diminish by eliminating the subsidy. It would widen.

So the twin objectives of improving the public system and reducing inequality would be well and truly stuffed.

Of course, the next question might be "what if the government banned private education".

That would be a whole lot less pretty.

On the whole, I'd suggest that the existing balance between investment and outcomes is probably not worth tinkering with too much.

It is possible the reason governments fund private schools is because it is cheaper than opening up another bunch of public schools to service a particular population.

In a perfect world there would be no private schools, every child would receive a well rounded and solid education, there would be no bullying and all children would be well mannered/respectfuol and we could all go tiptoeing through the tulips with joy and happiness.

Unfortunately in the real world, if there are major issues with your locally zoned school you cannot just pick up stakes and move to the next public school. Sometimes the only choice is a private school or homeschooling which is not always practicable.

If the better results are coming out of private schools it begs the question, why are we not getting those results from public schools?

Fact: Parents often wish to give their kids a Private School education.
Private Schools Principals and Administrators have real power to enforce standards and discipline. While problems like bullying, anti-social behaviour etc also occur at Private schools, incidence is lesser and response far greater. Disruptive students generally get pulled into line or moved along. Kids prepared to be educated get a fair go, Teachers get on with teaching and Mummy and Daddy perceive value for money. Parents chose schools for different reasons. Academic performance might mean less to some than the School ethos for instance.

Fact: Caring parents, regardless of what they can afford education wise, raise children with manners, respect for self and others and a sense of responsibility. They take active interest in and encourage their kids in academic and community endeavours. They engage with teaching staff in an appropriate manner if problems occur to reach acceptable outcomes.
The children of such parents will usually do well in the Education system regardless of "Private" or "Public".

Fact: There are too many unskilled or neglectful or 'should have been sterilised at puberty instead' parents.

Fact: There are too many kids who are disadvantaged as a result.

Fact: Ability to maintain a functional learning environment has been diminished in many State School environments because of lack of effective disciplinary choices and the BS that goes on when problems need to be dealt with.

Fact: There are plenty of little "ferals" and smartarses well schooled up on their rights but with no concept of responsibility (or consequences)

I could go on ......

Private Schools get funding because without them the Government would have to provide more public schools. Simple! Like private hospitals .... The taxpayer contributes less. User pays more.

As for "Equality" - Get a grip! There are "haves" and "have nots", smart kids and stupid, achievers and deadbeats and everyone in between. It doesn't change! How many commentators on this pretty dumb piece are parents who have or are in process of educating their kids (and have a clue)anyway? Not the Author methinks .....

Government has an obligation to provide ADEQUATE public schools for ALL CHILDREN due to the mandatory education laws passed by said governments. That is all the obligation they have. Any government money given to private schools is waste and deprives another area of spending.

Mikk, you are right. & the emphase is on ADEQUATE & ALL CHILDREN. Children that attend private schools are part of that ALL. The Government does provide ADEQUATE facilities, just barely, but ADEQUATE.

It's the same as you buying your child Dunlop sandshoes & not Reboks. Sandshoe are adequate & that is all your requirement to your child is. That's how the Government works.

It reminds me of when I joined the Army. I was told that my rifle was provided by the lowest bidder & just barely adequate, but fit for purpose.

private schools have auditoriums, pools, shooting ranges, tennis courts, horse riding, not to mention the classrooom, library and laboratory facilities etc and public schools have leaking taps, broken toilets, toxic heaters and general lack of anything.

The reason Private schools have these extra facilities is because PARENTS PAY the difference & they have fund raising & raffles, etc. They have to pay tradesmen to fix anything that goes wrong. Public schools rely on the Government repair provider, it's called Q something. It's a government public service, full of redtape, slow as a wet week in China, & twice as expensive as a private tradie.

What about moving the States and territories completely out of education? There is no reason why individual schools can't self manage after being given a model curriculum, educational resources and a budget by Canberra.

Apply the successful private school models that are already around.

It is a much better idea than continuing to pour good money after bad into self-serving State and Territory education departments which duplicate one another and selfishly protect their own territory.

Another thing, technology is poorly used and nor is it likely to be better employed as long as the current education structure and arrangements apply. For example, it is already possible to have the very best teachers teach thousands of students using conferencing technology especially of students are streamed. Equally such technology and centralised (model) lesson preparation could be used to mentor new teachers and to revitalise experienced ones.

I have only given a very basic example of what technology could do and the sky is the limit if top level consultants are involved from private industry. Technology can easily bridge the gap between school and the practical reality of the workplace, making learning more relevant to students.

Frankly I consider articles like this one to be the last gasp of the State education dinosaurs. Plainly a lot is wrong and pointing the finger at private schools to stir up envy and divide the community is an obvious, old diversion.

Everyone has the right to a decent free education.

I also have the right to flog my house and hock myself to the hilt to pay for the best all round education for my kids.

What is perfectly plain is that if the government reduced the subsidy, it would have to pay more elsewhere and there would be no more funds for public schools.

The whingers such as Atlarak and mikk are either too educationally challenged to understand this simple concept, or would rather maintain their lifestyles and would prefer to drag other's children down to their level.