Well said Examinator.

Two things that GY said give him away: "There's no basis for your class-envy-soak-the-rich diatribe" and "I personally think that we don't expect enough of our less-gifted students, and that we don't provide enough opportunities to our most-gifted".

I suspect that Examinator is just as middle class as is GY.

First off "less gifted students" ain't necessarily so - some of our most effective entrepreneurs were hopeless students.

Secondly many "most-gifted" hail from regional areas, low-income or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds. That they may qualify for a scholarship is no answer. Ever been the poorest kid in a 'posh' school? - peer pressure alone is a huge hurdle - why not have quality education for all - where they live?

Here's a simple question I would like answered: Why have our state schools been neglected and continue to be neglected in favour of private schools?

Answer: So that vested interests may claim that public education doesn't work and favour private education.

Why does 'user-pays' economics only apply to those least able to pay?

If socialism is so bad, why are private schools given such largesse from the government? I won't mention the bank bail-out as it is not on topic, ooops I did. My point is simply that government subsidy for capitalism has gone too far.

Nor has Examinator suggested a 'one-size-fits-all' approach, given that quality public education would support those according to need and ability - something that is currently provided through private schooling, but not to all our children.

Examinator, it's not a good look to claim to be non-ideological while everything you say proclaims the opposite. If you really are interested in the make-up of the schools offering the IB you can find a current list at http://www.ibo.org/country/AU/. I didn't count up but looked to be a reasonably even split between state and private.

I didn't start this thread to have a fight. I was interested in a discussion on the moves in WA to loosen-up the state system. That has nothing to do with university education, or the federal government providing funding to private schools.

If you are going to argue about those things you should get your facts straight. For example before Gough Whitlam most people got their university education free via Commonwealth Scholarships. Gough expanded the number of uni places and paid students to attend.

It wasn't the Liberals that introduced uni fees, it was Labor.

Some of the most needy schools in the country are private schools, not state schools, and this has been the case for decades and was first acknowledged at a government level in the Carmel Report, commissioned by Gough Whitlam. It's the basis for the feds funding private schools to the extent that they do.

Howard introduced a scheme to direct greater federal government funding to those schools with a lower SES, a necessary and humanitarian reform.

If state schools are under-funded it is the fault of state governments. Federal government funding of private schools makes more money available to the states by making it viable for more children to leave the state system, meaning dollars available per head should increase.

But none of this has anything to do with the topic, so howabout we get back to it?

GY
Fair point,I got it wrong...sorry (very red face) I got my degree and all I paid was student union and books.

Thanks for the details. Oddly enough one school listed was one of my war stories (they joined the year after we left). Many of the public schools I recognise are in "better" suburbs not those like Logan, Broadmeadows, Elizabeth, etc.

Neither did I want a fight. I was following the thread about an Aust-wide curriculum as opposed to potentially 30 different ones as a result of autonomously run schools. I have reservations with autonomously run schools, based on my experiences and some similar to those faced by Hasbeen. But I wait to be convinced otherwise.

I still stand by my point that the unaccounted for gorilla in the corner of this discussion is the social demographics of the schools catchment. One has to also consider resources/facilities.

Perhaps I should have said I am party dogma independent not necessarily non-ideological sorry, confusion of terms.
Humanist is a non specific ideology.

Fractelle,
I did get some facts wrong but essentially most of what I said still stands.

The point I missed was the religious bit i.e. many of the needy schools ARE the religious (catholic is the largest group) run ones. But the key issue is the curriculum specifically the religious choice and who pays then.

To my mind discretionary choices (DC) like religion and perceptional curricula shouldn't be funded by governments. Choice is generally the provence of private enterprise. That doesn't mean that a private enterprise can't run a public school providing it runs the whole curriculum and facilities/teaching staff are up to scratch.
OPTIONAL/separated religious instruction could be permitted.
Current minimums need to be raised. But that is first read discussion and could be off the specific topic

GY & Examinator

I am so pleased that you have managed to reach a consensus and avoid a fight. Always good to see the doors of communication remain open, despite GY's tendency to personal judgement; Examinator having made very clear that he is not into "class-envy-soak-the-rich" diatribe.

Now is there further elucidation regarding the 30 WA Schools receiving autonomy?

Who will be governing these schools? What will the curriculum be?

Will the overriding philosophy be determined by those in whom the power has been invested?

Does this include religious schools or are these 30 schools to be truly independent and encouraging free-thinking rather than dogma of any creed?