Dear Shadow Minister,

I am not attacking the ‘independent’ schools. I do not question their right to exist. I do not question the right of parents to segregate their children from other Australian children and to provide indoctrination in whatever mumbojumbo the parents favour as long as the children also are taught about science. In fact I want the so-called independent schools to be truly independent and not receive government subsidies.

I don’t think they had any right to government subsidies in the first place, and it seems fair to me to eliminate what they were not entitled to. Joe Hockey said this is the end of the age of entitlement. The public schools are entitled to government support since they are public. The private schools are not entitled to government support since they are private

Dear Shadow Minister,

Please stop calling schools subsidised by the government independent as they are not independent. Sure, they cost the government less per student. In fact they should cost the government nothing. They should get no taxpayer money.

Providing adequate support to the public schools would not result in a lower quality of education. That is absolute rubbish. All Australian children are entitled to an adequate education, and good public schools can provide that education.

I repeat what I wrote before: Public schools can give a good education even though some anti-public school propaganda denies it. A University of Queensland study of NAPLAN results recently debunked conventional wisdom that having a child in a private school leads to better academic results. Furthermore, there is a disadvantage in sending a child to a private school if they go on to university, as more drop out in their first year. The pattern is repeated overseas – students in Britain who get BBB grades and attend government comprehensive schools outperform students from private schools with A level grades on all measures.

Facts really don’t seem to matter to you. For some reason you want private schools to be supported by taxpayers when there is no good reason for it.

Dear warmair,

You go farther than I would go. I do not favour banning private schools. Your unfortunate circumstances in a private school could have been duplicated in a public school as schools in general resist providing for students with special needs.

I went to a public school in the US. I got an IQ test which showed I had a very high IQ. My mother took me and the IQ test to the principal’s office and asked that I be put in a special class. The principal looked at snot-nosed, skinny, tow headed me and said, “They must have made a mistake.” There probably was no special class for bright children, and the principal wasn’t going to start one.

I agree that we should have a fair taxation system as opposed to what we have now.

David,

I am well aware of your opinion that independent schools should not be federally funded. I am also aware that this is entirely ideologically driven, that you are unable to provide a rational for your beliefs, and that your latest reason that independent schools indoctrinate pupils with mumbo jumbo has no foundation in reality.

I believe that public schools largely give a very good education, however statistics taken over decades show that results at independent schools exceed those at public schools even allowing for factors of background by a small but significant factor.

That 80% of university places are filled by pupils from selective or independent schools says it all.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Students who go to private schools in general have parents who are more affluent and better educated than students who go to public schools. Students with parents who are more affluent and better educated are more likely to go on to further education than students with parents who are less affluent and less well-educated. It's that simple. The elephant in the room is class.

Our present system perpetuates a class system. You wrote: "That 80% of university places are filled by pupils from selective or independent schools says it all."

It only says it all if you ignore why it is so. You choose to ignore why it is so. Another reason it is so is that bright graduates of public schools may have to go to work to help support a family.

As I said before you really aren't interested in facts.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote: "That 80% of university places are filled by pupils from selective or independent schools says it all."

That is a common error of people who know little of statistics. They confuse correlation with causation. There is a correlation of students who go to private schools (which are not independent.) with those who go to university. That does not mean one is the cause of the other.

The explanation of the correlation seems most likely to be that the same factor is responsible for both phenomena.

To repeat my last post: "Students who go to private schools in general have parents who are more affluent and better educated than students who go to public schools. Students with parents who are more affluent and better educated are more likely to go on to further education than students with parents who are less affluent and less well-educated."

One must be wary of the use of statistics to prove a point.

David,

I threw in the FACT that 80% of university places are filled by selective or independent schools to flush out your real motive.

To summarize, you have conceded that,
1 independent schools cost the government less than public schools
2 That pupils from independent schools are better educated, and
3 That well educated school leavers are vital for the country's growth.

Ipso facto removing independent school subsidies will
1 cost the state more either reducing funding per student or other services,
2 Reduce the education of a significant portion of pupils, and
3 Harm the long term growth and economic well being of the entire country.

Finally to put the cherry on the top, you then declare it a matter of class, which is obviously the entire ideological motivation driving the thread and in your mind trumps economic rationalism.