continued

If the so-called independent schools of Australia were like the religious schools in Finland with equal facilities to the non-religious schools part of my objection would disappear. If the religious schools in Australia were funded to the same extent and no more than the non-religious schools we could expect the gap in you cited in graduates going on to university to disappear. As it is in Australia every child does not have equal access to a decent education because the taxes of the poor subsidise the schools of the rich.

The UK is a mess. Eg. State examinations are given to test students’ knowledge. Students in orthodox Jewish schools are told they do not have to answer questions in science which are contrary to what they are taught in Scripture. This means those students do not get an adequate education in science.

I do not agree that the Australian system is working well. If the so-called independent schools of Australia had to accept all applicants and had equal facilities with the public schools then I think the gap you cited would disappear. Public schools in Australia remain underfunded compared to the so-called independent schools.

The commonwealth terminated the subsidies to car manufacturers – a measure of which I approved. This was done even though these facilities provided jobs for Australians. Independent facilities can compete with government services if they pay their way. Parcel deliveries successfully compete with Australia Post without government subsidies. If so-called independent schools could compete with public schools under those conditions they might continue. Taxes should not be funneled from the poor to the rich, and students in both the private and public sectors should have equal educational opportunities.

'You get what you pay for, and private schools are better funded.' straight out lie by David f. Parents fund private schools with fees while Government funding per student is far less for prvate students than public schools. Just better results from private schools on less funding ( a very inconvenient truth).

Dear runner,

Please supply the statistics to back up your statement along with the source for those statistics.

Dear runner,

Shadow Minister and I have been having a vigourous discussion. However, neither of us has exceeded the bonds of courtesy. I have indicated that I thought he was wrong, but I have never accused him of being a liar or a fraud. He has been courteous to me and has not impugned my motives or my character. When either of us gets weary of our discussion that person will stop.

However, apparently you are not bound by such conventions. You call names, accuse others of lying and show no generosity of spirit.

We are all on a discussion list. We have different opinions and express them. It would be good if we could disagree without rancour. It doesn't make our case to abuse a person with whom we have a disagreement. I will not call you names, insult you or impugn your motives as you simply are someone who disagrees with me. I hope you will act in the same manner.

Dear runner.

You wrote, 'You get what you pay for, and private schools are better funded.' straight out lie by David f. Parents fund private schools with fees while Government funding per student is far less for prvate students than public schools. Just better results from private schools on less funding ( a very inconvenient truth).
Posted by runner, Monday, 9 February 2015 1:20:45 PM

Dear runner,

Private schools are better funded. I never contended they get more from the government than public schools. They get tuition fees, endowments and other income in addition to their funding from the government. My contention is that they should get nothing from the government.

'Private schools are better funded. I never contended they get more from the government than public schools'

Oh so its envy David f. Next you will want to ban parents from hiring private tutors. Anything else that you would dictate that parents do with their money?