I agree the Greens don't like public money going to private schools.

However I believe thee Greens have a point on this topic. Visit: http://greens.org.au/node/10397 . I'm not a party member and never have been.

I don't support cutting funding to private schools as it will impact on students (I went to public and private), particularly ones who don't like sitting in a boring classroom studying algebra and multiple types of science for example.

Students should have a "bill of rights" seeing students get alternative programs provided who don't fit into mainstream education (including private schools) - or face funding cuts from government.

My high school I went to (private) in now over 5 years has moved from one week of work experience to two. Not much change at all.

Teachers who want real reform for a better education system for all students? What to they do? Stand up - and lose their jobs?

concentrate on teaching teachers numeracy and literacy and all will be better off.

"Some of Adelaide's private schools spend almost twice as much per student than comparable public schools - that's more than $10,000 per student - but still only achieve the same academic outcomes."

This is according to the Greens - and I do believe we need to question the funding principle - but not cut funding.

Therefore I ask how does a teacher who wants a reformed teaching system (including in a private or public school) - get action going if they are not satisfied with the education system?

For example, when I was at a private high school (doing community service that was compulsory in Year 12), I had to do one afternoon a week (for ten weeks) of computer based book processing in the school Library. It was boring, lifeless and I learnt nothing. I was alone in the school Library and hated doing the work.

An interesting angle, NathanJ.

Although the wording of the Greens grumble is somewhat obscure...

"...almost a quarter of government funding to private schools is in excess of what it costs to educate similar students in public schools."

Does this mean that the government spends a quarter more on each private school pupil? Somehow, I doubt that.

So does it mean that the cost of each private school pupil is 25% higher than a pupil in a government school? That's possible, I suppose.

But the tone of the article suggests that the additional money is wasted, merely because the results (public vs. private) are the same or similar.

Surely, the Greens are not suggesting that money makes you clever, are they?

They should be grateful that there are rich parents who are happy to pay a couple of hundred thousand from after-tax income, putting their thicko kids through private school, thereby preventing them from being an additional drain on the patience and energy of public school teachers.

Poirot, Foxy, et al,

While Triggs and the AHRC are immune from the influence of the parliament, she and the organisation she heads are not insulated from criticism.

Any independent government body is required to maintain a strict political impartiality and conduct its affairs independently of who's in power so that its findings can be accepted by both parties.

However, as Triggs has admitted, she deliberately postponed the inquiry from the beginning of 2013 when the number of children in detention was at a peak of nearly 2000 primarily because it might influence the election scheduled for September, and secondly entered into discussions with Labor ministers prior to the election.

This clearly gives the impression of political bias, which if she had been a normal public servant would have led to her dismissal. What is worse is that it severely damages the credibility of the report, and gives the coalition the ammunition to chuck it into the waste bin of history and to ignore it.