Courtenay, I was just commenting on the situation, which I thought was clear given that I also put forward your alternative argument in my post. I can see it from both sides (if the public and private/exclusive sides are the only two, which I doubt).
(Let this be as if I started a new thread)
I don't think that the debate should be based entirely on money, too, as the 'moral' argument for the shift is just as important. I see this as a way for the mum and dad to ignore their own moral obligations by passing the burden on to the school, but that is just me. It is kind of funny, though, as many parents are expecting more from the teachers when the teachers are able to do less than in the past.
Tenax Propositi: Priorities? A tertiary education is not for all, which has been recognised by the Government. Meg Lees, in particular, has noted this and used it as her argument for supporting the higher education reforms: While higher education is important, it means little when many people are unable to receive an adequate education in the primary and secondary years (The Australian published a piece by the senator a day or two after the reforms passed the senate). The priority should be on those years, rather than the tertiary years (that is not saying that the latter should be ignored at the expense of the former two).
With an election looming, this topic will be quite interesting.
