[qupte=Not-That-Bright]But rich private schools represent a saving to the government. If you took all government out of private schools as to make them less adventageous than they already are then the government would end up having to spend more money on the private school kids that move over to public schools.[/quote]
I guess that schools being cheaper for the government to run is more important than everyone getting an equal education then, huh? Anyway, I think that people misunderstoood what I was saying, mostly my fault seeing as I didn't say it well. Basically, Latham's idea was to take funding from rich private schools and put them into poor public schools so that school funding was evened out. Although there would have been a few problems with it at first, it would be nothing compared to the gross system that we have now, whereby schools like Newington can afford to have multiple ovals and small class sizes, whereas schools like Camden High School have oversized mathematics classes and poor teachers all around.
That's another thing also. I don't see how, or why anyone can defend the private system if it encourages teachers to go to a private school for more money, which it does. There's no two ways about this, it favours the rich and it's absurdly unfair. There's no room in Australia for this type of social injustice, none whatsoever. Above all else, this is the biggest problem with the private/public shamble system that we have going at the moment, where public school systems run the real risk of having low quality teacher numbers because another school can steal them away to give to the rich kids. Don't feed me any crap about teachers not doing that. Some are good, there's no denying that, but the majority see money as a huge incentive.
bshoc said:
1. If all schools were made to be private the cost of education would come down significantly.
Explain please.