Private school subsidy is not economically rational

How can John Howard and Mark Latham possibly claim to represent the majority of Australian's values?

Both of these men know that public schools care for 70 per cent of school students in this country and only receive 30 per cent of the Federal Education Funding Pie.

Both intend to continue to give wealthy schools vast sums of money that in the past has been used to purchase such things as rifle range facilities, extra sporting fields and indoor swimming pools.

The immoral decadence of some private schools reflects the unmistakable fact that both of these men have lost touch with what is important and fair in this country.

No school needs a rifle range, 15 sporting fields or an indoor swimming pool. They may want them but there is a vast difference between wanting and needing.

The money that provides these facilities in some private schools could be put to better use in providing better equipped science laboratories, school halls, text books, teaching aids and computer hardware, software and networking in public schools.

Both these men know that if all schools were funded on a proportional enrolment basis public schools their share would immediately almost double.

This would be done without increasing educational spending.

Private schools are not value for money and an economic rationalist should recognise this.

The Greens and the Democrats both have policies that favour public schools over private schools.

It is now time to send a message to the Liberal and Labor Parties.

Parents of public school students should vote as one on October 9 and demand their rightful share.

Stephen Laming, Horsfield Bay