Apart from getting her figures totally wrong, Senator Vanstone has insulted the intelligence and integrity of all those children, parents and teachers who are involved in the (public) education of the vast majority of the Australian population. This is a Public Education system that stands as one of the best in the world. What a pity we cannot say the same thing of our incredibly inept and unhelpful politicians!

Recent disclosures from State government sources indicate that private schools have already been doing nicely from milking the public purse, thank you very much!

Figures released (under duress!) from the N.S.W. government now allow us to accurately add both State and Federal grants to private schools--and the results are a national disgrace!

They show that the lowest four categories of private schools--the supposedly "poor" and "disadvantaged" Catholic systemic schools--actually receive more taxpayers' money per capita than kids in public schools! At the same time, supremely wealthy private institutions like Oakhill College ($4, 111, 609), Pymble Ladies College ($2, 539, 015), Abbotsleigh ($1, 074, 701) and Ascham School ($836, 246), still find it necessary to enhance their current, somewhat well-heeled facilities through taxpayer subsidies!

Combine these (already disgraceful) figures with Federal Minister Kemp's Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment, and Senator Vanstone's recent ill- informed (yes, she comes from a private school, too!) attack on Public Education, and a pretty clear picture begins to emerge.

Why doesn't this Liberal government just come out and say they definitively support sectarian, elitist, exclusive, queue- jumping, social-Darwinist, ultra-competitive nineteenth century style "private" schools and be done with it? Why persist with tokenistic lip-service to notions of equity and democracy and a "fair go for all", when this is not borne out either by political or economic support for our public schools?

Ironic, isn't it, that some (purportedly "poor") private schools receive more government funds than "State" schools-- maybe it is time to redefine the concept of "Public Education" altogether, although it is clear that the 70% of parents who continue to support our fine Public Schools for the values of equality they embody, have been utterly deceived by our elected representatives.

R. TREASURE

The facts are that Public School students have always had a raw deal: they comprise 70% of all enrolments nationwide, but receive a mere 37% of Commonwealth General Recurrent Grants, as compared to 67% for Private schools.

This, however, is not enough for Federal Schools Minister Kemp. Under a new slight-of-hand policy called the "Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment" (E.B.A.), the Commonwealth will subsidise any shift in enrolment from local Public Schools to private ones by withdrawal of funds that would normally have been destined for the State education system. States will lose the equivalent of four students' (Commonwealth) funding for every student lost to the private system!

The justification for this rort is twofold. It is based on a phony notion of "choice" which in fact denies the majority of children (70%!) a free and equitable quality education. It is also based on false economies. The Coalition considers it can save taxpayers $200-$300 annually per student by encouraging a shift toward the private sector, but of course the burden then falls upon individual parents, to the tune of thousands of dollars. It is actually an increase in the total cost of education and the encouragement of school privatisation by stealth.

Kerry Bartlett has an obligation to come clean with parents of the Blue Mountains and explain the real cost of the E.B.A. to local Public Schools. It is highly unlikely he will do so, since it may reveal the utterly pernicious and undemocratic nature of State Aid in this country.

R. TREASURE

Firstly, in the last budget, the Commonwealth government increased spending on schools by 5.7% to $3.5 billion, with further increases planned in coming years. These increases cover both government and non-government schools and include key areas such as literacy and numeracy, and vocational education.

The Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment will actually increase the funding per student in government schools. Each student who switches from a government to a non-government school, on average, saves the government system $3,400 each, but the Government will leave half of this funding with government schools, only switching half of it. The net impact will be an increase in funding per student.

In fact, over the next four years, Commonwealth funding for government schools is forecast to increase by 17.9% per student.

This is good news for students in both government and non-government schools.

KERRY BARTLET

He asserts an increase of 5.7% in Commonwealth funding for schools overall in the last budget. This figure includes a "tied" amount of Financial Assistance Grants (24%) to states and territories, which would have gone into their general revenues in any case. Overall, in fact, these grants have been reduced by $1559 million over the next 3 years, and will require the states to make fiscal cuts, not expand their spending.

School funds should naturally increase, in any case. Inflation, and the growth of retention rates and sc hool populations, demands this.

But this is not my primary complaint. Rather it is the way taxpayers' money is a pportioned, with 60% of total Federal funding going to 30% of the school population (ie. private school students). Despite Mssrs. Kemp and Bartlett's figures, this will be exacerbated by the new "Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment".

Mr. Bartlett is correct when he asserts that it costs the government system (both state and federal) about $3,400 to educate a student per annum. According to this logic, governments "save" money when the student transfers to a private school. The Commonwealth generously "leaves" half this money in the state system, "only switching half of it" to the private sector, according to Mr. Bartlet.

But wait a minute. At present the Liberal government only directly contributes $420 p.a. to each public student's education (private school pupils receive $1800), the rest is paid for by the state governments. And here's the rub.

For every state school student lost to the private system, state governments lose $1700 of their general recurrent grant, on top of the "tagged" $420 from the Commonwealth, a total loss to state schools of $2,120!

If (Heaven forbid!) under the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment there were to be an enrolment drift of 14% from public to private schools, the Federal government would be supplying zero funding to public schools, and basically supporting the private system!

This is a bald attempt to swindle our public education system and all that it stands for. It is the kind of "privatisation by stealth" practiced by the Tory government of the U.K.; the kind of policy so thoroughly rejected by that country's electorate recently.

Please don't try and con the parents, students, and community of this electorate, Mr. Bartlet. They are all too aware that their local schools are doing it tough because of the increased help they are continually being asked to provide, and which is not being adequately supplied by their political representatives...

R. TREASURE

In Mr Treasure's version of the truth he would have us believe that these "elite" private schools came into being after the Federal election of March 1996. The reality is, however, that these schools recieved government funds throughout the 13 years of hard Labor and yet Mr Treasure did not feel inclined to complain about "tokenship lip-service" over this period. Are we, the readers, to assume that it's okay if Labor supports these schools but not okay when the Liberal government continues the practice.

Parents who choose to send their children to private schools make a substantial contribution to the cost of this education. In addition, they also pay tax. So in effect, they also contribute to the State and Federal coffers used to finance the public school system. Maybe Mr Treasure would support tax deductions for parents who choose to send their children to private schools.

So where do the funds for our schools come from? The taxpayers, yes Mr Treasure, that's all, taxpayers contribute 93% of the cost of government schools. Non government schools, on the other hand, only receive 56% on average from the taxpayer with the balance being funded by parents and school communities. In 1996-97, $11,600million was spent on government schools and $3000million spent on non government schools. Compare these figures with enrolements and it reveals that cost per student is $5222 per annum for government versus $3254 per student for non government schools.

The public education system has many talented and highly dedicated teachers within its ranks. Their dedication to the curriculum and extra-curricular activities is testament to their professionalism and enthusiasm for education in its widest form. It's a pity that the likes of Mr Treasure cannot look beyond entrenched bigotry and bias to participate in legitimate debate on the role of public education in Australia.

ANTHONY TYRRELL

Registration has long been acknowledged as a means of ensuring the proper qualification of people in various professions such as Nursing and Medicine. Teacher registration is already in place in Queensland and from all reports works well.

In the current climate of public concern over Child Protection, the issue of Teacher Registration assumes even greater significance. Parents require some kind of universal guarantee that people charged with the responsibility of educational care over their children are properly trained, qualified, and responsible in carrying out their duties.

Yet there are major holes in Mr. Aquilina's proposals, the most glaring being that private schools stand exempted from the requirement to register their teachers, while Public School personnel must undergo the most rigorous supervision and evaluation possible.

Why is this so? Surely the sheer volume of taxpayers' money going to private schools nowadays entitles us to some kind of accountability from their teaching staff? Surely the whole process of professional registration is made farcical if it does not apply to everyone. I am wondering where our local member, Mr. Debus/ Ms. Lopo, stands on the issue

Fair enough, you might say.

But not many people are equally aware that recently, this year, private school teachers from wealthy "Independent" schools like Newington, Kings, P.L.C., St. Ignatius College etc. etc. achieved a 20% increase over a shorter period, and with no "trade-offs" to working/learning conditions. Negotiations were civil, calm, and required no industrial action.

Again, fair enough, you might say. These are rich schools with expensive fees structures.

Yet in reality all taxpayers are subsidising elite school "improvements" like this in a number of ways. First, capital and specific grants totalling billions of dollars are doled out to "Independent" schools by the Federal government every year. Every dollar saved on building or resource projects by private school boards is a dollar that can be directed to recurrent expenditure (ie. salaries).

Second, all private schools automatically receive 25% of the recurrent cost of educating a Public School student from the State government. When State schoolteachers receive a pay rise, a proportionate increase in recurrent funds automatically flows on to all private schools. Private schools, and in particular wealthy "Independent" ones, are then free to adjust their employees' salary rates, with little or no accountability whatsoever to the taxpayer or their elected representatives.

Clearly, elite schools use this situation to entrench their elitism: by paying their teachers more, they can pick and choose their staff and maintain the image of richer=better.

I ask one question, in the hope that our local politicians, all of them, can give me a straight, clear answer: how can a system of State Aid that actually entrenches and encourages inequality be justified in a democracy?