I disagree and I am yet to hear a cogent argument that convinces me. Having attended one of the independent schools mentioned, I openly admit potential for bias yet it also gives me perspective. The socioeconomic tapestry that defines the society of these private schools (and make no mistake, the families are just as much if not more so involved as the children) tend to divide into two groups. Firstly, you have your subset from wealthy backgrounds with professional, successful parents. Secondly, you had your subset from normal families who have taken out loans or otherwise made significant sacrifice to send their children to what they deem as a better educational environment. The merits of such action are outside the scope of this discussion.

I fail to see how cutting public funding holds weight in either case and feel it is somehow intellectually dishonest to reconcile to two. My natural approach to dissecting problems is to conceptualise the world in terms of systems and the flows or interactions between the various discrete entities. The system on trial here is the implicit trade-off of responsibilities for the various rights that our society awards us. Children are dependents of their guardians in law, so I feel that it is prudent to consider the two (a family unit) as a single entity for this discussion. Attempts to dissect this further fall apart because federal government funding is a right and children of schooling age have not yet satisfied the responsibility side of the associated equation. Extrapolating a child’s future earning potential is certainly an approach one can take, but it is inherently inaccurate and unquantifiable.

Looking at things from the abstraction of the family unit brings the two groups mentioned above into focus. The wealthy, successful group of families generate greater taxation revenue than a family group made up of those less fortunate. I recognise that this is a basic, tired argument but I am still yet to be convinced of proposals that see these families receiving less federal funding in absolute monetary terms (relative terms is another matter as then we get into arguments surrounding diminishing returns which I am more inclined to agree with). The sacrificing group of families differs not from those who send their children to public schools, and again I fail to find substantiation for your assertion that they should receive less (in absolute terms) than their comparators. Nobody is arguing that the educational system isn’t broken; I simply fail to see how violating a basic tenet of the fabric on which our society is built can be a solution. How can inequity be solved by government sanctioned inequity?