Support state and private schools equally

Ignored is the presence of selective secondary schools, especially in NSW, that are not open to all comers as they choose students according to academic ability, excluding those who fail the entrance test.

Also ignored is the reality that many government schools only enrol students whose parents can afford to buy property in a school's enrolment zone. Such a situation, following the logic of Walsh and Lemon, is inherently inequitable as not all families can afford to buy the million dollar plus real estate that would guarantee enrolment in their preferred school.

It also should not be forgotten, as argued by Gary Marks, a researcher at the Australian Council for Educational Research, that the community profile of Catholic schools, that make up the largest proportion of non-government schools, is similar to government schools.

In calling for increased equity and excellence in education Walsh and Lemon imply that government schools are better able to achieve such outcomes. Again, based on the example of Catholic schools, such is not the case. Not only are Catholic schools, when compared to government schools, better able to help disadvantaged students achieve strong academic results such schools, as noted by Jennifer Buckingham in her monograph The Rise of Religious Schools, are very successful in promoting social stability and civic engagement.

Given their organisation commissioned the report, it is understandable why Walsh and Lemon support the funding model put forward in Jack Keating's Resourcing Schools in Australia. While their description of the report as providing "an elegant solution to some of the current problems of funding and inequity" suggests that the report is without blemish, there are concerns.

Catholic and independent schools, while complying with government regulations and registration procedures, when compared to government schools have greater autonomy and flexibility in terms of managing themselves and best meeting the needs and aspirations of their communities.

Faith-based schools, given their uniquely religious focus, are free to enrol students and employ staff in accordance with the school's religious beliefs and mission. Keating's suggested funding model, while not going as far as suggesting that non-government schools, as a condition of public funding, should be integrated into the state system, seriously compromises the independence of non-government schools.

As a condition of funding the danger is that non-government schools would lose control of who they enrol and who they employ. There is also the intention that such schools must abide by government policies in areas like curriculum, testing and assessment, teacher registration and certification, release of school data and equity and social justice policies.

While a certain amount of regulation and oversight is warranted, it should be clear that what is being envisaged will overwhelm non-government schools with the type of intrusive, byzantine and costly regulation currently forced on government schools and guaranteed to stifle independence.

Walsh and Lemon conclude their comment piece by arguing, "What is urgently needed is a systematic response to the moral imperative of ensuring that a quality, world-class education is available to all Australians".

As argued by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, when Minister for Education, the best way to ensure a quality education for all Australians is to move on from the old and fruitless state aid debates. The challenge for government is to fund all schools properly and to ensure, as a result of the review currently underway, that Catholic and independent schools are not penalised or disadvantaged.