'Bloated bureaucracy' or bullying balderdash?

But just imagine what would happen if the principal of a public high school funded at the per student rate of $25,000 annually were to argue to the NSW Government that he was unable to provide a decent education for the students at his school without the provision of further public money from the State (and the Commonwealth). What would happen? We would be talking an official investigation into the leadership and operation of the school by the principal, who would be stood aside pending its outcomes.

But now import into this scenario the headmasters or headmistresses of non-government schools in Australia with per student incomes of this kind from their private fees alone (thereby guaranteeing that the school will serve a financially privileged elite), Governments send out not an investigative team, but a cheque. In this regard, Australia's schools funding arrangements are unique.

Of course, leaders of such schools do not need to apply for such funding. Governments of both major parties have been only too willing to press public funds upon them. The school heads are just willing accomplices in these arrangements, rather like 'accessories after the fact'. They are the beneficiaries of public expenditure for which no educational justification has ever existed or even been argued to exist.

We all understand that our major parties have found a political rationale for providing public funding to even the wealthiest private schools, but there is no excuse for pretending there is an educational one. . Tim Hawkes's letter made no reference to the educational effects of a 53 per cent cut in his school's State funding, merely arguing that it was "too great" and that it was "politically unwise".

How could a professional educator, like headmaster Hawkes, informed by his knowledge of conditions in schools across Australia, truly argue that public funding for his school is a State or national priority. SMH Economics Editor, Ross Gittins, recently wrote that it was truly disillusioning to see head masters and mistresses who are impressive as individuals, using lobbying tricks to preserve their privilege, while professing their fidelity to the principles of Christianity (SMH "Productivity loses in unholy Gonski money fight", 17/9).

Tim Hawkes's letter identified the problem of 'bloat'. A reading of the MySchool data along with a glance at The King's School website and annual reports, combined with a quick drive past its Parramatta site combine to suggest, at face value at least, that 'bloat' is more likely to be found in its own operation than in that of the NSW bureaucracy. If this is the case, then it is a condition largely brought about by lavish private funding.

It is doubtful that even the private fee-paying parents at The King's School are privy to the purse paid to its headmaster, even though they pick up most of the bill.

Allegations by Dr Hawkes of 'bloat' in the public sector would carry more weight if they came with the details of his own total remuneration package, so that this could be assessed against the pay rates in the public sector. Thanks to a very public dispute over the sacking of an independent school principal in Melbourne, we now know that the remuneration packages in that sector can go as high as $500,000 per annum. That is more than the salary of the Director-General of Education in NSW.

Tim Hawkes chose to conclude his letter with a threat that makes him sound more like a school bully than a professional education leader. 'Piccoli has been politically unwise. The non-government sector is a powerful political force. Just ask Mark Latham.'

This implies that Hawkes has himself asked Mark Latham about the political effect of the 2004 ALP election policy proposal to cut funds from schools like his in order to increase funding to more needy schools within the non-government sector itself. It further implies that he has received from Mark Latham evidence that the political opposition mounted to this re-distribution cost Labor the election. This is evidence that has not previously been available publicly to back this boast. It is now incumbent upon Dr Hawkes to provide this evidence, to avoid the impression that he was indulging in bullying balderdash.

In her book, Journeyings, on the Melbourne establishment and their equivalent private schools in Melbourne, Janet McCalman argues that children who are educated behind high walls can find it difficult in later life to become at one with those on the other side and will find it difficult to be good democrats. If the recent Hawkes letter to the Sydney newspaper is any guide, the same may be true of some educators behind those high walls.

If the heads of privileged, private schools choose to write about their private funding, then it is nobody else's business to comment upon the quality, rhetorical style or tone of their utterances.