Equality of opportunity in an unequal world

What would these millions buy? The answer is not very much. All children would retain equal education rights under the accepted allocation rules. Those who suffer from disadvantages would still require additional resources, while exceptionally gifted students would continue to receive an enhanced education in selective state schools. Educational outcomes, which are now roughly the same for public and private schools (once social class is taken into account), will remain unchanged. In a few areas, learning may go backward. For example, country students currently studying in private boarding schools may be forced to attend smaller and less well-equipped local schools. In contrast, remote communities that established their own non-government schools because they were not satisfied with their former public ones would be forced to abandon their schools and accept whatever education the public system decides to provide.

Why do the critics of private schooling advocate spending so much extra money for no additional educational gain? Benedikt says that forcing children into public schools would give wealthy, influential parents a stake in the public system. If their children were required to attend public schools, wealthy parents would be motivated to use their influence to ensure these schools offered a high-quality education. Perhaps they would if they had to. But wealthy families tend to live in salubrious suburbs. Their children would attend their neighbourhood public school with their equally rich neighbours. Their high socioeconomic status would ensure that their neighbourhood school performs well on tests such as NAPLAN. Housing patterns would also ensure that children from middle and lower-socio-economic households study with children from backgrounds similar to theirs. In effect, forcing all students into state schools would leave the social class differences among schools unchanged.

The only way to get around clustering children from wealthy backgrounds in neighbourhood schools would be to compel students from high-income families to attend schools in low-income neighbourhoods (or vice versa). In the 1960s and 1970s, American children were "bused" between neighbourhoods to encourage the racial integration of schools. Busing was not a successful strategy. Wealthy parents simply moved to suburbs too distant for daily commuting. Without forced mixing, closing all the private schools in Australia would have little effect on who studies with whom.

Given that closing private schools would cost taxpayers a great deal of money and produce little or no change in educational outcomes, what is motivating those who continue to oppose private education? Like Igor, the Russian peasant, is their opposition solely based on spite and envy?

Not entirely. Some critics believe that wealthy private schools are receiving too much financial support from the Commonwealth government. These schools use their government subsidies to finance fancy facilities (swimming pools, climbing walls, elaborate dining halls) when this money could be better used to help poorer schools. This criticism has merit. School funding rules are opaque; they represent decisions taken at many different times by many people, primarily for reasons of political expediency. However, an objection to school funding policies is not an argument for closing private schools; it is a reason for changing the rules that govern school funding-which is what all political parties have pledged to do.

Coda

Education is a battleground in which warriors hone ideas into weapons. Equality is one of those ideas.

Everyone agrees that all children have an equal right to education. The question is how to ensure this right when the resources available to schools and families are not equal. Unfortunately, misery loves company, but spending millions to prevent parents from exercising their legal right to send their children to private schools is misguided. It will reduce educational opportunities, and unless we are prepared to bus children around to get more diversity in schools, it will not change who studies with whom. Most important of all, ending private schooling will do nothing to raise educational outcomes.

A school system made up entirely of state-of-the-art institutions staffed by master teachers offering all children a high-quality education tailored to their needs is a noble vision. But it does not describe the world in which we live. Although it is far from perfect, our current mixed system of public and private provision provides choice for parents, encourages high-performers and compensates for disadvantages. It is equitable and fair. Of course, we should rationalise funding formulae and ensure that resources go where they are most needed. Whatever we do, our initiatives should aim to improve learning. Fostering mediocrity in the name of equality is not an effective way to build a better society.