The indignation among Catholic and independent school system bosses sparked by NSW Education Department secretary Murat Dizdar’s suggestion for a conversation about our rampant private school systems is amusing (“Uproar over NSW schools chief’s push to reconsider private schools”, April 9). The settlement around Catholic education was only post-war and has now reached the point where it’s a cheap form of private education for non-believers. The obscenity of resources sitting on independent school campuses and rich Catholic collegiate campuses does require a conversation. It is only since John Howard was PM that the latter were so widely supported, leading to a proliferation of small religious schools. It’s a joke. The belief that parents who pay are more interested or care more about their children underscores much support for these schools. In the funding shift from the 1990s, we have set up a two-class system that is bad for our country and its educational outcomes. No other country – and in Australia no other state – has such a lopsided funding regime. In the top five countries for educational outcomes, private schools (yes, Catholic schools are private) barely exist other than international schools for travellers. Carol Reid, Tuross Head
NSW Department of Education Secretary Murat Dizdar.Credit: Sydney Morning Herald
Your editorial suggests that Murat Dizdar’s remark that Australia needs to “discuss and debate” our bizarre hybrid education system of publicly subsidised public and private schools is Trumpian, when it is the exact opposite (“A culture war over public and private schools fails everyone”, April 8). Our current system, which is unlike any other in the world in the way it gives public money to private schools without any reciprocal obligation to cap fees charged, or shoulder any responsibility for compulsory education, is not a million miles away from the voucher system touted by the Trumpian guide book Project 2025. Australia already has a quasi-voucher system whereby the subsidy is given to the school rather than the family. This has led to increasing segregation of our children according to social class. The OECD has warned that we have high concentrations of disadvantaged students in disadvantaged schools and that this concentration is increasing at the second-highest rate. If anything is Trumpian, it is the system we currently have. Jane Caro, Naremburn
The principal of inner west girls’ private school PLC, Paul Burgis, says having private schools “benefits us all”. The evidence overwhelmingly contradicts his claim. The commensurate and coincidental plunge in our schools’ international rankings is proof of this. After decades of increasing public funding of private schools, we have created a two-tier system of overfunded private and underfunded public schools. We knew it would happen, but the vested interests of private schools and craven politicians has seen the public system unquestionably undermined. Murat Dizdar is probably right, but Gonski is also right. International evidence also shows that private schools can work as part of a high-performing system, provided they don’t accept private money and are accountable to the public exactly as public schools are. David McMaster, Mosman
Thank goodness we have someone like Murat Dizdar to bring a powerful stand for public education. An egalitarian society that values cohesion need only look at public education in Finland versus the defunding of public education in the US to see what works. Thank goodness for Dizdar. All power to him. Roz Townsend, Queanbeyan East
The real issue raised by Dizdar goes beyond funding. It raises the question of whether we want segregation of children by class/wealth and religion added to that which already exists due to postcode. It could legitimately include consideration of public selective and single sex schools. That need not be a culture war but may be an appropriate analysis of how best to socialise children and young people to the real post-school world. Al Svirskis, Mount Druitt
Murat Dizdar saying the existence of private schools needs to be debated and discussed is just that, a debate and discussion, not tomorrow’s policy. His comment suggests an extreme position, but maybe what he’s actually doing is highlighting extreme disparities that are widening in Australia’s education system. He wants to affect change, and he’s got people listening. The counterarguments have big holes. To say parents should have choice is insulting to those that could never afford private education for their kids, but face declining standards in public education. Also, to say Dizdar needs to lift those standards glibly overlooks gross underfunding. Private schools largely have better academic outcomes because they offer higher pay, have higher staffing levels and are generally better resourced. Finally, criticising the states for failing to fund the needs-based Gonski reforms is unfair while there is a disproportionate flow of commonwealth funding to the private sector, why not question that? When private schools can afford rural retreats and castle-sized libraries something is wrong. Lucy France, Cronulla
Dizdar is right to call for a debate on some questionable practices of the non-government schools sector. As a head teacher in a lower north shore co-educational comprehensive high school, I used to dread day one of term two, when a busload of “rejects” would arrive outside our school from the non-government sector. Our government school had no option but to enrol them. It wasn’t lost on our staff that the timing of the arrival of these students occurred after school census had been sent into the state and federal governments and their state aid budgets had been allocated for the year. Of course, none of the state and federal money accompanied these students to our school, or any other government school. Warren Dunn, St Ives
Inadequate funding of public schools reinforces entrenched disadvantage, writes Adrian Felton. Credit: iStock
The criticism of Murat Dizdar is unjustified and says more about his critics than him. Finally, the public education sector has an advocate who strongly believes in the system, knows how effective education works and passionately argues his case. NSW parents and citizens should be thankful that he is attempting to redress years of poor public education policy which has created a bloated private system favouring advantaged families at the expense of those less fortunate. Rather than cop criticism from both the opposition and Catholic schools, he should be applauded. Max Redmayne, Drummoyne
Murat Dizdar has the audacity to question the current system, which severely disadvantages public schools – where the majority of students are taught.
In the heated “debate” that ensues, this is labelled as a “culture war”, a “push to reconsider private schools” and provoking an “uproar”. A reminder that what Dizdar actually said was that private schooling in Australia needed to be “debated and discussed”. The outrage that these mild comments provoked are indicative of the vested interests that drive this inequitable system, and further reinforce the entrenched disadvantage that inadequate funding to public schools causes. Dizdar should be applauded for his commitment to public education. Adrian Felton, Dulwich Hill
Premier Chris Minns is being disingenuous when he says he supports school choice. State and federal governments of both persuasions have overseen the overfunding of private schools and the underfunding of government schools for many years. The governments themselves have acknowledged this but pay only lip service to redressing the imbalance. With the government schools being run down over time by design or neglect, what is your choice going to be if you have the means? If governments really supported school choice, they wouldn’t be skewing the choice by their funding decisions. Bill Irvine, Goulburn
Bravo to Murat Dizdar for mentioning that which must never be said in polite society; ending the reign of private schools. I dare say a lot of pearls were clutched on that suggestion. Alan Egan, Paddington (Qld)
Beware of dodgy home battery installers
Ross Gittins is right on the money (“No cheap fix for energy evolution”, April 9). Neither major party wants to focus on climate change as an electoral issue, even though it is closely linked with the cost of living. Labor is working hard on the renewables roll-out but doesn’t want to draw attention to the fact that they are still approving fossil fuel projects. The Coalition doesn’t appear at all genuine about reducing pollution. In fact, their plans to lower the fuel excise tax and reverse fuel emissions standards are likely to increase emissions. Not to mention Dutton’s nuclear thought bubble, which would continue our reliance on coal and gas for years to come. Labor’s offer to subsidise home batteries makes more sense. It’s an opportunity for households to reduce their power bills and pollution at the same time. A solar battery system is certainly something I would consider for our home. This is not because I want to see myself as one of the “good guys”. It’s purely out of self-interest because I’d like to see a liveable future for my children and grandchildren. Anne O’Hara, Wanniassa (ACT)
Do we really need gas?Credit: Alessia Pierdomenico
Thank you, Ross Gittins, for throwing some proper light on the energy transition and the positions of the two parties. It again emphasises that the “hidden” cost of current Labor (and, presumably, teal) policy is in network and distribution charges rather than generation. These are enormous and will be borne by consumers who remain connected to the grid through their energy bills. Increasing solar and batteries is not without cost either – leaving aside the direct cost to all taxpayers of the subsidies being rolled out by governments, the grid will also need to be built out further to adapt. Again, this will be a cost borne by consumers, regardless of whether they have solar or batteries in their energy bills. Against this background, is trying something different – and forecast substantially cheaper - with the Coalition really that outrageous? Rob Ritchie, Mosman
Thank you to Ross Gittins for airing the major parties’ dirty climate laundry. The truth about successive governments’ failure to properly tax fossil fuel corporations is now out in the open. According to the Australia Institute, we’ve missed out on $13.3 billion in royalty revenue over the past four years. Never mind Dutton’s empty promises; imagine the energy efficiency and electrification measures that we could be rolling out to reduce energy costs if we’d followed Norway’s lead and properly taxed gas corporations. Sadly, it remains an opportunity going begging. Amy Hiller, Kew (Vic)
Gas is just hot air
If ever I needed a reason not to vote for the Coalition, Peter Dutton gave it to me in spades in “pledging to flood the Australian market with gas” (“Opposition plan for gas deluge in bid to cut prices”, April 9). The last thing Australia (and the world) needs is the production and burning of more methane, the most toxic of greenhouse gases, 25 to 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide. The true colours of the Coalition with regard to climate change are now blatantly obvious. Hugh Barrett, Sanctuary Point
Our high cost of energy for the eastern states stems from the failure of the Howard government, in which Peter Dutton was a minister, to protect and ensure adequate domestic gas supply when approving the export of our gas, while the WA government ensured the protection of their domestic supply. Dutton now vows to obtain adequate and cheaper gas, but his policies will require the opening of more projects. His policy will be good for gas providers but bad for our groundwater and environment. Our planet is unlikely to provide cheaper energy than currently being obtained. Brian McDonald, Willoughby
Democratic superpower
Melanie La’Brooy rightly sees our compulsory voting system as a strength (“PM, Dutton dull, but that’s not so bad”, April 9), but that isn’t the only reason that our electoral system is one of the best in the world. Preferential voting gives a better indication of voters’ wishes than first-past-the-post. But perhaps the most important feature is an apolitical electoral commission that runs the system objectively and openly, thus preventing gerrymandering of electorates and other malpractices. Andrew Macintosh, Cromer
Downstream costs
My sympathy and support for the doctors’ strike (“Junior doctors offered $2k to break strike”, April 9) is considerably enhanced by the premier’s decision to grant huge pay increases to the police. Did he seriously not think this would have a flow-on effect? Patrick McMahon, Paddington
Rubbish invention
I agree with your correspondent that bin chickens are a nuisance (Letters, April 9) but I feel our garbage bins are part of the problem: at Randwick, in laneways with the contents strewn all over the pathways, some from nearby cafes, like the stench of prawn shells etc. is certainly unhygienic and a disgusting sight. Solution: we need bins with lids that close when filled (otherwise, extra bins must be acquired) then the latch automatically releases when the bin is turned up to go into the disposal truck. Fines for bins not securely fastened. Come on, inventors – remember the show on the ABC, The Inventors? We need you. Carmel Kenniff, Randwick
Credit: Cathy Wilcox
Travellers’ tales
I also heard a group of young English travellers on a train (Letters, April 9) deciding not to go to the Northern Territory as “the Aboriginals don’t like us, and it wouldn’t be safe”. Seemed like a very misguided piece of travel advice. Vicky Marquis, Glebe
Your correspondent amusingly reports that an American in Sydney wondered if she was looking at the same moon as back home. There is, however, a point of difference. In the southern hemisphere, we observe the waxing moon lit up on our left-hand side, and the waning crescent is lit on our right-hand side. These positions are reversed in the northern hemisphere. This I learnt from my father, who had a German language mnemonic suited to the north. Therese Weiss, Maroubra
When travelling through Canada and the US in 1968, I was warned by a Canadian that along the way, I would be asked by an American to “say something in Australian”. I didn’t believe him, but decided to put together a sentence in “Australian” just in case. Sure enough, the question was eventually asked, and I confidently replied: “Indooroopilly Woolloomooloo Gulargambone.” The American was delighted but then caught me off guard by asking for a translation. I hadn’t thought that far ahead, so I had to quickly ad-lib. Bob Doepel, Greenway (ACT)
- To submit a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, email letters@smh.com.au. Click here for tips on how to submit letters.
- The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.