No changes will be made to the way private schools are funded until at least 2014, the Federal Government has confirmed.

The decision has been slammed by the Australian Education Union, which has accused Labor of caving in to the demands of private schools.

When she was education minister Julia Gillard announced in April a comprehensive review of schools' funding with the current arrangement due to expire in 2012.

But she has today announced that if Labor is re-elected it would keep funding in real terms for private schools in place until the end of 2013.

She says this is because school communities need funding certainty.

"A review panel of eminent Australians is examining the best way to ensure future school funding delivers excellent education and value for money for all Australian schools and students," she said in a statement.

"Following the recommendations of the independent funding review panel, a re-elected Gillard Labor government will put forward its proposals for future funding for consultation with schools, education systems and parents."

The education union says it is "bitterly disappointed" with the decision.

Union president Angelo Gavrielatos says the Government has put the interests of private schools before public schools.

"The decision to delay until 2014 the start of a new funding system means Labor will not have changed in almost seven years a system which they have repeatedly acknowledged is flawed and failing to deliver for all children," he said.

"This funding system, introduced by the Howard government, delivers only one third of federal funding to public schools which teach two thirds of students. The private schools that get the most funding are the richest in the nation."

Yup, I would like to see the same dollars per student regardless of private or public schools.

That said, private schools seem to be obscenely rich yet the MySchools website shows the difference in scores between private and public schools is trifling, so let parents send their kids to private schools for snob value at their own expense!

There you go, now you scabby Libs say accepting tobacco money is stupid as well as morally repugnant!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 4^th, 2010 at 3:54pm:


I personally dont mind, and since my first isnt born yet (November) Im not all that qualifed to discuss the benefits or private v public.

I just remember the venimous public v private debate here a week ago and how many ALP supporters were against it.

Im more interested in their opinion, and if they support Gillards decision.

Yeah, considering State & Fed money? Doubt it.

That is crap!

Epithets are not facts.

If what you say is true then the funding formula has to be totally revamped. But I doubt it is true—care to put some figures where your mouth is?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 4^th, 2010 at 4:28pm:


I didnt see the end of it, I bailed as it went no where.

I know its not quite the same argument.  Im just interested to see how the other paints it.

I personally dont trust a thing the unions come out with.