The likelihood that Australia’s public schools will be fully funded hasn’t eased growing discomfort about our failed hybrid public/private system.

This became very evident following recent comments by NSW Education Secretary Murat Dizdar that our provision of private schools should be “debated and discussed”. The inevitable shock-horror response ran its course… but the issue shows no signs of going away.

Dizdar’s comments were reasonable, and almost certainly reflect a quiet discomfort at the highest levels of government about our seriously segregated wider system of schools. Despite two decades of “reform”, it is still not delivering on the holy grail of excellence and equity.

He is hardly alone in expressing concern. A couple of months ago, one of his predecessors as NSW public education supremo, Michele Bruniges, joined a host of others expressing concern about concentrated disadvantage and declining equity across our schools, stressing that we must rethink how we resource and structure our education system into the future.

In her work with the Paul Ramsay Foundation, Bruniges suggested that ways forward could include:

• adjusting school zoning to challenge the way postcode concentrates both wealth and disadvantage;
• asking more of schools that receive government funds to open their doors to children from less advantaged backgrounds:
• a default setting for new schools to be comprehensive, rather than specialist or selective; and
• a clear set of mutual obligations on schools for the receipt of taxpayers’ dollars, demonstrating clear public benefit and national interest.

There are now many similar expressions of concern and efforts to shift policy. The peak Australian secondary principals group now has transforming systems as a focus, declaring that the inconsistent and inequitable accountabilities in the way schools are regulated is a critical area for reform. We’ve seen expressions of concern from the Productivity Commission and a major review to inform a better and fairer education system. An innovative group, Australian Learning Lecture, supported efforts by 12 key Australian educators to see how Canadians have managed to do much better. Their report will be issued by mid-year.

It is this gathering concern which seems lost on those who have queued up to take pot shots at Dizdar. The image of a respected and leading educator being pilloried for urging debate and discussion should create discomfort. Even his comment that many successful countries have become so with just a public education provision…  is a statement of fact.

But his comments triggered righteous disbelief and denial. NSW Opposition Leader Mark Speakman described Dizdar’s comments as “unacceptable” and his position as “untenable.” Premier Chris Minns was quick to say his government “fully supports” parental choice of schools. The “I support choice” mantra is usually the sole response of politicians eager to shut down debate. Yes, we all love choice but, as presently structured, choice in something as serious as school education is only available to the best resourced families – and, as a consequence, simply fuels the school divide.

Alas, the response from private school peak groups was predictable and little changed from the accusations that flew around years ago in the school sector wars. Spokespeople for the Catholic and independent sectors rejected Dizdar’s comments out of hand, regarding even the hint of a debate as an existential threat to their schools. They seemed content to just shoot the messenger.

Catholic Schools NSW chief executive Dallas McInerney condemned the comments as “outrageously bad and very worrying for Catholic education”. This would come as a surprise to the Australian team who, last October, toured a Canadian Catholic school which is fully publicly-funded, doesn’t charge fees and serves the widest range of Catholic families.

The Australian visitors to Canada might also raise their eyebrows at a comment from Margery Evans, NSW chief executive of the Association of Independent Schools of NSW, who said it is “unconstructive to yearn for an overseas education model that never existed in this country”. Given the parlous state of what we have created in Australia, this would seem not to be good advice.

A serious debate is still possible and essential. There is a growing concern about how our school system creates winners and losers among kids, schools and communities based on family background and wealth. Our schools certainly have a very unequal obligation to serve them. The social hierarchy of schools in almost every community is evidence enough that our hybrid public/private school system just doesn’t work.

What we now have was predicted many years ago, but warnings were studiously ignored by governments and vested interests. A dual system of schools, one free and the other subsidised but fee-charging, was always going to be a recipe for failure. Just ask others, even nearby across the Tasman Sea, where such failure was avoided.

The inevitable debate must respect differences and eschew blame. After all, which genius imposed almost 50 public selective schools on NSW? Today’s leaders of each sector didn’t create what we have, but we all have to think beyond the public/private morass that has let us down.

Let’s be clear, school funding breakthroughs come and go – but the hard work to restructure the way we provide and resource all schools, and the obligations they must meet in return, has yet to begin.