Same old argument...

It comes down to the same old argument for me.  Cutting back on education resources to save money, because we can get more money in the short term from overseas students, who can then leap-frog over the natives for jobs (i.e. importing workers to cover the "skills shortage" which wouldn't exist if some of our own, disadvantaged citizens could get some decent education).  This type of approach means that the rich, who can afford the fancy schools (which in the great egalitarian scheme of things, the poor get an equal chance to subsidise from their taxes), can get the education that enables them to remain rich, and the poor get locked into the crap education - crap job (or no job) cycle.

To gain smaller class sizes, it seems you have to just divvy up the face-to-face time between the reduced size classes, so what do we gain?  The teachers are still stretched to get around everyone's needs, and the system relies more on the students doing their leaning during homework and assignment time.

I believe it is the duty of the state to give its citizens a decent education, and class sizes are only part of that story.  As to Pyne's position, we already have some very good teachers, but they are not able to reach their potential because they are stretched time and resouce wise.