One of the reasons that there is such a huge difference in the performance between independent and public schools, even those with similar resources, is because the centrally controlled schools, obeying union-negotiated rules are more interested in the best results for their loyal members than the teaching of the children.

If the teachers' union has to abandon its ability to force schools to accept teachers and pay based on seniority rather than performance, its monopoly will collapse.

Instead of trying to tear down the independent schools to the public school level, the focus should be on raising the public schools to the independent school level.

Shadow Minister,

If you cared to consult the evidence, you would realise that the difference in performance between private schools and public schools has nothing to do with union-negotiated rules but is explained by the students in them:
“After accounting for the socio-economic and demographic profiles of students and schools, students in OECD countries who attend private schools show performance that is similar to that of students enrolled in public schools.” (OECD PISA Report)

The union-negotiated agreements provide classifications, pay rates, class size limits and teaching load limits and ought to be the same across all schools of the same type. The teachers union has no ability to force schools to accept staff.

A few mere facts:
Victorian schools had curriculum autonomy 35 years ago;
Victorian schools have had elected school councils for 35 years, and their powers were strengthened by the Labor government of the 1980s, with no union opposition;
The Labor government brought in local selection of principals in the 1980s, and of all senior staff in 1992, in both cases with the support of the unions;
The Coalition government brought in local selection of all staff in the 1990s, and this was continued by the following Labor government;
The Labor government removed the staffing formula, replacing it with voucher funding, increasing principals’ budgetary control in about 2005.

The Labor government also realised that leaving schools totally to their own devices was a recipe for inefficiency and educational decline and so commenced to gradually put the “system back” into the education system.

Chris,

I am familiar with the PISA publication, and whilst I agree that the statement you quoted is correct when averaged over the 57 countries, it is not true if you look at countries with similar education systems to Australia. An article I read last year suggested that this was probably due to significant number of schools being independent for religious reasons, where the outcomes were significantly lower.

The studies in Australia show a strong difference between public and private, even from the same socio economic grouping.

The union negotiated agreement, while not forcing the acceptance of a staff member is certainly far far from allowing free choice. A principle cannot freely advertise, nor teachers freely apply.

That pay rates are based on seniority and qualifications not performance is an anachronism.

As a summary of the arguments around the proposed changes to the school system, I found the article a little too hell-bent on fence-sitting to be of much use.

It opens with the question, "The headline said it all: 'Gillard plan to liberate schools'. Or did it?"

Perhaps the need for academic politeness proved too much of a burden for the writer to give us her own opinion on whether it did, or did not. But I could find no persuasive argument presented, either way.

Maybe it's a State issue, but here in NSW the public school system up to Year Six would appear, at first glance, to be appallingly ossified in its organizational mediocrity. The result is that - even within the same school - it will be entirely a matter of luck whether your child is taught well or badly.

According to the Head of the last school my son attended, this was because she had absolutely no control over, or say in, the selection process that caused teachers to work at her school. Furthermore, the options by which she might encourage better performance from the less capable members of her staff were profoundly restricted.

I saw the Government's initiative to be a positive step to remove some of these shackles from Heads, and allow some local quality control to be exercised. Additionally, it would allow the introduction of some normal management disciplines, that would help raise the overall level of the school's performance.

Am I wrong to view this is as a Good Thing?

1) Judith Sloan is a supporter of endless 'free trade', particularly the sort that supports failed 'private enterprise', like all good capitalists do.

2) Gillard's 'plans' are not worth bothering with. She has no idea how schools are run, or what students do today to survive in them.

3) Sloan's line here betrays her thinly disguised partisan views, "Because, it would seem, that the current model of centrally controlled schools, obeying union-negotiated rules, does not serve the public very well."

If the 'rules' are negotiated, then there has to be another party to the process, who has agreed to the situation.

The education unions are right wing thinkers not left wing at all.

They reflect their members middle class unadventurous approach to education. School teachers are not revolutionaries but rather status quo supporters who fear the students and feel the need to control them through coercive measures rather than working with them to lift vision.

Those principals that Pericles raises, are managers, and have a full suite of tools to manage their schools. They choose not to, and blame staff for their failures.

I don't doubt for one minute that remedial professional support would be lacking within the systems, but that is another matter, and one that princiapl's need to address along with the AEU and their affiliates.

It is not only hit and miss as to whether your child gets a good teacher, it is also hit and miss in relation to the school principal, and deputies, and also their superiors in regional and district offices.

Blaming classroom teachers all the time is a diversion. Assuming that all school principals are well equipped to run our schools is unsafe. Faith in the private system, particularly those of a 'faith' basis, is poor public policy that does not place 'the national interest' at the forefront of considerations.

Not sure I fully follow your reasoning, The Blue Cross.

>>Those principals that Pericles raises, are managers, and have a full suite of tools to manage their schools. They choose not to, and blame staff for their failures.<<

Does that mean that the principal lied to me, when she told me she had no control over the teacher selection process?

Because that particular capability would be regarded by real managers everywhere as the most vital component of all, in "a full suite of tools".

I cannot imagine anyone being able to run an effective business, without the ability to establish and maintain a healthy, challenging set of hiring parameters.

Maybe it is just NSW where they do not have this ability?

I'm only a customer here, don't forget. I can only see what is on display, not what is going on under the covers. So do tell - is she a fibber? I still see her from time to time - one of her sons is at my son's school - so I am keen to read your response.

>>I don't doubt for one minute that remedial professional support would be lacking within the systems, but that is another matter, and one that princiapl's [sic] need to address along with the AEU and their affiliates.<<

("princiapl's", The Blue Cross? The typo is understandable. But the apostrophe? Tut tut. See me after class)

What is "remedial professional support", in your terminology?

The complaint I heard was that she was unable to even consider disciplinary action - even in its most simple, immediate form - without incurring massive personal and professional costs. These apparently took the form of interminable, grinding and unproductive rounds of "dispute resolution", combined with a total lack of support from the education authorities in the face of blind union protectionism.

I think she herself may not actually have used the term Stalinist, but I'm pretty sure that sheeplike conformity to the concept of mass mediocrity underpinned her concern about the lack of "remedial professional support".