It may well be that students from the private sector achieve higher ENTER results but that is not the ultimate aim of education. One might also ask, do the private schools students out perform or indeed, do more of them successfully complete their courses at the tertiary level. Indeed, how do they perform in the vocational area. There are more people employed in jobs requiring university degrees.

David
(ex government school student)

Go on say it vouchers, in the end for Kevin its got nothing to do with providing good education outcomes for all Australian kids. It's about finding new souls to save. One look at his website shows it's all about christainity.

Good question, David. I have seen data that seems to indicate that what you are suggesting (some private school kids don't do as well at Uni as their ATAR would indicate) is indeed the case. However, it also indicates that many selective school students under-perform as well.

My theory regarding this would be to do with the amount of tutoring I know many children receive to get into both private and selective schools. In many cases this tutoring continues all the way through. The only way they make it through, is with intensive assistance. Come uni, the assistance stops, and so do they...

I realise that's simplistically put but it gives the general picture.

I don't see any objective analysis in the part 2, of a very subjective article, which seems to be arguing for religion and or the right to keep imprinting students, with a entirely unprovable religious belief?
I went to several catholic schools as a kid, and found myself subjected to routine religious indoctrination, even as science was being taught, allegedly?
Fortunately, I was something of a rebel, a bookworm, inherently independent and critical thinker, and dropped out at the earliest opportunity, to avoid being indoctrinated, by bible banging fanatics? Even so, I seriously considered, "religious orders", until I turned 18 and discovered the impossible to resist pulling power of sexual attraction or hormones!
While I'm sure the fanatical fringe are not as prevalent or as exposed these days, they may well be just as active, and just as determined to "mould" young minds, before they are able to think critically or objectively.
I think there is a place for religion and religious teaching inside society, just not inside our schools and imposed on a "information absorbing" hostage audience?
Yes sure, lets expose our kids to religion, all off them, but only after they have learned to think critically and objectively!
With every word this Author pens, he reinforces in me, an inherent belief in universal state based education, and equality of opportunity and funding, as the best education model!
If that was indeed his intention, then job well done!
Rhrosty

It might not be the schools themselves but the people send their kids to them. People choose private over public because they think it's better for their child: the may be right or wrong but they have thought about the various options which shows they have an interest in their child's education. These sort of parents will try to foster education in the home environment and take a greater role in the school community. These things are obviously going to help reinforce what the school itself is doing.

Deadbeat parents who don't care about their child's education as anything more than a convenient child-minding service while they spend the day at the pub do not way up the relative merits of private vs. public schooling: they send their child to the nearest public school because it's free. They don't foster education in the home environment and they don't engage with the school community. It's not a case of the private schools excluding the hard cases: the hard cases often exclude themselves. And end up in the public system where they drag down the average.

For the kids who are engaged and whose parents are not deadbeats and have chosen public schooling because they think it is better for their child I think public schools probably offer the same quality of education that could be achieved at most private schools. Higher than the quality of education offered at some of those nutty religious schools where they prteach - the 't' is silent - that evolution is a lie.

Cheers,

Tony
(ex government school student)

I have to agree with Tony Lavis - up to a point

Many parents who send their kids to government schools are as passionate about education as private school parents; but many are not.

On the other hand almost all parents who send their kids to private schools have a strong interest in their children's education.

So when you compare private school outcomes with those of government schools you are not comparing like with like.

If you tell children that you can guarantee that Jesus loves them and answers their prayers, you are lying because you can no more guarantee that there is a god than atheists can guarantee that there isn't. When you lie to children, you are certainly not educating them.

If you tell them that many people believe in gods of many different kinds, accompany this with balanced accounts of the essential characteristics of at least the major world faiths and the good and bad things that have been and are being done in their names, and reassure them that they don't need to commit themselves to any religious belief at all unless and until they want to, you are educating them.

No school should be allowed to exist, whether supported by public money or privately funded, that lies to children by telling them that there is a god without doubt. All schools, public and private, should be required to teach children about all the major belief systems they are likely to encounter, and all schools should be required to expend as much effort in acquainting students with the impediments to the god hypothesis as with justifications for faith.

If this happy situation arose, maybe the supporters of doctrinaire schools, like the author of this article, would be less pushy.

Tony Lavis writes

' Higher than the quality of education offered at some of those nutty religious schools where they prteach - the 't' is silent - that evolution is a lie.'

Not nearly as nutty as the secularist who push the evolution myth with its godless secular values. Even people indifferent to God don't want their kids eating the fruit of secular dogma annointed by pseudo science. The fruit is immorality from 12 or 13 years old (younger in some cases) , drug taking, suicide, rebellion etc.

Thank God that parents in Australia have the choice to save their kids from this failed social engineering. The only mantra left to them is the need of more money instead of addressing the idiotic secular dogmas that lead to moral and social chaos.

>>The fruit is immorality from 12 or 13 years old (younger in some cases) , drug taking, suicide, rebellion etc.<<

A good science education turns people into suicidal drug abusers? And I thought I had enough to worry about with the profound visual impairment that I have been assured by such reliable sources of medical advice as you will be the inevitable result of all the I time spent conducting myself in the solo symphony as a teenager.

Cheers,

Tony

Kevin Donnelly continues to be quite sloppy or selective with his sources - and in some cases parades evidence that doesn't stack up.

Just one example from his piece illustrates the problem. The research done by Paul Miller and Derby Voon was based on ICSEA and other data from My School version 1.

It has subsequently been proven that the ICSEA values for schools were simply not accurate. We know this because of the extent to which they have been adjusted since. Most commonly ICSEA values for non-gov schools have gone up, those for gov schools have gone down. Comparisons between schools based on the earlier data are laughable.

If Kevin Donnelly doesn't know this then it says something about his lack of rigour. If he does know this - and still cites this research (?) - then it says something else entirely.

Which is it, Kevin

'A good science education turns people into suicidal drug abusers? '

Could be true. Have you seen that Chemistry teacher in Breaking Bad?

I still love you runner. I don't agree with your religious beliefs or your judgmental ways, but by god I find you amusing.

Comforting too. I get all edgy when I see an abortion topic you haven't posted on yet.

You're a national treasure, and you never disappoint me.

BTW: I don't think it is immoral to rebel. didn't Jesus rebel? I know Luke Skywalker was a terrorist that's for sure.

Tony,

'Deadbeat parents who don't care about their child's education as anything more than a convenient child-minding service while they spend the day at the pub do not way up the relative merits of private vs. public schooling: they send their child to the nearest public school because it's free.'

That's pretty much me! Except for the pub bit, but I would if I could that's for sure!

I still maintain I learn't nothing of much real value at school except how to read and add up, and how to survive the law of the jungle.

>>Could be true. Have you seen that Chemistry teacher in Breaking Bad?<<

Yes but I've met a lot more chemistry teachers who didn't give up the good life of a steady income and 12 weeks holiday a year for violent, risky and poorly ventilated underworld of illegal amphetamine manufacture. All of them now that I think about. Apart from that one in the made up story on the TV.

>>I know Luke Skywalker was a terrorist that's for sure.<<

Luke Skywalker was not a terrorist! The Empire were totally fascist: just look at their uniforms - the ones for the Imperial Navy not the stormtroopers. Straight out of the Hugo Boss catalogue. It was made obvious from the opening moments of Star Wars Episode IV: Before George Lucas Went Crazy. In the crawl at the start it refers to 'the evil Galactic Empire': not the friendly Galactic Empire or the Peace and Freedom Loving Galactic Empire. Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance were noble freedom fighters battling to save a galaxy struggling beneath the iron jackboot of a totalitarian regime.

>>I still maintain I learn't nothing of much real value at school except how to read and add up, and how to survive the law of the jungle.<<

I went to school on the east coast of Australia where there was not much jungle to be found so I had to rely on the Cub Scouts interpretation of the Jungle Book. As far as I can tell the basic idea is that talking wolves are okay but you should beware of talking tigers. The last bit seems like common sense: I'm not so sure about this business of trusting talking wolves.

Cheers,

Tony

I got a fantastic education at a government school, in a moderate sized country town.

At any lunch time or after school there would be teachers running training for the school senior & junior football teams, cricket, tennis, athletics, or the girls hockey teams. Throw in the school cadet core, & after school time was pretty busy.

There was no boys hockey, not enough kids for football & hockey teams.

It was the same times that the math 1 & 2, physics, English & history honours courses were being taught, there was no time or teachers available in regular class time for that. Then add the fact that the physics master was the cricket coach, [& the deputy head], & the English/history master was the cadet officer, & scheduling all this would not have been easy.

It is just as well you could only do 3 honours, as with only 40 kids, about half girls, in the entire senior school it was the same kids doing all of this.

I find it strange now, that I had mates from out of town villages staying with us most nights to fit all this in. These villages were only from 10 to 20 miles out of town, but parents never thought about driving in to pick kids up after this stuff.

That 8 of us achieved 15 first class honours 5 second class says a bit for us, & heaps for our teachers.

The main thing wrong with Government schools today is the standard of the teachers, & the lack of effort most of them display. It would have saved me a fortune in coaching costs if a few more of my kids teachers had put in a bit more effort, or in many cases, actually known the subject they taught.

Add the fact that as the people running the P&C school text book scheme, we had enough pull to have our kids avoid the worst of them, & you can see a pretty bad system today. What chance do the kids of parents who don't know any of this really have?