The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Greens pursue politics of envy in schooling > Comments

Greens pursue politics of envy in schooling : Comments

By Kevin Donnelly, published 3/1/2013

In addition to denying non-government schools adequate funding, the Greens' policy is also directed at restricting enrolment growth.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Before the usual mantras turn up, I wish to point out that reporting on the Gonski report has been abysmal. Very few people know how the current funding model actually works and very few people know what the Gonski report actually proposes. There is comprehensive coverage at http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/576719.aspx?PageIndex=1 (including evidence that class sizes do matter) and, more recently and specifically, in my posts at http://theconversation.edu.au/test-shock-is-our-education-system-failing-students-11308.

As for the line about class envy, I will repeat what I have said before: “However, in the end, we will be laughing at the Coalition when the Gonski report is implemented and private schools, overall, get the best deal they have ever had.”
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 3 January 2013 9:18:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again Kevin demonstrates why he should not have any part in Australian education. Kevin complete rejection of reality in favour of his fantasy world is laid bare.
The greens are not playing the politics of envy. The greens are full of idealist. The greens and the labour and I think many in the liberal parties view on education are simple.
All children deserve to have the ability to be whatever they are capable of being not matter what the background or circumstance of their parents.
The differences between the parties are about how best to achieve this outcome. To suggest otherwise would need good evidence, and as we all know. Evidence is not something Kevin wants to look at let alone use, it gets in the way of his beliefs. Another F Kevin I’m afraid if you keep this up you’ll have to see the headmaster.
Posted by cornonacob, Thursday, 3 January 2013 9:32:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW this latest article by Kevin has got me thinking has anyone ever seen runner and Kevin in the same room?
Posted by cornonacob, Thursday, 3 January 2013 9:38:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not again! Please, when anyone mentions means testing school funding outcomes? Someone like the author brings out the BS politics of envy?
Given that is the only defence they can muster for the continuance of middle class welfare?
Agree with Chris C, inasmuch as the Gonski report, does not, repeat does not discriminate against Catholic schools, or any student, regardless of class or background, but rather, proposes a minimum funding model, based on just numbers?
You'd think someone with an education background, would at least understand the simple maths?
The greens have every right to propose a demonstrably fair means test?
What's wrong with that?
I mean, the coalition want spending cuts and a surplus?
Simply put, they can't have their cake and eat it too; or, middle class welfare and a surplus as well!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 3 January 2013 9:51:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I and my friends decide not to use the public road system and pay for the construction of our own private roads over land that we own, that's fine. But if I then go cap-in-hand to the State and Federal governments and demand recompense for the cost of the roads that we chose to build and use, that's diabolical cheek. And if the governments knuckle under and actually pay those costs, that's theft from the taxpayer.

A properly-funded State school system is an essential component of a functioning secular open society. Anyone who doesn't want to use it should be at liberty to do so; but they shouldn't be paid or subsidised to do so, any more than people should be subsidised for building their own roads or hiring their own police forces.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 3 January 2013 12:38:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JonJ

To use your analogy, it is increasingly common for government to partner with private enterprise to build roads. The same has been done for countless years. The private partner brings $$, expertise, ideas and efficiency not possessed within government. The new tunnels in Brisbane are examples. Without the private partners doing the hard yards the tunnels just wouldn't happen.

Private schools have done a lot of heavy lifting for governments bereft of funds, efficiency and ideas. Private schools have also led in best practice. Not surprisingly, many of those who would criticise private schools have no way of creating and funding a public schools system to cater for all students.

Greens' politics of envy is no reason to disrupt a system that works well.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 3 January 2013 12:52:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To continue your thought bubble onthebeach. Yes haven't public/private road building been a hit.

It’s only happened in capital cities where changes have been made to try a force people to use them. Fees have gone up to levels that make child care look cheap. And for what so that state government don't have appear to go into debt to build basic infrastructure. 50 years ago governments could build roads, hospital and houses now all they can do is line the pockets of their corrupt mates.
Tom Playford built tens of thousands of house for South Australians, Now we pay them money to help them with a deposit on an overpriced house they can’t afford.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 3 January 2013 1:35:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

You would be astounded by the amount of public infrastructure built through private/public partnership or built solely by private contractors. Have a look around you.

I don't know where you get the idea that government was ever any good at managing construction projects or doing the work itself. As a test, have a chat with your elders about the work that didn't even get onto the drawing board despite years of planning and allowance in budgets, let alone get done efficiently.

Public works departments were also embarrassingly rife with fraud and lost equipment and materials. It remains a standing joke how many employees and their relatives had houses built with materials 'left over' from government projects. The truck would show up and voila some tons of first quality hardwood would be dumped along with cement, fastenings and whatever. The council tradies would then show up on paid leave and weekends to be paid for their second job, using the tools from work and most likely the materials too. Nice if you could get it.

Days when the wrought iron for balustrades, gates and door hardware, and sundry other things from garden tools to children's toys would come from the railway workshops.

Returning to education, like thousands of others I would never have received an education had not enterprising parents and persons of good standing built private boarding schools. As a side comment, few of us would ever have learned music either.

The Greens' envy campaign is negative and lunar and most people would easily see through it.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 3 January 2013 5:42:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes onthebeach, I can relate to much of that. I remember the Navy auto maintenance depot, at Botany as I remember, that had 2 panel beating business, an engine overhaul business, & a workshop, all running on the side, & virtually full time.

However, I'm possibly a bit older than you. In the 50s, in a medium NSW country town, I got an excellent education in a government high school.

Every lunch hour, & every afternoon, after school for an hour or more, I would be either, at training for the school football or cricket team, run by a teacher giving his/her time, or at our math & science honors classes, also run by teachers giving their time.

Looking back I think it was a point of honor for our teachers to achieve better results in the leaving certificate, than the local catholic school, with similar numbers of pupils. That took some doing, as their teachers also put in much effort.

What ever the reason for all their efforts with us, we ran rings the private schools located in the country areas at that time. It was much harder to beat Scots College & All Saints, both from Bathurst on the football field, than in the class room.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 3 January 2013 9:21:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree with the Greens policy of denying private schools funding.
All children in Australia should be afforded equal funding from the Government, regardless of where they go to school.

I went to private schools in the 60's and seventies, and my daughter went to a private school just a few years ago. We were not well off and had to save hard to be sent to those schools.

We all did well at school and received far better discipline and respect for our elders than most at the local government schools did.

Maybe private schools are the answer for more of our children?
Why should our children miss out on education funds from the Government?
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 4 January 2013 1:13:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen

You are right. There usually was a State school in country towns of any size. The quality of education received at primary level and from the technical colleges in major centres was often good.

However the geography of our country, its vastness especially, meant that daily commuting to a State school was impossible. However even in major centres there were gaps in available curriculums or delivery that did not suit everyone or meet all needs. I am not referring to religion. Others can argue that. Although provided the educational attainment is there, and school inspectors can see to that, I have no objections.

The variability of principals in particular affects the whole tone and quality of education delivered. That is irrespective of State or private. Overlay that with the burden of politics of the day and the management overheads in State education. Any perceived difference is usually down to those.

Ask teachers with a solid record of good results what they value the most and it is freedom to deliver within a curriculum that focuses on specific goals. Such has been the growing burden of reporting administrivia (to protect jobs in central office) and politically correct 'enhancements' to the curriculum that good teachers in State education would leave in droves if given the opportunity. In the State system principals are either affirmative action appointees with a network in State office, or they are very wily politicians, maybe both. Perhaps that comment could apply generally to many managers in public bureaucracies.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 4 January 2013 4:30:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes onthebeach we had gaps in the curriculum. With only 16 kids in 5Th year, a full curriculum could not be delivered. However the school & the teachers found a way.

Most of the descriptive geometry course 4 of us did was in the woodwork building, with a junior class taught by the same teacher. The French & geography classes were combined, & taught by the same teacher.

There was no separate physics & chemistry classes, those wanting the physics did the science course with everyone, then a science honors class at lunchtime & after school. This honors course was considered equivalent to the separate physics & chemistry when one was applying for uni scholarships.

We also had the advantage that the leaving certificate, [matriculation] was by external exam. What you did gave your result, not some contrived system of in class assessment, & a comparison of total school results on a "core skills" test.

Because of so many committed teachers in the bush, country kids were over represented in the top of the leaving certificate results every year. Having had to put a lot of effort & money into helping my kids get what they wanted from this bastardised feminist system we have today, run for teachers, not kids, I know what was best, & it sure ain't this garbage today.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 5 January 2013 10:41:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

The success of a school is entirely dependant on the dedication and competence of the teachers, and largely on the principal to encourage this.

The singular difference with private schools is that the promotion and hiring of teachers and principals is on merit whereas public school hiring and promotion is based on seniority, bureaucrats, and the teachers' union. The result is that private schools even with similar levels of funding have on average well outperformed the public schools.

That the private schools on average receive less funding than public schools ensures that more state funding can be spend on the public schools.

The greens (who are more red than green) see this as an affront to their egalitarian ideals, and want to bring the private schools down to public school levels.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 7 January 2013 5:42:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My wife and I have occupied honorary positions with both public and private schools, usually as President/Chair of the P&C or school council, but sometimes as Secretary/Treasurer. By invitation my wife and I continued our voluntary work with schools after our children moved on to tertiary education. Through and cooperative endeavors we also had opportunity to see what was happening in other schools.

We have no doubt that one of the greatest advantages of private schools is the parents. Others can speculate on the reasons why, but it is obvious that far more private school parents support the principal and teaching staff and are willing to be present at the school and work to help out. They have pride in the school and and a personal stake in its success, recognising that order and rules are there for the good of the students.

An overwhelming majority of private school parents see the teacher as the facilitator and guide in learning and as having a shared responsibility with the student and parents for any outcomes. Another obvious difference is that private schools see importance in 'people making', ie producing well rounded citizens who can contribute positively to the community and lead.

Last year my wife and I attended the AGM of a State secondary school which has established a record for innovation and results. A pollie with an education department official were there to bask in the credit. However a full half hour of the meeting was wasted by a disruptive rant by a parent and her partner supporting the 'choice and rights' of their daughter who had been pulled up during the term for short skirts and other behavioural problems. They demanded an inquiry and an apology. As we left I remarked to my wife that it wouldn't have happened at a private school and if it did, the other parents present would have pulled it up fast.

There is a difference in tone between private and State schools. Give more power and autonomy to State school principals and get the politics out of education.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 7 January 2013 7:13:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

Your statement that “public school hiring and promotion is based on seniority, bureaucrats, and the teachers' union” is untrue.

Victorian principals have been appointed by locally elected school councils since at least 1987 (A Labor initiative). Prior to that they were centrally appointed but had to receive a recommendation form a local panel first. All senior staff have been locally appointed since 1992. Prior to that they were centrally appointed but had to receive a recommendation form a local panel first. All staff have been locally appointed since the mid 1990s (a Coalition initiative). The teacher unions have never had any say in it.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 7 January 2013 3:20:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris C,

I can only comment on NSW, and here the central system gives a principal only a very limited choice in choosing teachers, and promotion is based on seniority and not on merit. Again principals are not open for selection from a wide pool, only a small selection presented by the central bureaucracy that works hand in glove with the teachers union.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 7 January 2013 5:42:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

I understand that NSW is now moving down the same path as Victoria took in regards to staffing and budgets. In fact, Victoria commenced the process of devolution much earlier than local appointment, granting schools curriculum autonomy after 1968 and establishing elected school councils in 1975. There is no evidence that Victoria’s local staffing has led to better teaching, but that is another issue.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 8:08:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

I highly doubt that even in Victoria, selection of teachers and principals is completely open. I doubt that the councils can advertise and take teachers from other schools or from the private sector. I suspect that the selection is from a handful that have done the requisite service at various institutions in the public sector only.

The independent model works, the further the public sector can go to emulate it the better the public sector will be.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:24:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,

You “doubt” and “suspect”. I “know”. Of course, schools can take teachers from other schools and the private sector. I’ll give one example. In 1992, I was the only teacher in my then school, Whittlesea College, to win an Advanced Skills Teacher level three position. All the other appointees came from other schools. This is on the public record as successful appointees are listed in public documents.

Most teachers come from within the system, but that is because most of the applicants are from within the system. I have sat on many selection panels over the years and we have always judged each candidate on merit, no matter where they are from.

I have worked with teachers who have come from private schools to public schools and I know teachers who have moved from public schools to private schools. People believe things that are untrue because these untrue things are repeated in the press again and again and again; e.g., The Australian has reported an almost/close to/more than 40/40-50/44/50 per cent increase in total/per capita/per student spending on education in real terms/not in real terms over the past decade/over an earlier decade/over nine years, while every letter of correction has been refused publication. The Australian acts as if NSW is Australia and thus, until recently, seemed completely oblivious to how education actually worked in Victoria.

The evidence on private schools is not as you suggest. Most of their achievement is due to the students they enrol in the first place. I don’t have space to go through it all here, but you can do some research via the OECD.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 8:59:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ben Jensen claimed that “between 2000 and 2009, expenditure increased more than 40 per cent” (“Funding consensus of school sectors the real test”, 6/3/2012, The Australian).

Frank Furedi referred to the Grattan Institute report to claim that there was “a large increase in spending” (“Raise status of teachers, add some authority and watch our students blossom”, 3-4/3/2012, The Australian).

Paul Kelly claimed that “over the 2000-2009 decade we boosted real spending on education by a hefty 44 per cent” (“Wake-up calls on Asia century”, 16-17/6/2012, The Australian).

Scott Prasser claimed that “in the past 10 years public spending on school education increased by 44 per cent in real terms” (“AEU blitz a class in bully tactics”, 4/7/2012, The Australian).

Christopher Pyne claimed that “over the past decade”, education spending increased “in real terms by 44 per cent” (“Better teachers, not more, the ‘education revolution’ we need”, 21-22/7/2012, The Australian).

Christopher Pyne claimed that “in the past 10 years, we have spent 44 per cent more on schools” (Labor’s ‘top five’ goal for schools”, 3/9/2012, The Australian),

Judith Sloan claimed that there had been “a more than 40 per cent” “increase in real-per-student spending” “over the past decade” (“ALP’s school zeal will have to wait until 2525”, 4/9/2012, The Australian).

Barry O’Farrell claimed that “education funding had increased by 40-50 per cent over the past decade” (“Do the maths: states cut as Gonski gives”, 13/9/2012, The Australian).

Judith Sloan claimed that there has been a “close to 40 per cent increase in per capita spending on schools” in the past decade (“Gold-medal clunkers on the road to nowhere”, 22-23/12/2012, The Australian).

It’s not only The Australian - Martin Dixon claimed that there had been “a 40 per cent increase in national education investment in the past decade” (“Student testing to step up a notch”, The Age, 12/12/2012) - but The Australian is a far more frequent offender.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 9:04:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In fact, the National Reports on Schooling in Australia show that government spending per student in Australia was $8,115 in 1999-2000 ($11,731 in 2012 dollars) and $13,544 in 2008-09 ($14,637 in 2012 dollars). That is a real increase of only 24.7 per cent, about half the oft-exaggerated 44/40/40-50 per cent.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports a real increase in per capita GDP over the ten years from 1998-99 to 2008-09 of 24.4 per cent. The relevance of this is that the salaries of teachers have to keep up to some extent with the general living standards of the population as a whole. Does anyone really think we would attract able people to teaching and retain them if that 24.7 per cent increase in education spending had not occurred and, as a consequence, the top Victorian teacher salary was now only $67,406 and the beginning salary was now only $45,696?
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 9:05:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have already mentioned a difference in tone between private and many State schools. Most of the students attending private schools started in State schools and would have remained in that system had not they and their parents encountered systemic problems in State schooling.

To be blunt they were failing to thrive. It was affecting them negatively. In that environment they could not expect to enjoy their schooling, be a motivated, self-actualising learner or realise their potential to be a happy, confident, competent individual.

In the State system many teachers have felt the same and many still do. It isn't about better pay, although more money around the house is always useful. Likewise it isn't about facilities.

Just as government can't manage housing and constantly pushes the responsibility and accountability onto the private sector, it also finds it impossible to manage education. There are many reasons for that. There are also many reasons why reviews and reports produced by government agencies and with government grants will bounce within the narrow rails of political ideology and political correctness.

Having had a lot to do with parents and students in both State and private education, what I can vouch for is that:

- there is an ever gathering tide of students from State to private schools and they say they would have done it earlier if it was financially possible. Many move at year 5 whereas in earlier years it was at the conclusion of primary schooling; and

- these are not stupid people. They do not make the choice lightly. They have tried the State system and found the experience so wanting and negative in their respect that there was no other alternative but leave. If one asks, all have considered other State schools but found the presenting deficiencies to be systemic and serious.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 10:46:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

Even your figures show that funding over 9 years increased by 67% using the figures for real value of money from the RBA this would give a 28% increase AFTER inflation or a 6% annual increase. The 44% could easily have included funding not covered by your sources.

This is no small increase yet the results have declined predominately in public schools.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 9 January 2013 5:38:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow,

I used the RBA calculator to convert the 1999-2000 and 2008-09 figures. As they are financial years, I took the CPI from December 1999 to December 2008. 14 637-11 731 = 2906. 2906/11731X100=24.7 per cent. I don’t know how you get 28 per cent.

If that increase had not occurred, education spending would have fallen dramatically as a percentage of the economy, producing either a relative decline in teacher pay or a decline in teacher numbers (Teachers account for some 84 per cent of the core recurrent expenditure in Victorian schools). No one would stay in teaching if the top salary had been $67,406. Teacher salaries have to keep pace with general living standards in order for teaching to remain an attractive job for able people.

The Grattan Institute report reference for its 44 per cent does not show a 44 per cent increase, so it is speculation as to where the figure came from. My sources are the official national statistics. I’d hope they included all spending.

The increase is close to zero when assessed on a realistic basis; i.e., in relation to the overall living standards of the country. The decline in student scores is more complex; e.g., PISA and TIMSS give very different results. There is also work by Andrew Leigh that tracks the decline in teacher training entry scores with the decline in teacher pay. Imagine how much worse those entry scores would be if the 24.7 per cent per student real increase (which is little more than economic growth) had not occurred and teacher pay had fallen even more dramatically in relation to overall pay than it has.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 10 January 2013 8:00:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris, this is the one I used.

www.rba.gov.au/calculator/

$8115 in 2000 = $10,601.44 in 2009

$13544/10601 = 1.2776 or an increase of 28% over and above inflation. Or in Layman's terms OVER and above the increase in cost of living.

If this is mostly going to teacher's salaries and there is no improvement in teaching, then why will Gonski's suggestion of more of the same change anything?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 10 January 2013 8:59:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow,

I used the same one. I see what you have done. You have used the annual calculator and put in the 1999-2000 figure as if it was for the year 2000 and then calculated the result for 2009. But the comparison is for financial years. You need to use the quarterly calculator and put the 1999-2000 figure in for December 1999 (the mid-point of the 1999-2000 financial year) and get a result for December 2008 (the mid-point of the 2008-09 financial year). This gives my result.

Insofar as this increase has gone into teacher salaries it has done more than preserve teacher salaries in relation to other salaries in the community and thus prevented an even greater drain from teaching by the most able people in it. We are much better off than we were in 1999-2000. If teacher salaries fall behind other salaries, teaching becomes less attractive and those who can leave for a better paying job elsewhere do so. In other words, we have to increase spending in real terms just to stand still.

I could speak at great length on why there has been no improvement in learning. We have had fads like the open classroom resurrected. We had savage staffing cuts in Victoria in the 1990s, only some of which were reversed in the 2000s. We have had a massive misdirection of school resources into competition, marketing and bureaucratic accountability requirements. We have had a huge increase in short-term contracts. As teacher salaries have fallen dramatically over 35 years, we have had a long-term decline in the entry scores for teacher training. See http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/449991.aspx?PageIndex=31.

The current funding model is absurd. The Gonksi proposals, imperfect though they are, are to make it more rational. If you read the link I gave in my first post, you will see why.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 11 January 2013 5:13:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Did the calculation as you asked and got 24.9% increase in spending over and above the cost of living in 9 years or about 3% p.a. increase over and above the cost of living.

If shifting the terms of reference 6 months gives 3% difference, the 15% difference can easily be found with a different time reference, and other factors.

The net result is the real expenditure per child has increased, with no change to the results. Doing the same again is lunacy.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 12 January 2013 7:24:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow,

The Grattan Institute’s 44 per cent is complete nonsense. You need to look at the increase per student, and even that is not the whole story. Secondary schooling costs more per student than primary schooling. If in one year you had 3,000,000 students, 1,700,000 of them in primary schools and 1,300,000 of them in secondary schools and nine years later you still had 3,000,000 students, but with 1,600,000 of them in primary schools and 1,400,000 of them in secondary schools, the overall average cost per student would increase simply because the proportion in the more costly sector had increased. If over a nine-year period, the percentage of students learning English as a Second Language had increased because of changes to the migration program, the overall average would increase. If over a nine-year period, the percentage of students with a disability had increased, the overall average would increase. If over a nine-year period, the percentage of students in year 12 had increased in those jurisdictions which fund year 12 at a higher rate than year 7, the overall average would increase.

But the main point remains the one I have repeated more than once: if you do not increase spending per student in line with overall living standards, the best teachers leave because the pay differential between teaching and other jobs has grown.

The Gonksi report does not propose “doing the same again”. It proposes a different funding formula (which is a separate issue from the amounts to be paid under that funding formula). The current system is ridiculous for reason already outlined. Even the Coalition should support reform – if only if would put its long-term political advantage ahead of its short-term political advantage. It is so fixated on attacking the government that it can’t see that under recommendation 22 of the report it could no longer be attacked for spending the majority of federal funds on private schools.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 12 January 2013 9:27:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris the statements made all cover the increase in real expenditure, not on a per student basis. The 44% is completely valid. Your figures show that the real increase in spending per student increased over 9 years by 25% over and above the real cost of living. Your point is of semantic value only.

Given that the cornerstone of Gonski is a redistribution of funding, my point still stands.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 12 January 2013 10:34:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow,

Your claim that “the statements made all cover the increase in real expenditure, not on a per student basis” is wrong. In the quotes I give above, Judith Sloan claimed that there had been “a more than 40 per cent” “increase in real-per-student spending” “over the past decade” (“ALP’s school zeal will have to wait until 2525”, 4/9/2012, The Australian) and then that there had been a “close to 40 per cent increase in per capita spending on schools” in the past decade (“Gold-medal clunkers on the road to nowhere”, 22-23/12/2012, The Australian). She says “per student” and “per capita”, though whether the “per capita” means “per student or “per head of population” is not clear.

But to claim an increase in spending without mentioning the increased numbers it has to cover is misleading, if not dishonest. Otherwise, we might as well claim that no matter how many extra people use a service its total cost must not increase. That would be absurd.

You have to increase spending over the cost of living increases if overall living standards are rising. Imagine that you were paid in your job today what you would have been paid in real terms in 1900. You wouldn’t stay in that job. You would expect to keep up with the rest of the working population. That is what has happened in teaching. To cut the starting pay to $47,696 would drive even more able people out of it.

In any case, as I explain in the link I gave earlier, the 44 per cent is not valid, even on a total basis.

The cornerstone of Gonski is a different funding model. We ought to discuss it on those terms. Should we continue to fund schools on the basis of how well off the neighbours of the students are? Should we continue to have the feds overwhelmingly fund private schools and the states overwhelmingly fund public schools? Should we continue to base the funding of specific schools on an average cost irrespective of the needs of the individuals who attend them?
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 13 January 2013 12:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

I am more than familiar with both economics and statistics, and am fully aware that by choosing particular frames of reference you can distort the statistical result. By cherry picking statements you have created a straw man argument.

Your analysis contains the following flaws:

1 Nearly all your quotes commented on the real increase in education expenditure, not necessarily government expenditure or by student.

2 The time frame of Dec 1999 to Dec 2008 is 9 years not the decade mentioned by most. A shift in just 6 months gave a calculated difference of 3%.

3 Most mentioned only an increase in real expenditure not per student.

4 Student numbers for 2000 to 2009 grew by 7.2%, 90% of which was in the non government sector. The government sector only grew by 1.2%. The 23% increase in non government students would represent a significant increase in education funding.

5 Finally, GDP growth is not a reliable indicator of wage growth increased by 52% in actual terms over the period 2000 to 2009 whilst school funding increased by 67%. Thus the fund increase has outstripped both CPI and average wage increases. (even when wages do not cover all cost increases.)
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 14 January 2013 1:57:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow,

I have not been “cherry picking” statements. I have reproduced every statement that I came across in the press. Choosing particular frames of reference can change the results, which leads to the question of why the Grattan Institute picked nine years and not ten for its report. The statements I reproduced have changed the time period, changed the beginning year, changed the ending year, changed the amount and/or changed what the amount was referring to (a total, not a per student or per capita amount).

Yet it is meaningless to say that there has been an increase in expenditure without looking at how many people that expenditure covers. The time period I chose to find out the increase in expenditure per student was the one chosen by the Grattan Institute for its claim on total spending.

1. All the quotes follow the Grattan Institute report and seem to be based on it. I know that it referred to government expenditure because the footnote said it did and it quoted an increase in average private school fees of 25 per cent. This makes sense because the private school fees are per student and a 25 per cent increase is roughly similar to the 24.7 per cent increase in per student government expenditure.

2. The time frame comes from the Grattan Institute report and is for the financial years 1999/2000 to 2008/2009. Those quoting it are simply being sloppy and turning it into ten years. We know they are being sloppy because the figures for the most recent years were not available when they made their comments.

3. Most did mention an increase in real expenditure not per student, but the points are that their figures are wrong and what counts is the increase per student.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 17 January 2013 9:11:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
4. I am not sure what point you are making. The Grattan Institute gives a separate figure for private school fees.

5. You will have to explain this one to me please. Do you mean that average wages have increased in real terms by 52 per cent or that the total expenditure on wages in the economy has increased by 52 per cent?
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 17 January 2013 9:12:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

If you try and rubbish what people are saying, you need to find facts and figures on what they actually say, not on different time periods, and on what you think they should have said or might have meant.

If you can show me any of the above that said that real government expenditure per child increased by 44% from 1999 to 2008, then your analysis might have a point, otherwise no.

Secondly I had a look at wage growth (actual nor real) from 1999 to 2008 and found an average increase of about 52% compared to the governmnent growth in funding per child of 67%, so if thie was all consumed by teachers wages, then their standard of living grew faster than the rest of Australia.

In conclusion your analysis is flawed in almost every respect. The real funding per child has increased over the past decade, and educational results have gone backwards.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 17 January 2013 10:22:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow,

None of the articles from which I quoted gave any basis for the claim that education spending had increased by the various amounts over the various times claimed, other than the original Grattan Institute claim. In other words, nobody backed up what they said. The onus is on them to do so by giving the source for their claim. The timing of their claims in relation to the original Grattan Institute claim is consistent with their simply repeating or embellishing what they thought the Grattan Institute had said. It is factually impossible to say that we have increased education spending by any particular amount “in the past 10 years” as Christopher Pyne for example does because the figures for 2010, 2011 and 2012 are still not available. I checked the ACARA website tody and the most recent report, 2010, still does not give the figures for that year in it.

In any case, my response to them has been to say that the increase in total expenditure is not what matters but that what matters is the increase per student. To claim an increase of 40 or 50 per cent means nothing unless we know what the increase per student is. This is obvious. We could have doubled the total expenditure and spent exactly the same per student because the enrolment had doubled.

Judith Sloan claimed that real expenditure per student increased by “more than 40 per cent” and real expenditure per capita increased by “close to 40 per cent”. I have already given you the details of the articles in which she said it.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 20 January 2013 1:44:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The real increase per student from the official figures is 24.7 per cent for 1999-2000 to 2008-09. The Grattan Institute also claims an average increase in private school fees of 25 per cent over that period, so expenditure on both government and private school students has increased by roughly the same amount. (We will leave aside the fact that a mere increase in the proportion of students attending secondary school will increase the overall average as secondary schools spend more per student than primary schools because they have better staffing ratios).

It is misleading of various journalists, politicians and commentators to conceal the per student increase and it is dishonest of The Australian to refuse to publish what that that increase is are because the concealment of relevant facts distorts the debate.

The question of standards is complex. TIMSS and PISA report different results because they test different things and different year levels. Thus, TIMMs reports a very poor result for grade 4 reading, but PISA leaves Australia a little behind where is used to be but still one of the world’s high-performing systems. See http://theconversation.edu.au/latest-tests-show-pms-2025-education-goal-is-in-doubt-11292 for a discussion.

We can discuss why Australia’s performance has fallen in comparison with other countries. There are far too many factors to deal with in a blog post. But, for the reasons I have already given, things would be worse of we had not increased spending. You have to increase spending in real terms as the economy grows just to stand still. If you don’t do so, you drive the best people out of education into more rewarding areas. It’s not just a matter of being able to buy the same stuff you could 20 or 30 years ago. It’s being able to buy the same stuff that other people can now.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 20 January 2013 1:44:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did not say that all the increase in spending went into teacher’s salary levels. I pointed out that if a consequence of that increase not occurring was salaries of from $46,696 to $67,406, able people would leave teaching. It is possible that some of the increase went into other areas.

I don’t have national figures on teachers’ salaries. A beginning Victorian teacher was paid $35,665 in January 2000 (the mid-point of the 1999-2000 financial year) and $52,571 in January 2009. A teacher on the top of the range was paid $49,159 in January 2000 (the mid-point of the 199-200 financial year) and $77,546 in January 2009. That is a nominal increase of 47-48 per cent. Most of the primary staffing cuts and some of the secondary staffing cuts made in the 1990s were reversed in those years, so they explain another part of the increase in per student expenditure. It is beyond my resources to get figures for every state and territory. The argument is the same. If we did not reverse some of the decline in teachers’ working conditions that occurred in the 1990s, we would have seen able people leave teaching.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 20 January 2013 1:45:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

The problem is that your analysis is flawed. You love to quote Judith Sloane who at the end of 2012 said that funding had increase per capita by 40% over the past decade (2003 to 2012) Given your analysis is for 9 years ending 2008 and as discussed earlier 6 months baseline shift in the real value of money gave a 3% difference.

For an analysis to be even vaguely accurate, you need to use the same time period and terms of reference, none of which applies to your work.

If I have to choose between a professor of economics and you, especially given above, the choice is clear.

The point that I made earlier that the increase in funding per student has increased substantially over the past decade, even more than average salaries, yet the outcomes have fallen.

There is no historical evidence that Gonski is going to have any positive impact on schooling, and looks like labor's standard response to a problem of simply throwing more taxpayer's money at it.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 20 January 2013 7:15:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A lot of money has gone into more layered administration, especially into making teachers more accountable in ways that take time away from their core interest, teaching students.

Teachers have become alienated from the administrative hierarchy over the last decade, being told how to do their jobs by people who couldn't teach pigs to be dirty. Every stupid fad (declared as world'd best practice)is held up to teachers as the great new way forward. When it all falls in a heap the teachers are pilloried while the administrative hierarchy are awarded medals. History is rewritten and the (failed) administrators then join in an armchair ride on the next gravy-train of non-evidence based change.

That's how more money is spent with poorer outcomes. Gonski will have no effect without addressing this and the need for parents to have a stronger supportive role in children's education rather than being teacher-bashers and apologists for children's low effort and poor behaviour. Some money spent educating parents will produce better outcomes than spending it on schools, IMO.
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 20 January 2013 7:58:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow,

My apologies for not replying sooner. I have been busy and a couple of attempts were met with an error message. I also feel that we are just going around in circles, each of us saying what we have already said.

The Grattan Institute claimed that there had been a 44 per cent increase in real government education spending between 1999/2000 and 2008/09. This claim is both false and irrelevant. It is false because the reference given to the claim did not show such an increase. It is irrelevant because what matters is the spending per student.

Subsequent to the Grattan Institute claim a number of claims based on it were made. Some of these claims changed the percentage increase. Others changed the period. Others did both. Some of them even claimed an increased for a period for which figures are still not available. None of them quoted a source different from the Grattan Institute.

Judith Sloan decided that that there had been “a more than 40 per cent” “increase in real-per-student spending” “over the past decade”. The figures for the “past decade” don’t even exist, so the claim is obviously wrong. The real increase per student in the period given by the Grattan Institute was 24.7 per cent. Choosing Dr Sloan’s claim over my facts just because she is an economist is illogical. She gave no source for her claim. I gave a source for my facts. She chose a period of time for which figures do not even exist. I used a period of time for which figures do exist, the period chosen by the Grattan Institute.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 9:35:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You say, “For an analysis to be even vaguely accurate, you need to use the same time period and terms of reference, none of which applies to your work.” That is exactly the point. There is a time period, 1998/99 to 2008/09, for which figures are available and for which comparisons have been calculated, but sloppy commentators insist on making up their own time periods. My original point is that people believe what they are told - even when what they are told is wrong - because they are told it again and again and corrections are refused publication.

I’ll give another set of examples from outside of education.

The Age Green Guide falsely claimed that the 1967 referendum gave Aborigines citizenship (“The story of black Australia”, 9/10/2008) when they gained citizenship in 1949 along with all other Australians.

The Age falsely claimed that the 1967 referendum gave Aborigines voting rights (“Rose’s champion style went way beyond the boxing ring”, 10/5/2011) when they had voting rights in Victoria continuously from the nineteenth century while voting rights in federal elections, which they had in 1901 and then had taken from them, were restored in 1962.

The Age falsely claimed that the 1967 referendum gave the Commonwealth the power to “count [Aborigines] in the population statistics” (“Hopes high for unity on indigenous referendum”, 20/1/2012) when Aborigines were counted in every Commonwealth census, since the first one in 1911 recorded 19,939 of them.

The Age falsely claimed that the 1967 referendum “enabled the Commonwealth to …count [Aboriginal people] in census” (“Australia Day”, 30/1/2012).

The Age published the false claim that 1967 referendum overturned "the exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from the census" (Letters, 5/6/2012)
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 9:35:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Age claimed that the Australian Constitution includes “a section that effectively permits decisions by state parliaments to disqualify people on the basis of race from voting at elections” (“PM’s captain’s pick may end a sorry chapter in Labor history”, 26/1) when in fact it includes a section that punishes any state that does so by reducing that state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives in proportion to the number of people excluded from voting.

The Age Green Guide published a letter of correction from me. The Age refused to publish any correction to any of the five false claims it made, so it is no wonder that large numbers of Australians have no idea what the 1967 referendum actually did.

I will return later.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 9:36:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

Without going around in circles, The grattan report does claim that the real government spend on schooling has increased by 44% over the period 2000 t0 2009. However, I have tried to hunt down the figures that you quote to compare.

Up to now I have provisionally accepted your figures, given that they still show a substatial increase in school funding. However, I have the choice of accepting the figures from a fully referenced report, or from an unsupported blog.

My point that I made earlier still stands, which is that as real school funding has increased per student, results have dropped. The question of why funding should be increased if there are no other major reforms is still to be answered.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 29 January 2013 2:02:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow,

I know it is too much to expect you to keep coming back to see if I have got around to responding, but I am just unable to appear more often at the moment.

The Gonksi report fixes the following two problems.

The curent system is politically untenable because it leaves the federal government open to the propaganda attack that it provides more support to private schools than to public schools, something which the Howard government suffered from up to 2007. The Gonski model fixes the political problem by having the states and the feds contribute the same percentage as each other to each sector – public and private. Instead of the feds being something like 70 per cent private and 30 per cent public and the states being 90 per cent public and 10 per cent private, both tiers would be something like 70 per cent public and 30 per cent private. Even the Liberals, facing an election victory soon, ought to see a political advantage for themselves in removing this propaganda point.

The average government school recurrent costs formula is illogical because it includes the cost of base funding that any school must have, which it is inefficient to duplicate by having two schools in the same locality when one will do, and the extra costs of students with special needs (e.g., ESL, disability, low family income) even if they are not enrolled in the school being funded. The Gonski model fixes the AGSRC problem by separating the funding of the mainstream student from the extra funding for students with additional needs.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 5 February 2013 12:41:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Gonksi report does not fix everything, but the government does not have to implement every recommendation as is. It can change them.

The socio-economic status model is absurd because it pays schools on the basis of the wealth of the other people who live in the street where their students come from. It is like being charged a fee for a hospital stay based on how well off your neighbors are. It is so bad for private schools that half of them are not funded under it, but under the Hawke and Keating Labor governments’ Education Resources Index. Note that this means that the Labor Party, not the Coalition, is more generous to private schools. Of course, the public education lobby is so dumb that it calls this compensation “overfunding”, scaring private school parents and driving them into the arms of the Coalition, even though the Coalition model is worse for private schools than Labor’s old ERI model, making a Coalition government more likely and thus making public education more likely to be worse off.

This is the one problem that the Gonksi model fails to solve. There is a very slim hope that the private education authorities will realise that they were conned by the Hoard government into accepting the SES model (i.e., by opening the way for the public education lobby to label the compensation “overfunding”) and that they won’t be conned again but that they will insist on a return to a better version of the ERI model of the 1990s. The public education lobby ought to support this because if the SES model survives under the new label of “parent’s capacity to pay”, the education system will become more socially stratified and the pressure will increase for public schools to charge means-tested fees.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 5 February 2013 12:42:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow,

My figures are not unsupported. I gave a link to a full account with references and links in my first post on this thread. I provide tables, calculations, reasoning and links to sources there. I can’t repeat it all here because I can’t format it for this site and there is a word limit here.

I agree that real funding per student has increased. I agree that some standards have dropped by some measures. I argue that if we had not incurred the increase we did, standards would have dropped even more.

I also agree that spending more money is not guaranteed to get good results, and I have put forward suggestions of other changes I think are needed. However, the Gonksi report is about the structure of spending as well as the amounts, and the structure it proposes is more rational than the one we have now, though it is not as rational as my submission to the Gonski review.

Sadly, the only submission to the review to put forward a specific set of figures and scheme (of the 100s that I have read) was mine. The AEU, the IEU and all sorts of other bodies failed to take advantage of the Gonski opportunity, which is why I am spending so much time on the issue, trying to get at least one vital change made to what gets implemented, while those direct affected apparently cannot see what was obvious to me the day the recommendations were released.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 5 February 2013 12:42:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

I have gone through your links and saw one polemic against private schools, and postings by you on a blog. I don't see the source of your figures.

Your comment "I agree that real funding per student has increased. I agree that some standards have dropped by some measures." means that you must acknowledge that other factors have a greater effect than funding, your further comment "I argue that if we had not incurred the increase we did, standards would have dropped even more." reinforces it more.

Logic dictates that without the Gonski billions, simply rectifying the non fundings issues that have damaged education in the last decade would significantly improve the teaching outcomes.

Given the parlous state of the federal budget, and the unwillingness of the states to contribute any more, indicates that a solution, more inventive than Labor's standard one of throwing money at it, is required.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 5 February 2013 2:47:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy