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 > Q&A and the education policy debate > Comments

Q&A and the education policy debate : Comments

By John Turner, published 15/3/2013

Australian education on the road to Americanisation.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Why Mr Turner? Because governments slavishly follow the dogma that quantitative analysis of performance will legitimise the allocation of resources and ultimately maintain and/or increase political influence over how and where money is spent. I’m an advocate for returns on educational investment but more time, effort and resources need to be allocated towards two less narrowly constructed outcomes based on increased qualitative performance assessments, namely, improving teacher quality and supporting life-long learning characteristics instigated in latter infant and primary student learning years.

A rebuttal of simplistic observance of PISA/ TIMSS system assessments has been made by Jennifer Buckingham: https://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/issue-analysis/ia136.pdf

A broader assessment of various national school system outcomes has been examined by McKinsey & Company:
http://www.redage.org/files/adjuntos/How-the-Worlds-Most-Improved-School-Systems-Keep-Getting-Better_Download-version_Final_0.pdf

Bennery
Posted by bennery, Friday, 15 March 2013 8:14:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You've nailed it John. Thanks/
When Bob Brown was in charge of the Greens their education policy was much more about social equity than either of the two major parties.
(Not sure whether they're still in place now that Milne is in charge.)
The educational advisors who are responsible for educating Pyne and Garret are incompetent no-nothings who pander to the populous junk that neocons like Alan Jones and others of his ilk subscribe to.
A pox on both their houses!
Posted by Cambo, Friday, 15 March 2013 8:20:37 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
500,000 studies have shown that “the sage on the stage approach to teaching” leads to students knowing more than the alternative “guide at the side”. Dr Ken Rowe is the source. If a teacher does not know more than the students, he or she should not be a teacher.

Ken Boston misrepresented his own report when he said the Gonski principle was “that funding should be calculated on the basis of the measured difficulty of the job facing each individual school regardless of sector”. The Gonksi panel actually proposes to fund private schools differently from government schools, so “regardless of sector” is nonsense. Nor is funding based on “the measured difficulty of the job facing each individual school”. It is based on the wealth of the people who live near the students; i.e., the Howard government’s SES model, which the panel calls “capacity to pay”.

I will be providing a more detailed comment on the Q&A program on Sunday. In the meantime, those interested in the realty of school funding and the Gonski proposals, both of which have been poorly reported in the media, will find the following informative: http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/576719.aspx?PageIndex=1.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 15 March 2013 9:27:10 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
I suspect that one of the reports that Mr Turner referred to is the one at http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/Clackmannan.do
Posted by GlenC, Friday, 15 March 2013 9:32:34 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
Education in the US is unequal because the schools are funded by taxes from local districts rather than from larger political entities. As a consequence of such funding schools in districts with a high average income and a desire of the voting public to direct money to schools are excellent. My education was in US public schools during the 1930s. Even though this was during the depression my education was a very good one. The high quality was partially due to the depression. Highly qualified people who would ordinarily not be teaching turned to teaching because of lack of opportunities in other ways.

Have funding in Australia on a national level in Australia, and there will not be the inequities that there are in the US case.

One reason the school results are not as good as they could be in Australia is the diversion of public funds to private schools. That is one area in which the US has got it right. In the US there are private schools, but they are financed either by tuition or by the organisations supporting these schools. Public funding for private schools in the US is illegal.

To improve Australian education:

1. Make teacher's salaries in the public schools competitive with jobs in the outside world.
2. Restrict public funding to public schools. Eliminate government funding to private schools. This will have the immediate effect of increasing the student population in the public schools. However, the influx of higher quality students will improve the public schools, and the increased money available will pay for it. Many parents send their gifted children to private schools because the public schools are not as good. Make the public schools better, and that will not be the case.

Private schools are primarily religious. The segregation of students by religion is in my opinion no better than segregation by race which was outlawed in the US in 1952. Parents should have a right to send their children to religious schools. However, the cost of such a choice should not in any way come from the general public.
Posted by david f, Friday, 15 March 2013 10:00:27 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
Well said John Turner. I too went to some considerable trouble to be part of that Q and A audience, and share your concerns regarding the choice of questions to be presented to the panel. The debate was all about the distribution of money, and little or nothing concerning the future direction of education in this country. Christopher Pyne using the time honored dog whistling tactics of the coalition made it clear that wealthy private schools had nothing to fear as to loss of government subsidy in the event of a coalition victory at the forthcoming federal elections.
As to why this country chooses to follow the wealth based, divisive, and unproductive American education model rather than pursue the demonstrably better outcomes of some Scandinavian countries is a mystery yet to be fully resolved.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Friday, 15 March 2013 10:35:22 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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