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 > No need to reject competition as a driving force in schooling outcomes > Comments

No need to reject competition as a driving force in schooling outcomes : Comments

By David Robertson, published 30/9/2014

Australia does not have a school system of gated communities and education ghettos, nor is there any evidence that we are moving towards such a system.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Different schools are always competitive against another school, especially in sports.

My local school tried for years to beat the local boarding school at rugby and we never got close, but it did not dampen that good old competitive spirit.
Posted by Wolly B, Tuesday, 30 September 2014 8:33:07 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
Competition, hmm. Schools as profit earning entities, hmm.
Let's see where that goes?
The schools fortunate enough to capture the better off clientele, will be the one that attract the best teachers, and able to afford the best facilities! [I ken ye like bagpipes laddie?]
Whereas, those now living in the post code poverty traps, will be further disadvantaged.
This is why we need to reject the truly private business model for public school education, that can only further entrench privilege, and or, simply shovel our best and brightest on to the scrap heap.
I mean, not all that long ago, we heard that the man with the highest "known" IQ, was manning the back of a garbage truck!
What does he do now, that automation has killed that job!?
Collect the dole?
We need our best and brightest at the helm, not marking time on the scrap heap!
Personal, (I want to live out my days in abject poverty and entrenched disadvantage) choice aside.
The best possible formula is direct funding coupled to complete local/PTA autonomy, and the funding needs to be directed at the pupil, who is then free to pick and choose.
On the basis of best results, arrived at by published bench marking/apples with apples comparisons.
If all children were equally funded, then means testing is a must, so that those who need the most help, are the ones who receive as much help as poss, from a still finite bucket of public money.
If we really do want to become the smart country, that's where to direct limited funding, rather than gormless, privilege.
A formula for a very second rate economy/banana republic, when we need to match wits/compete with the best and brightest around the world!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 30 September 2014 10:11:54 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
I'm totally against all this, I Think.

I only think I'm against it as David never really told us what he was talking about.

Does he want diversity in schools or in their curriculum? Does he want independence in curriculum, teaching methods, or classroom style? The last thing we need is different curriculums in different schools.

Does he want competition between schools, or between students for results?

Is his transparency in comparing school or pupil results? Is he actually suggesting parents should be informed how well their kids are doing in comparison with other kids of the same age throughout Australia?

If so that would be a novel idea, utterly against teacher union principles of hiding the incompetent teacher by never revealing the results of kids they are teaching.

If that's the case I'm all for it.

Do try to clarify what you are saying David, it is no use using politician speak, so no one really knows what you're saying, if you want support.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 30 September 2014 10:42:58 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
David Robertson’s response to my article is appreciated, but it is not clear that he has read it or the research on which it relies (and to which it provided links).

Mr Robertson says that ‘Australia does not have a school system of gated communities and education ghettos, nor is there any evidence that we are moving towards such a system.’

Compare and contrast David Goski’s recent remarks, http://apo.org.au/research/jean-blackburn-oration-david-gonski-ac a pithy summary of his report’s findings: ‘The difference between well-endowed schools and those in lower socioeconomic areas …. is enormous.’

For a closely-researched account of how movement in this direction has proceeded, I refer him again to the Nous report (linked in my article) and its account of ‘residualisation’.

Mr Robertson cites a large-scale international study which finds that ‘The additional choice created by public funding for private schools in particular is associated with a strong reduction in the dependence of student achievement on SES’.

The trouble is that there are many exceptions to this rule, including Australia. Evidence to this point can be found in the Gonski report and in the Grattan Institute report linked in my article, neither of which is referred to by Mr Robertson.

Gonski found (page xiii) that: ‘In addition to declining performance across the board, Australia has a significant gap between its highest and lowest performing students. This performance gap is far greater in Australia than in many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, particularly those with high-performing schooling systems. A concerning proportion of Australia’s lowest performing students are not meeting minimum standards of achievement. There is also an unacceptable link between low levels of achievement and educational disadvantage, particularly among students from low socioeconomic and Indigenous backgrounds.’
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
Posted by Dean Ashenden, Tuesday, 30 September 2014 4:18:58 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
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
The Grattan Institute, in a detailed study of the actual workings of choice in Mr Robertson’s home territory of southeast Queensland, found as follows: ‘Neither creating more competition among schools nor giving them more autonomy without support to improve learning are the vital solutions that will lift the performance of Australian students. The myth of markets in school education shows that at least 40 to 60 per cent of schools face no or very limited competition, and there is very little government can do about it. Providing more information about schools, cutting private school fees or increasing the capacity of high-performing government schools will do little to increase school competition and lift student performance.’
It is clear that choice and competition, as they currently operate in Australia, deliver neither educational nor social benefits. But perhaps they could? Mr Robertson says that he is in favour of ‘competitive neutrality’, of ‘placing all suppliers on a more level playing field in terms of funding and regulation’, and of ‘transparency in relation to information concerning performance’.
I offered four concrete means to these ends: ‘a level playing field, including a Gonski-like needs-based funding floor and a per student expenditure ceiling; a universal no-fee or means-tested fee regime; a focus on competition for performance rather than for students, including regulation or some other way of managing exclusions, cherry-picking, body snatching and dumping; and agreed educational objectives combined with a common set of benchmarks and indicators.’
Does he agree that these measures would provide competitive neutrality, transparency and a level playing field? Which of them does he support? Are there any which he opposes? If so, on what grounds
Posted by Dean Ashenden, Tuesday, 30 September 2014 4:20:06 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
Dean Ashenden if you are serious about improving educational results in schools, forget Gonski, the process is simple.

First sack the 30% of current teachers who could not pass a realistic exam in the subjects they are supposed to be teaching.

Second pay enough money to enable hiring really competent people to teach math science & English grammar. For the rest employ games instructors, they would be more use.

Third reintroduce externally set examinations in these subjects.

Fourthly no pupil moves to the next grade until they can pass a suitably difficult, [no multiple choice garbage] exam on the years syllabus.

Fifthly, sack all those teachers who prove incapable of getting kids to the required standard.

Sixthly, go back to sending non academically capable kids out to work at 16.

Finally pick one states syllabus from 1965, & introduce it Australia wide for five years. Sack all so called teachers not capable of teaching to this syllabus.

You should now be able to give a few billion a year back to the taxpayer, even after paying 50% more for those teachers found competent. This is reasonable as with many less teachers, they will be teaching much larger classes, as they should.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 30 September 2014 9:15:56 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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