Australia is very lucky to have so much coal to sell, because if we didn’t have that coal we would have to more directly compete with other countries, and many of those countries are fast catching up to Australia in their education systems.

I’m not certain that increasing the pay of teachers will improve their performance. Normally someone improves their performance, and then they get paid more money.

”13 per cent of Australian 15-year-olds are at risk of not having the basic skills necessary for work and future citizenship”

This seems accurate, and while there has always been a correlation between education outcomes and the socioeconomic background of the students, there is now a noticeable trend in that male students are more likely to be falling behind. This is irrespective of the socioeconomic background of the students.

To improve overall student performance, the boy’s marls have to be improved.

However in the highly feminist education system, it will only be through a form of performance pay that boy’s marks will be improved. If a teacher is not prepared to improve boy’s marks, that teacher is not paid anymore money.

If they don’t like it, they get a job somewhere else.

Geoff Masters like many educationalist know that
"The factors leading to low achievement are complex. Often they are related to broader social and health issues beyond the control of the education system."

Then in the next breath they perpetrate the a huge non sequitur on us by carrying on about what schools teachers higher salaries and other nostrums etc will do.

My guess in nothing. National research, as PISA tells us without actually agreeing with it ,has not demonstrated schools can actually do anything.
Parents behavior is the key, as Hart and Risely point out. If we could at least raise the awareness of parents abilities and not go on and on about school factors. My personal uninformed view is the the clue to this merry conundrum is what the Americans call the "fourth grade slump" Education in the manner of Mathew 13(5)"Give me a child till seven" and the first 3 are most important

Richard,
The idea that parents are to blame for low student marks could very well be some type of scapegoat.

Boy’s marks have been declining for some years, but girl’s marks have not. In an average coed school, the boys and girls would come from the same parents, and from the same socioeconomic background.

So why the growing difference between boy's and girl's marks?

I would think it has more to do with what is going on inside the school, rather than what is going on outside the school, and this includes the attitude that so many teachers have developed (or been programmed to develop) regards boy students.

HRS asked me a question on how girls and boys can vary. It is easy. Firstly there has beena rise in the the expectations of girls but the expectations of boys has been static so the girls rise could out weighed the general decline. This rise has not happend to boys so you see only the decline.

Generally successfull boys or girls have the same mothers, whether or not there is a relatve change between the sexes. Much more interesting is why children with exactly the same schooling end up so different. Why is there a top and a bottom so vastly different. Why is the differences within school, classes etc greater than the differences between them

Why must HRS think I am blaming parents? My beef is with Geof Masters et al who quite clearly indicated that background is important then ignore it. At least I am not blaming feminists.

There is so much evidence of the importance of background. Betty Hart and Todd risely in their ground breaking work show clearly why. It is a book but Google hart risley 30 million word. When do educationalists point this out. If they were in medicine they would be recommending hospitals (institutions) rather than public health as major way of staying well.

Try cognitive scientists eg Martha Farah www.psych.upenn.edu/~mfarah/

Rand Org research indicates that extra curricular activities are better predictors of outcomes. Mothers level of education is important. get the connection with Hart and Risely. NBER, (the economics think tank)'s famous study of school choice indicates that been given and exercising choice of school makes no difference in Chicago. etc etc

But do parents get a guernsey from educationalists. NO. Does he recommend investment in parents NO. Teachers pay, YES

What is all the fuss about? Keeping jargon-laden educationalists in their useless jobs to invent yet more ways of keeping our young people illiterate and innumerate?

Simply go back to the old style, which worked 30-40 years ago, in the UK at least, and bring back a bit of discipline into the classroom.It's not that hard! And take calculators out of the classroom and out of exams. Teach English GRAMMAR. And teach a second preferably tonal Asian language from age 5 to 15.

The thing about schools is that they were meant to be places where all children would have the opportunity to be educated regardless of their background.

The biggest problem with schools is that they allow children to progress to the next level/grade without having achieved the outcomes required in order to be successful at the next level/grade.

Schools also hold gifted/bright children back by grading them according to their age without taking into consideration their ability and level of intelligence.

Until education becomes something that is designed to benefit individual student and until there is more flexibility within the grades and subjects, so as to cater for different needs, the majority of children will continue to be in an environment where the level presented to them is not appropriate for thier needs.

This set up is a recipe for disaster.

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
OUr children deserve better