I do hope you send this to Julia, Kevin, and the opposition's shadow minister for education ( is it Christopher Pyne? )
It might give them some evidence on which to base their alleged preference for "evidence-based policy". Not once have I heard Julia justify any of her education policy decisions on evidence. She usually bases it on her beliefs or gut intuitions. Certainly the language she uses when interrogated by the media is riddled with " I believe", " it is my opinion that. . " I am convinced that. . . ". rather than evidence. If you review most of her statements about the My School website you'll find they were of this ilk----no hard evidence of any kind was offered.
Hambone

I do hope you send this to Julia, Kevin, and the opposition's shadow minister for education ( is it Christopher Pyne? )
It might give them some evidence on which to base their alleged preference for "evidemce-based policy". Not once have I heard Julia justify any of her education policy decisions on evidence. She usually bases it on sevidence " I believe", " it is my opinion that. . " I am convinced that. . . ". Certainly most of her statemetns about the My School website were based on her gut feelings -- not on evidence of any kind
Hambone

After reading this I went to the McKinsey website looking for the report quoted. I found a web address (http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/socialsector/resources/pdf/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf) but the report was not available. My concern is did McKinsey give any consideration to the changes advocated by Lipman, M. and Cleghorn,P. and others, changes which involve introduction of philosophical discussion early in the students' educational life. The changes they advocate improves student behaviour, increases interaction between students and teachers, and improves CAT scores of students significantly.
I would appreciate a comment from the author as to her knowledge of the philosophical discussion system, now in use in some educational systems, and if able an explanation of why the proposal is not in favour in Australian educational administrations.

I like that last bit in the item 2 of the summary.

"Get rid of teachers who can't---"

Gee, I'd like to see that.

A wise person said: "It the answer seem simple either the question is wrong or the research is."

I would want to study the report's data before making a global policy.
My concern with generalities is that one size fits no one properly.
The ideas seem to be sensible but as a solution they would create more practical problem than solve. Again , it appears that the losers in this system too may still be those with the weakest environmental grounding.

Of course better teacher are a clear plus. But where are these better teacher going to come from? How many of these good teacher are going to want to teach in poor, violent or inconvenient schools?

I am also opposed to the introduction of the NY system in that it too is merely a new wrinkle on a flawed fabric. The idea that it is a magic bullet or even that it really works are at best problematic.

Like several other systems in this country education needs a top to bottom rethink and rewrite. Not simply some piecemeal silver bullet or *political* bickering

I do believe in a national curriculum but agree that it too isn't the total solution just one of many improvements needed.

If "NAPLAN results to identify under-performing students" then it can be used to identify under-performing schools!