One of the reasons that there is such a huge difference in the performance between independent and public schools, even those with similar resources, is because the centrally controlled schools, obeying union-negotiated rules are more interested in the best results for their loyal members than the teaching of the children.

If the teachers' union has to abandon its ability to force schools to accept teachers and pay based on seniority rather than performance, its monopoly will collapse.

Instead of trying to tear down the independent schools to the public school level, the focus should be on raising the public schools to the independent school level.

Shadow Minister,

If you cared to consult the evidence, you would realise that the difference in performance between private schools and public schools has nothing to do with union-negotiated rules but is explained by the students in them:
“After accounting for the socio-economic and demographic profiles of students and schools, students in OECD countries who attend private schools show performance that is similar to that of students enrolled in public schools.” (OECD PISA Report)

The union-negotiated agreements provide classifications, pay rates, class size limits and teaching load limits and ought to be the same across all schools of the same type. The teachers union has no ability to force schools to accept staff.

A few mere facts:
Victorian schools had curriculum autonomy 35 years ago;
Victorian schools have had elected school councils for 35 years, and their powers were strengthened by the Labor government of the 1980s, with no union opposition;
The Labor government brought in local selection of principals in the 1980s, and of all senior staff in 1992, in both cases with the support of the unions;
The Coalition government brought in local selection of all staff in the 1990s, and this was continued by the following Labor government;
The Labor government removed the staffing formula, replacing it with voucher funding, increasing principals’ budgetary control in about 2005.

The Labor government also realised that leaving schools totally to their own devices was a recipe for inefficiency and educational decline and so commenced to gradually put the “system back” into the education system.

Chris,

I am familiar with the PISA publication, and whilst I agree that the statement you quoted is correct when averaged over the 57 countries, it is not true if you look at countries with similar education systems to Australia. An article I read last year suggested that this was probably due to significant number of schools being independent for religious reasons, where the outcomes were significantly lower.

The studies in Australia show a strong difference between public and private, even from the same socio economic grouping.

The union negotiated agreement, while not forcing the acceptance of a staff member is certainly far far from allowing free choice. A principle cannot freely advertise, nor teachers freely apply.

That pay rates are based on seniority and qualifications not performance is an anachronism.

As a summary of the arguments around the proposed changes to the school system, I found the article a little too hell-bent on fence-sitting to be of much use.

It opens with the question, "The headline said it all: 'Gillard plan to liberate schools'. Or did it?"

Perhaps the need for academic politeness proved too much of a burden for the writer to give us her own opinion on whether it did, or did not. But I could find no persuasive argument presented, either way.

Maybe it's a State issue, but here in NSW the public school system up to Year Six would appear, at first glance, to be appallingly ossified in its organizational mediocrity. The result is that - even within the same school - it will be entirely a matter of luck whether your child is taught well or badly.

According to the Head of the last school my son attended, this was because she had absolutely no control over, or say in, the selection process that caused teachers to work at her school. Furthermore, the options by which she might encourage better performance from the less capable members of her staff were profoundly restricted.

I saw the Government's initiative to be a positive step to remove some of these shackles from Heads, and allow some local quality control to be exercised. Additionally, it would allow the introduction of some normal management disciplines, that would help raise the overall level of the school's performance.

Am I wrong to view this is as a Good Thing?

1) Judith Sloan is a supporter of endless 'free trade', particularly the sort that supports failed 'private enterprise', like all good capitalists do.

2) Gillard's 'plans' are not worth bothering with. She has no idea how schools are run, or what students do today to survive in them.

3) Sloan's line here betrays her thinly disguised partisan views, "Because, it would seem, that the current model of centrally controlled schools, obeying union-negotiated rules, does not serve the public very well."

If the 'rules' are negotiated, then there has to be another party to the process, who has agreed to the situation.

The education unions are right wing thinkers not left wing at all.

They reflect their members middle class unadventurous approach to education. School teachers are not revolutionaries but rather status quo supporters who fear the students and feel the need to control them through coercive measures rather than working with them to lift vision.

Those principals that Pericles raises, are managers, and have a full suite of tools to manage their schools. They choose not to, and blame staff for their failures.

I don't doubt for one minute that remedial professional support would be lacking within the systems, but that is another matter, and one that princiapl's need to address along with the AEU and their affiliates.

It is not only hit and miss as to whether your child gets a good teacher, it is also hit and miss in relation to the school principal, and deputies, and also their superiors in regional and district offices.

Blaming classroom teachers all the time is a diversion. Assuming that all school principals are well equipped to run our schools is unsafe. Faith in the private system, particularly those of a 'faith' basis, is poor public policy that does not place 'the national interest' at the forefront of considerations.

Not sure I fully follow your reasoning, The Blue Cross.

>>Those principals that Pericles raises, are managers, and have a full suite of tools to manage their schools. They choose not to, and blame staff for their failures.<<

Does that mean that the principal lied to me, when she told me she had no control over the teacher selection process?

Because that particular capability would be regarded by real managers everywhere as the most vital component of all, in "a full suite of tools".

I cannot imagine anyone being able to run an effective business, without the ability to establish and maintain a healthy, challenging set of hiring parameters.

Maybe it is just NSW where they do not have this ability?

I'm only a customer here, don't forget. I can only see what is on display, not what is going on under the covers. So do tell - is she a fibber? I still see her from time to time - one of her sons is at my son's school - so I am keen to read your response.

>>I don't doubt for one minute that remedial professional support would be lacking within the systems, but that is another matter, and one that princiapl's [sic] need to address along with the AEU and their affiliates.<<

("princiapl's", The Blue Cross? The typo is understandable. But the apostrophe? Tut tut. See me after class)

What is "remedial professional support", in your terminology?

The complaint I heard was that she was unable to even consider disciplinary action - even in its most simple, immediate form - without incurring massive personal and professional costs. These apparently took the form of interminable, grinding and unproductive rounds of "dispute resolution", combined with a total lack of support from the education authorities in the face of blind union protectionism.

I think she herself may not actually have used the term Stalinist, but I'm pretty sure that sheeplike conformity to the concept of mass mediocrity underpinned her concern about the lack of "remedial professional support".

Pericles, a long delay in rsvp-ing.

I agree with this below, but might extend it beyond Y6 (actually Y7 in Qld) to include most, if not all, of the high school years too:

"Maybe it's a State issue, but here in NSW the public school system up to Year Six would appear, at first glance, to be appallingly ossified in its organizational mediocrity. The result is that - even within the same school - it will be entirely a matter of luck whether your child is taught well or badly."

I doubt she lied. I don't know the detail of the NSW system but I'd be surprised it it was vastly different to Qld. Here school principals (sorry about the 's error before) do have some say in who comes, stays or goes.

However, no matter what 'restrictions' are seen to be in place, there is a well known, strongly held, 'court approved' reality that it is both the right and responsibility of management to manage.

It may well be seen to be an 'arduous' process, but it's there to be used, and clearly, principals do not make the effort to use it.

I simply do not accept the commonsense wisdom from the likes of Gillard and Pyne that school principals are all-knowing and GOOD, and classroom teachers just need to be offered a carrot to do the job they are paid to do.

All managers are constrained in how they employ and sack staff. No doubt there are variations from workplace to workplace.

Remedial professional support- I have a chum who works in 'education'. When a school has failed, and the principal and staff have stopped denying they are not the least bit useful to anyone anymore, then he comes in and takes them through their problems, providing training to them, examining their classroom pedagogy, their school 'vibe' and every thing that prevents them from doing what they get paid to do....continued/2

continued/2
That is 'remedial' support.

It has been my experience in Qld that PD is barely a budget item in schools, and much that is offered is pretty crap too. It costs over $300 a day to replace a teacher, plus the course and other costs. The same people seem to get the OK to go, and there is no real expectation that PD is part of the job. I have distilled that from my own experience, and those of teachers I know well.

I would not expect 'disciplinary action' to be step 1 in managing staff.

I'll give a close example.

My son has a shocking Maths B teacher. She favours girls, and resents boys. This is a long standing view of many students over the many years my children have been there, and all three have had her, and the other Maths B teachers too.

Her classes frequently fail exams. She teaches weeks behind the others so her students are not prepared for the exams. She is rude, and quite racist at times. She has been there for many years.

The HOD knows all this, and makes excuses, even to students. The other maths teachers 'sort out' her failures.

Now, should she be 'disciplined', or helped? I favour the latter first, and then if that fails the former naturally comes up next.

But the sad fact is that she is not, and never has been, 'managed' by the HOD, by the deputy, by the boss, nor by her colleagues via any collegiate process.

This person is probably the sort your friend speaks of, and I suggest that there is a primary responsibility for our principal to manage the teacher in question, the HOD, and the other maths teachers.

These sort of actions, however difficult, must be taken, but clearly are not, at our school, or thousands of others across the nation.

Wow. That's a truly amazing example, The Blue Cross.

>>Her classes frequently fail exams. She teaches weeks behind the others so her students are not prepared for the exams. She is rude, and quite racist at times. She has been there for many years.<<

Quite extreme, I would have thought. But you are wrong about this:

>>This person is probably the sort your friend speaks of...<<

Not at all. She has high standards herself, and expects her staff to meet those standards. It would appear that she is in fact quite fortunate, in that the peccadillos of her staff are mild in comparison to your example. In which context, I can understand your view that...

>>I would not expect 'disciplinary action' to be step 1 in managing staff.<<

Her idea of "disciplinary action" is to take the person aside as soon as possible after the event comes to her attention, and address it simply and informally, as any normal business manager would.

"Listen, I've heard that x happened this afternoon, which concerns me. Would you like to tell how it came about?"

The fact that she is effectively discouraged from even the simplest of daily management techniques, for fear of being hauled in front of mind-numbing and interminable "hearings", is appalling.

Shadow Minister,

Can you refer me to these Australian studies please?

The union-negotiated agreement allows schools to appoint their own staff. Victorian principals determine which positions they want filled. Jobs are advertised on line, and anyone, whether already employed by the education department or not, can apply. The selection panel will devise a short list of suitable candidates, interview them and recommend an appointment. It may make no appointment at all if it so decides. Technically the panel is making a recommendation to the principal, but the principal will almost always accept the recommendation of the panel that has conducted the process. So, principals can freely advertise and teachers can freely apply.

The pay rates are based on experience and position. Thus, there are 11 levels in the teacher category. Progress form one level to the next is based on an annual review. I don’t see any need for this. In fact, I think it is rubbish and the system was actually more efficient when progress was automatic. But the fact remains that pay is based on performance. Further, to get into the leading teacher category and thus higher pay, teachers must apply in competition with other teachers for such positions.

Pericles, yes, the example sounds 'extreme' but there are many such people feather-bedded in Ed Qld.

Many are promoted well above their useful purpose, and then prevent any change below them.

One of our deputies is another such person. Recognised as being totally inept with people, even in the regional office, this person is still tolerated by the institution while being loathed by every parent and child that comes into contact with them.

Lest you think this is sour grapes from a disgruntled parent, all my children have survived their experiences, and the current one is getting top marks, but only because he and a small group of other students teach themselves, together and via various web based resources.

I have given up trying to get action either at the school or at the regional office, like all the other parents over the years, because they close ranks and deny everything, and parents end up sounding like 'troublemakers'.

I do not see that removing any potential for 'policing' will improve our schools, as Gillard is proposing.

But it is also not possible to sack every last public servant and start again.

It seems that, while all organisations can/do ossify, for some reason 'education' is a stand alone case of total incompetence, from top to bottom.

Some of that can possibly be because it is also an emotive political football, with ill-informed politicians, be they Gillard or Abbott, Garrett or Pyne, as the four now bleating about it, poking their noses into what should be a fairly simple system, with clear objectives.

The terminology your friend uses is certainly not 'discipline', and is entirely appropriate as described by you.

Try

http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/CA256D800027B102/Lookup/SchoolPerformanceinAustralia/$file/SHAREDFUTURE040826%20-%20school%20performance%20in%20australia%20FINAL.pdf

Without spending too much time on research, this shows that the outcomes for students standardised to SES shows improved outcomes from the independent schools over the entire range.

Whilst there are some caveats in this analysis, there are no instances where pupils of the same SES background performed worse.

As for the employment of teachers, in NSW I know of more than one case where highly qualified and experienced teachers in the independent sector apply for local public school positions, but need to start at the bottom grade again, where the principle would love to have them but can only chose from the tiny pool offered.

Shadow Minister,

Thank you for the link. I have now looked through it.

I am not sure what you mean by saying that “there are no instances where pupils of the same SES background performed worse”. Figure 13 (page 38) shows a number of private schools with lower ENTER scores after adjustment for SES than a number of government schools. Figure 14 (page 39) shows the same thing.

The study relies on Victorian data from 2000. The significance of this is that the government schools had just gone through the most disruptive period in their history, with the Coalition government that ran Victoria from 1992 having removed 6,787 full-time equivalent teachers, having closed close to 400 schools, having changed methods of governance and operation. In short, those students had spent seven years in chaos, and the Labor government elected in 1999 had hardly started to rebuild the system. I wonder what the study would show if it were repeated now, before the new Coalition government starts to damage things again.

Secondly, the study does confirm the effects of socio-economic background, along the lines of the OCED. It says, “Almost 90 per cent of the variance linked to school is removed once achievement, SES, sector, rural location and school size are included.” (page 60). This does leave 10 per cent for the school itself.

Thirdly, the study mentions the impact of resources but does not go into detail. One of the reasons that some private schools outperform government schools is the immense resources they have, with fees now exceeding $20,000, about double that the government schools have.

Finally, the study does not provide in any part that I read support for your initial assertion that government schools “are more interested in the best results for their members than in teaching the children”.

NSW is different from Victoria, as we can see.