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 > Public funds, private schools > Comments

Public funds, private schools : Comments

By Tom Greenwell, published 4/2/2011

A fair and intelligent funding system should not reward good luck in the lottery of life but seek to mitigate against bad luck.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 43
  7. 44
  8. 45
  9. All
Probably one of the most idiotic analysis I have seen in years.

Independent schools already receive substantially less funding from the government than public schools. Parents pay fees because they know some of it will go towards providing a little extra than the public schools.

The formula in table 2 shows that for the first $10 000 the parents will not get one cent value. This will essentially destroy any incentive for parents to send their children to the mid fee independent schools other than independent education generally getting better education results.

Considering that most independent schools are in this range, the result would simply be either that they close, or they stop charging fees and get the full government subsidy.

Either way the state looses and ends up paying a far greater amount for education of a lower average standard.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:24:48 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
Dont you just love a land of equal-opportunity, where the rich keep their brats on the top shelf as usual. Now wouldn't all of the Australian people benefit from a ONE SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT FITS ALL....but NO.....that would mean using the world FAIR in their vocabulary.

"A fair and intelligent funding system should not reward good luck in the lottery of life but seek to mitigate against bad luck."

Just says it all, doesn't it.

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:38:44 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
Deep Blue,

Next you will want all houses, cars, etc to be equal. Unfortunately that system went out with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

If parents wish to pay extra for their kids education, then it benefits the country more than buying new cars or plasma TVs.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:50:03 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 would be very skeptical of more taxpayer money being given to any school, as most of student performance seems to be connected to curriculum and teacher attitudes, not facilities.

The author, like so many other teachers, writes of children with "disabilities" and "learning difficulties" and "low-SES backgrounds".

So where do these children come from, and why are there so many?

“One-parent families are the fastest growing type of family in Australia, with 823,300 single families recorded during the 2006 census. The Australian Government expects this number to reach 1.2 million by 2026.”

http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/parenting_alone.html

One parent families are also the most likely to live in poverty, and most likely to produce disadvantaged children, or children from low-SES backgrounds.

Something I am sure many teachers are aware of, but something I have never heard any teacher publicly mention.

The big question now is, if teachers are actually interested in disadvantaged children (and not just interested in grabbing more money from the taxpayer), then why don't they mention the main factors that create disadvantaged children?
Posted by vanna, Friday, 4 February 2011 8:19:47 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
Tables like the ones in this article are enlightening because they make the impacts of the various mixes of private and public funding crystal clear. The central argument here is whether or not each child is entitled to the same amount of public funding regardless of how much its parents wish to contribute privately. Our society has long been split on this question, essentially on ideological grounds. In my experience, no-one ever really changes their mind about how they answer it. But there is one factor that is always overlooked, as in these tables. There is only a single funding level shown for public schools, meaning that parental contributions are forbidden. So if some parents wish, for example, to contribute privately to their public school in the belief that their children will get an advantage, they cannot, at least without endangering the school's government funding. Is this what the electorate really wants? I doubt it. All logic points to constant government funding per student, i.e. the voucher system.
Posted by Tombee, Friday, 4 February 2011 8:59:22 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
The wealthy world's biggest problem is it's aging population. We are failing to have enough children to support all the old people.

Especilly bad is the fact that the 'most disadvantaged' have the most children. Basically we have 'means-tested' so much of our economy that it is too expensive for professional families to have more than one or two kids, and many men don't want to become fathers at all!

On the other hand, those on welfare are bribed by over-generous cash payments to have more children than they can reasonably care for. 'Disadvantaged' single mothers with low education and limited life skills and ability should not be bribed by cash payments to have 12 children. But frequently that's the result of over-generous means-tested payments.

Money should be directed to incentives for professionals to have the children they can't afford. a universal school 'voucher' system, so every child gets the same subsidy for their education would help.

Replacing means-tested cash payments with changes to make children reduce your tax would help also. For example, allowing income splitting between all the people in a family, including children.

Firstly, students who face educational disadvantage should receive appropriate additional funding that follows them wherever they receive their schooling.
Posted by partTimeParent, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:00:59 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
As a Principal of a Primary school of some 800 students, and an educator for more than 20 years, I am yet to see an article that presents this debate with integrity. Everyone has a barrow to push and, as someone who is very aware of how the funding system works (or doesn't depending on your view) I feel I am in a position to see this. A couple of responses:
Deep-Blue - One size fits all is not where our society is at. Right or wrong, that's a fact, so you cannot expect a school system to reflect a society that simply doesn't exist. Bring on Utopia I say!
Vanna - you raise a very valid point but one that is (unfortunately) not politically correct to make. In my less generous moments (and I try very hard to keep these to a minimum!), I meet a new family, find out a few facts and start to make a decision about their child's educational prospects from there. Not fair but, sadly, often at least partly accurate. That said, research such as the meta-analyses from people in the field such as John Hattie, show that family background is not as big a factor as people assume. With sample sizes in the 100 000's, I am inclined to go with his analysis!
So what's the answer? i) Don't rob Peter to pay Paul. Improve funding across the board, which will include less funding for some Independent schools no doubt, and stop this petty, and unproductive, "Public-Private" argument. ii) Train our teachers better, so they can rise to the challenge of teaching children from disadvantaged homes. iii) Respect teachers for the job they do and support them (that goes for Police, Nurses, Ambos, etc - but that's a rant for another day!)
Posted by rational-debate, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:04:04 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
Vana
"I would be very skeptical of more taxpayer money being given to any school, as most of student performance seems to be connected to curriculum and teacher attitudes, not facilities."

GREAT! Parents with kids in private schools are deciding to pay twice for their kids education (once through taxes and once through fees) are usually doing so because of 'values'. In other words, they are paying to AVOID the indoctrination that teachers and the Dept of Education force down students throats.

VANA
"One parent families are also the most likely to live in poverty... but something I have never heard any teacher publicly mention...
The big question now is, if teachers are actually interested in disadvantaged children ... why don't they mention the main factors that create disadvantaged children?"

Great point... and the answer is that although marriage and stable families is best for children, it is hated by feminism. For the idelogical warriors of the education system, promoting their religion (feminism) is more important than helping children. IMHO
Posted by partTimeParent, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:06:47 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
Rational-debate
There is actually a good description of what happens to disadvantaged children here.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2006/10/17/uk-child-poverty-the-facts-115875-17942883/

If at present, disadvantaged children in Australia are not so badly disadvantaged, then this may be because welfare payments are higher, but a government can reduce welfare payments at any time, or may have to reduce welfare payments because of economic necessity.

Those who want to remain numb regards single parent families had better hope the welfare payments are not reduced.

The Blair government set up a special task force to battle child poverty in the UK. They tried everything from special schools and special education programs for disadvantaged children, to food and clothing vouchers to tax credits to employment programs. Not much worked, and it finally prompted a senior official in the task force to say to the media that the best thing for disadvantaged children was for the mother to get married.

Subsequently that official was moved out of the task force for politically correct reasons, but the number of disadvantaged children or children living below the poverty line in the UK continues to grow, and in numbers, there are now more children living below the poverty line in the UK than the elderly.

Apparently this is the first time in UK history that this has occurred.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:34:12 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
rational-debate.......well thank-you for that rational post instead of Shadow Minsters ridiculous Communist plot he believes Iam behind, along with Al-have-a-chat and his new bride, that loves to read/hear his/hers own voices:)

Bring on Utopia I say!......I feel more for the families with bright kids that will never have the chance to live the dream, which is all comprehensively wrapped into our currant belief systems of " All Australians will have the right to a fair educational system without prejudice and all shall benefit with no-child ever being left behind.

Quoted from a Former PM.

Its a one sided affair, which only the wealthy can enjoy, while the rest just have to watch as their children fail in life.

Yes....they do just love it, when the three levels of society are all put/belong in there slave-masters delusions of a fair go Australia.

I'll just add...............No child will be in poverty by.....! You wonder how they live with their BS.

If Australia wants smarter Australians...........Cough up the funds......for all.

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:40:47 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 find it absolutely offensive that I must subsidise private schools. If people want to pay huge amounts of money so their kids get the benefit of manicured sports fields and old boys' networks, good luck to them, but why should I have to pay for that?

Gillard goes on about 'choice', but only the rich have a choice about what school they send their kids to. And I'm happy for them, but leave me out of it!
Posted by Shadyoasis, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:50:32 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
Western Australia's highest ranked student in 2010 Yr 12 results was home schooled until Yr11. When are the secularist going to admit that funding is not the issue but the hopelessly flawed social engineering that they are bent on carrying out. Droves of unbelieving parents have seen the rotten fruit and care enough about their kids to pay considerable amounts of money to have their children in a civilized environment. Showing politically motivated warped tables does not change the fact that it costs less to the tax payer for kids to be in private schooling. The dishonesty of the secularist know no bounds.
Posted by runner, Friday, 4 February 2011 10:31:41 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
Shady oasis,

I find it offensive that I have to subsidise the public schools by far more than private schools. The more kids go to private schools the less the government will have to pay, and the less tax I will have to pay.

The probability is that the parents of private school kids are subsidising the public school kids.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 4 February 2011 11:18:14 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 hate being lied to. I become annoyed that someone thinks I am dumb enough to be taken in by their lies, of statement or omission. It doesn't matter which, both are equally objectionable.

Obviously Tom thinks he can con most of the people, with his omissions, perhaps because he thinks they were educated in an inferior education system.

Well if it's inferior, it is so because of people like him, the teachers.

I finished high school in a NSW country town state school. We had only 12 kids in 5Th year, & 14 in 4Th year. We had a couple of advantages, all of us were there because we wanted to be, & the school had 3 great teachers.

I left with 3 honors, 2 first class, & one 2 Nd class, & I was one of the lower achievers.

Eleven of us went to Uni, or teachers college with scholarships. The other one could have, but 20,000 sheep demanded his attention. It wasn't because the town was suddenly producing geniuses, it was those teachers efforts to get us achieving near our best. We actually had kids talking about physics, in the playground, & at football training.

My kids achieved the OPs they wanted, in a large near Brisbane high school, in a less than favoured area. It was not as easy as it was for me, the teachers were definitely not great. However it is amazing how those who can, respond to those who want to. They got help from some surprising places, when needed.

My eldest says she had to grab the education system by the neck & shake it, to get what she wanted. It's a pity, but many people don't shake hard enough. We had to kick some butt at her school, after sugar failed, starting with a head too interested in nearing retirement, & the union delegate, who should have been teaching math. We may not have won friends, but we did get results.

Blue, try to find something to be happy about, it feels better.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 4 February 2011 11:53:00 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
Shadow Minister.
You may be right. It is likely that there are far more children living on welfare in the public school system then in the private school system.

So taxpayers who are paying a lot of tax, are already paying out money to get welfare dependent children into a public school, or any school.

However, with the experiences of the Blair government in the UK, and the “No child shall be left behind” campaign in US, throwing more money at the schools did little or nothing for disadvantaged children.

It advantaged some teachers, but not the students.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 4 February 2011 12:07:08 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
Flog the public schools off, and have a two tier private school system.
Posted by a597, Friday, 4 February 2011 2:42:27 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
Maybe we should take out these welfare kids(whoever they are) and shoot them. That should save money.
Posted by Flo, Friday, 4 February 2011 2:56:29 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
Flo,
It wouldn't save that much money to remove the 612,000 disadvantaged children in the country, now a direct result of the 800,000 single parent families.

Unless other things are done, there will simply be more disadvantaged children born later to replace them.

Similarly, if teachers don't want to give the reasons why there are so many disadvantaged children, I certainly don't think teachers should be given any more money, just in case they waste that money, or don't know how to effectively spend it.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 4 February 2011 3:28:25 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
Vanna and Flo,

The simple maths is that every child in an independent school is saving the state between 30 and 70% of the cost of a child in a public school. Thus removing the subsidy, reduces the amount of money available for public education.

The government knows this and cannot afford to stop the subsidies. If they did, they might save some money in the short term, but in the long term it would cost a fortune.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 4 February 2011 3:35:46 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
Surely the point is that we don't really have a private system: it's a public-private one which means that the government is funding every school nominally outside the public system, as well as those within it. Even the highest fee-charging schools - $24,000 per annum - get $3,000 or so of the taxpayers' dollars.
If people want choice, fair enough, but not at that sort of cost to those in the public system.
A second, and critical point, is the proportion of students disadvantaged in one way or another who are in the public system. They're there probably because, for reasons related to the barely relevant posts about single-parent families, they can't afford the choice of going elsewhere. But whatever the reason, the fact is that the public system has a far higher proportion of disadvantaged students - who need far higher funding if they are to have a chance of overcoming their difficulties.
Surely government should be funding schools so that all students get the chance of a good education? That means targeting the funding to give opportunity to those who have no choice in the matter of their social or financial wealth.
Posted by Chica, Friday, 4 February 2011 4:41:52 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
OK so education is compulsory. Isn't the easy solution that the State Governments pay the tachers' salaries in all schools. Private schools if they want more than that fund it themselves.They've already got the buildings, trust funds, facilities etc. What more do they need?
Posted by Bellbird, Friday, 4 February 2011 4:58:52 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
"It wouldn't save that much money to remove the 612,000 disadvantaged children in the country, now a direct result of the 800,000 single parent families'

Are you suggesting that all children that live with single mothers are disadvantaged or deprived? It might then surprise you that some of the most disadvantage children live in two parent families. Being in a family with mother and father married does not necessary make good parents.

I am afraid that yours and many others reasons for children being disadvantaged is too simple and black and white.

The causes are more likely to be poverty, drug, alcohol, and mental illness. All these occur in single and two parent families. One of the greatest causes is domestic violence.

Sometimes children suffer by the parent not leaving a dysfunctional family. Single parent household could save children from being disadvantaged, not the other way about.

To understand and solve the problem, people need to look beyond their prejudices. You are right about one thing, these children will be in danger of repeating their parents lives if they do not get appropriate support.
Posted by Flo, Friday, 4 February 2011 6:21:14 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
Flo

Visit any prison in the country and you will find 95% plus of inmates who grew up fatherless or without their natural fathers. This is an indictment on men more than woman. However woman denying reality don't help the situation by being defensive. Drugs, poverty, mental health come as a result of being fatherless not the other way around.
Posted by runner, Friday, 4 February 2011 6:26:42 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
You will find about the same number cannot read or write. Is it being alleged that all children reared without their father end up in prison?

Many families separate, and the children retain strong links with the father. Being separated does not mean the father no longer has a role.

I question your figures, which such a high number come from single families. Many come from violent homes. Some follow their father footsteps. Many have parents who were in prison as well.

I go back to my earlier comment that putting the blame on single mothers leads you nowhere. You have to look at why the mother has gone it alone. You will find there is much more involved than being bought up by mother on her own.

Most children in single families grow up to be well-rounded adults.

Being fatherless or in a single family is a symptom of what is wrong, not the cause.
Posted by Flo, Friday, 4 February 2011 6:59:57 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
I could make criticisms of the simplistic use of tables and data, but I'm not going to. The funding argument is, and always has been, a distraction from the real principles in this debate. Even if critics of the public education system agreed to some minor tinkering of the SES system, and current funding levels (assuming the fairness of the portrayal above for a moment), it doesn't change the other failures of the public education system.

The public system is bleeding students, and it is not because of funding. I have spent a long time around the schools Tom teaches (and remember, Canberra is an artificial bubble community which is a poor comparison for most of Australia), and the problem is not a lack of books, computers, etc. Most of these things the schools have aplenty (in fact I'm often shaking my head at the way these schools waste money on needless things, like Canberra High School's decision to purchase a large number of new chairs, despite the old chairs being fine, and then leaving all the old chairs out in the rain next to the school for months on end), they are not expensive commodities. And to hear the Teacher's Union tell it, the teacher's soldier on despite their (supposedly) poor pay, giving their best, and doing a great job. So while Tom and the Union may feel (wrongly in my view) that Teacher's are underpaid, by their own narrative it is not the cause of the problems.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:06:11 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
What are the real problems? Among them:
1) The teacher's union. This is the biggest problem. They insist on a pay scale that rewards time spent in the service, not based on merit. They resist the flexible workloads (I've heard tell of teacher's who are good at teaching level 3 math, but bad at teaching levels 1 and 2, in which case why don't they just work as a casual at 2 or 3 different schools teaching level 3 math?). They resist teacher's being sacked. Principals are told to improve schools, but they're not even able to pick their own teachers. It's a joke.
2) There are no meaningful benchmarks for success or improvement, the very same things Teachers in the Union are chuckling at, while watching Yes Minister at home with a cafe latte in hand, are being resisted by their union. The data released is pitiful, and they oppose even the meagre data myschools offered, even though it was obviously desired by parents. Teacher's don't criticise their colleagues either.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:11:17 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
3) The Education Department and Union suck at education. They've eliminated classics, grammar, etc, from most schools. They insist on a stultified and rigid curriculum. The one ACT public school who has done well has done so through a) having a good feeder system (and being able to take the cream from other areas), and b) ignoring the dictates of the Union. They kept trimesters, which the union insisted on scrapping. They have the diverse and advanced curriculum that the Department also got rid of. It's what one expects from a union and government department full of cronies I suppose.
4) The schools lack a voucher style system, which rewards schools who can attract students, but attaching funding per student, but allowing total freedom to move from school to school. If Bundah has education down pat, let them open another campus in place of a poorly performing school who can't retain students.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:16:17 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
Deep blue

"no"....they would definitely NOT befefit from a one size fits all school system.

It would be abused so badly by social engineers that we would end up as Zombies.

See Orwells 1984... it's more real than you think.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:16:20 PM
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
I have seen many, many poor teacher's, and the average teacher's wage is now very healthy indeed. It would be easy to offer less to poor teacher's, who are not sought after in the workforce, so the schools can offer more to the students who are sought after out of Uni. This doesn't happen.

To be sure, there are good teachers, and there are teachers who do it for the love of the job. But that is as true of sewage workers or plumbers. It does not mean they should get an artificially high wage, and the current salary structure definitely ensures payment above market value. Besides which, any sensible analysis of the behaviour of the teacher's union shows they are as self interested as the next union or group of employees. In the last union agreement some years ago they traded off the right to be paid for running extra curricula's for higher pay, and in response many (though not all) teachers stopped running as many EC's. They didn't care that their decision went against student interests, because there is nothing magical about being a teacher.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:21:29 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
"Drugs, poverty, mental health come as a result of being fatherless not the other way around."

So are we saying as well as the single mother is filling the prisons, they are also responsible for drugs, alcohol and mental illness. We should while we are at it, blame them for the dole bludgers, con men, the homeless and everyone else that annoys us. .

It might surprise you to know the causes mentioned are generally behind the breakup of the family in the first place.

Sorry, I do not have my head in the sand. Simple causes are generally that, simple and of no use.

I was forced to bring up my family on my own. I spent most of my life after I separated studying and looking for the reason for the situation I found myself. I also spent many years working in the field. There is one thing I learnt that there is no easy cause or solution. I also know that if there is not appropriate intervention, history will repeat itself. I also would like to point out the numbers of very young girls having babies has declined over the years. Most women had their children after either being married or in a stable relationship.

Most children with single mother’s have many other influences in their lives, such as uncles, grandfathers etc. This can be the one factor why they succeed.
Posted by Flo, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:35:14 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
Thank-you Al...your such a nice person, and I think I have you all wrong. Sorry....Iam not that all edjamaked...and don't understand much iam afraid. It was curious to think that the sky was the same for everybody, in Eurasia or Eastasia as well as here. And the people under the sky were also very much the same--everywhere, all over the world, hundreds or thousands of millions of people just like this, people ignorant of one another's existence, held apart by walls of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same--people who had never learned to think but were storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world." sounds a little religious...don't you think:)...fishing...one of great actives rarely seen by those that don't.

Thanks AL, your philosophies are out standing:) but watch out for the hypocritical gestures by some.....it never work out well for the fish:)..and noted.

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:36:19 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
why does anyone think we have to have a fair and intelligent system?

We have what we have after years of various governments trying to meet the disparate needs of the community. There was no intention I'm sure for anyone to be disadvantaged, however much some posters think there is some kind of plot afoot.

I came from a working class family, worked hard .. and now get this, I took risks big risks and they turned out OK, I could have failed, many do. My family supported me when I was working 90 hours a week for years .. now they enjoy the fruits of my labor and success. Should we all wear hair shirts because I improved myself?

Seems to me many who whine about inequality, are just covering up their own shortcomings by blaming someone else.

I wonder if many posters are parents who pursued personal hobbies and goals in their careers only to find out they don't get paid as well as others and now are bitter about their life choices.

I worked hard to be successful and resent the implication that somehow I'm privileged.

If you want more for your kids, you should have studied and worked harder, harsh, but that's the truth many of you refuse to accept.

You want people like me brought down to your level, when you could have worked harder to be successful.

Perhaps instead of doing bugger all to improve yourselves you could have done more .. did you seek my advice on your career? No, but now you want to comment on the fruits of mine.

The circumstances of your life, are your problem, not mine .. I'm happy for my taxes to be used to prop you up, let's leave it at that, your taxes do not prop up my family.

You are responsible for your place in life, it is not luck, it is hard work, or the lack of it that separates people.

I look at successful people and see hard workers, I look at the whiners and see bitter people who made poor choices.
Posted by rpg, Friday, 4 February 2011 8:41:10 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
Blue, try to find something to be happy about, it feels better....Why!:) RPG has just worded all just so well:) I read a book once called...from the ground up:) I didn't quite get it:)

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:04:25 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
I think the article pays way too much attention to what Janet Albrechtson (a well known John Howard apologist) thinks on this issue. The increased public funding for "private" schools that Howard brought in has absolutely failed - by Howard's own criteria - as Howard said that the increased public funding would cause private schools to reduce fees. As private schooling is a "positional good" - like gold watches, boats, jet skis - of course the private school's response has been to increase fees, to maintain their exclusive status. The increased public funding has therefore proved to be a complete waste of public money, another form of middle class welfare. Clearly school funding needs to be clawed back from the wealthier private schools and re-allocated to the most disadvantaged public schools and students. This will advantage all taxpayers, by ensuring the students who benefit later lead productive lives, with the added benefit of a smaller prison population of illiterates. Incidently, the other reason Howard always gave for these inequitable school funding arrangements was to increase parent's ability for school "choice" - public subsidies have not increased choice anyway (private schools are more out of reach than ever for most people). And the mantra about "choice" has always incensed me anyway: should I subsidise someone's taxi fares because they don't want to travel on Sydney's hot trains? What is school choice anyway - as private schools will not take any student - many parents have no choice - I personally know of a Catholic school that refused to accept an autistic child into Kindergarten (so much for Christian charity anyway)....
Posted by Johnj, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:26:25 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
I don't believe that the current public/private school systems really benefit enough children at all.

If we had a two-tiered public system where schools in the first tier babysat all those 'troubled', 'demanding' and 'apathetic' children who really don't want to learn at all, until they were old enough to leave school.

In the other tier, we would have schools that only catered for those kids who really want to learn and work hard, regardless of their academic ability or their parent's incomes.

Then we wouldn't have the current problem of kids wanting to learn being distracted by those who don't- regardless of the school they go to.

We can do without religious distractions in any school too. Schools should be places of learning, and not waste time with holy theories.
Those that want that type of indoctrination should go to their own places to worship their God.
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 4 February 2011 10:24:47 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
Much of this argument centres on acheiving 'equality of outcomes' and makes the assumption that this is good or even acheivable. Neither assumption is particularly valid. There seems to be this quaintly naive belief that if we work hard at social adjustment we can remove disadvantage and acheive equality of outcomes. It is no wonder that we spin our wheels so often with maximum effort and obtain no traction. This 'equality of outcome' dream is a utopian fantasy - a waste of time. Anyone with more than 2 children can tell you that the same advantage, the same effort can often produce wildly different outcomes. Why should education somehow be expected to be the great equaller when nothing else can?

Before we have any hope of improving our education system and finding a compromise solution to the private/public debate we have throw away some of these ridiculous utopian goals and find some acheievable yet still equitable ones to replace them.

Private schools save the government many billions of dollars. That isnt in dispute. Some elite schools clearly dont deserve or have any arguable need to public money. But that example cant be used to drive the debate. The vast majority of private students are in low-to-medium fee schools where parent go without to give their children the education they want.

A question that is rarely, if ever asked is would public education improve if public funding was increased by say 30%. I personally doubt it very much. The infrastructure would improve, teacher salaries would improve but would the outcomes? I am of the opinion that superior educational outcomes come from superior teachers. Superior teachers are bred and thrive in superior schools. Superior schools are built by motivated and passionate educators and supported by committed parents. Almost none of that exists in our public schools and virtually none of it is obtained by mere money. The argument that educational outcomes are a function of the money thrown at them is dubious and misleading at best and usualy just plain wrong.
Posted by longweekend58, Saturday, 5 February 2011 12:24:27 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
Flo,
Are you suggesting that all children that live with single mothers are disadvantaged or deprived?

No, not all children.

Normally about 50%.

80% will be welfare dependant, and up to 25% will become homeless at some point.

Those are the normal statistics for a number of countries.

The majority of disadvantaged children do come from single parent families, and it is interesting that I have never once heard any academic in Australia speak positively about marriage.

Yet they complain about disadvantaged children.

longweekend58
“A question that is rarely, if ever asked is would public education improve if public funding was increased by say 30%.”

There would be no improvements in student outcomes.

There are already public schools that have more facilities and more equipment than the students know what to do with, and there are public schools that are built so strongly they are used in the town as cyclone refuge centers, but the student marks are mediocre.

Curriculum, teaching methods and teacher attitudes are the main determinants of student outcomes.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 5 February 2011 5:30:37 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
The private v public debate is generally unproductive as rational-debate says.

It seems fair that govt funding to private schools is less per pupil than public schools, but it would be better if there were greater scrutiny so private schools that run surpluses are means tested annually, or not super-advantaged, or both.

It is better that areas of need, such as remedial needs, and support for disability and disadvantaged students, be addressed.

As well as teacher support and education.

My experience is NSW public schooling is generally markedly improving and a benchmark for other states - [Hasbeen, Fri 4 Feb 11:53:00am].

Attempts to standardise education across the states nationwide are to be applauded, and friends and country) feel this is happening there.

Hope this happens in Queensland that seems to have its public schools frequently criticised.

The reality is Australian public education is one of the best in the world, and it is getting better.

NSW Dept Ed is the worlds biggest single education provider and it is a benchmark (and I do not work for them, the public service or the NSW Labour Party - I am not an Aust citizen, so do not vote)
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 5 February 2011 6:30:59 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
correction - Attempts to standardise education across the states nationwide are to be applauded, and friends *and relatives in Western Australia (including teachers, city & country)* feel this is happening there.
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 5 February 2011 6:33:26 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
McReal
Teachers are already supposedly qualified when they become teachers, and they then have access to numerous courses they can do to increase their qualifications.

As for teaching disadvantaged students, very little success has ever been achieved by any government in any country by throwing money at the problem of disadvantaged students.

In fact, the UK situation can be reached, where more government money is now spent on UK children than the OECD average, while UK children are below OECD average in everything measured by the OECD.

The common theme as presented by teachers and their union is “Give us more and more and more taxpayer funding”

What they don’t say is how they intend to spend that funding, or what systems of accountability they will put in place
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 6 February 2011 12:57:54 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
"The majority of disadvantaged children do come from single parent families, and it is interesting that I have never once heard any academic in Australia speak positively about marriage."

Maybe because they do not see marriage through your rose colour glasses.

I still query your figures. A few sources would not go amiss.

Most families in Australia receive welfare of one sort or another.

What you ignore when throwing figures around is what leads to single parent families. Yes, I agree a single mother is certainly likely to earn less, but this has more to do with the market place. Most single parent families were two parent families at sometime.

I say very clearly once again, single parent families are a symptom, very rarely the cause of disadvantage children.

The difference today and the past is that parents do not stay together because they cannot afford to separate. Children and many mothers suffered shockingly, often behind closed doors.

Whatever I or others say, you will not move from your position that single mothers, mostly victims are responsible for all the disadvantaged children in the community.
Posted by Flo, Sunday, 6 February 2011 1:45:16 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
Flo, speaking to Vanna, <"Whatever I or others say, you will not move from your position that single mothers, mostly victims are responsible for all the disadvantaged children in the community."

You hit the nail right on the head there Flo :) Vanna rarely gives authentic sources for his wild accusations!

If there are disadvantaged children out there living full time with their single mothers, then I wonder where their Daddies are?

Could it be they deserted the mummies when the going got tough or a younger woman fluttered their eyelashes at them?

So, who is most responsible for the dire financial straits some of these one-income single-parent families are in, mummy or daddy?

No one really knows because all situations are different, and people like Vanna who stand outside looking in at a family situation really have no idea at all.

A good education is the only way the children of some of these shattered families have of breaking the cycle of poverty.
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 6 February 2011 4:33:02 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
We have the usual unsupported and inaccurate claims about education and teachers: e.g., that the UK is below the OECD average in achievement on “everything” (Vanna); that teachers and their unions don’t say how they would spend the extra money that they seek (Vanna); that grammar and classics have been eliminated from schools (Riddler Got Away); that teacher pay is “very healthy” (Riddler Got Away); that principals can’t pick their own teachers (Riddler Got Away).

The OECD 2009 PISA results show that the UK’s performance in reading is 494 and the OECD average is 493, so the UK’s children are not “below everything measured by the OECD”.

The Victorian AEU website should lead to submissions to the government on education spending, which include where the money should go; e.g., the smaller classes which improve learning, which has been supported by the research evidence for more than 30 years, and to undo some of the pay cuts teachers have suffered over the past 35 years to attract and retain able people as teachers.

The English courses of any school I taught in had grammar in them. The VCAA website, has Classics courses for VCE.

Male average weekly ordinary time earnings were $1343.90 ($70,123 pa) in August of last year, according to the ABS. In 1975, after seven years, a teacher reached the top of the unpromoted scale and was paid 166.6 per cent of MAWOTE - $116,825 now.

The new top level, which now takes ten years to reach, now pays $81,806 – a relative cut of $35,019 or 30 per cent. To put it another way, an eleventh-year-out teacher needs a 42.8 per cent salary increase to restore his or her salary’s relative value to that of an eighth-year-out teacher 33 years ago.

Victoria phased local selection in from the mid-80s.

Anyone wanting a comprehensive account of education in Victoria over the last 20 years can go to <a href=http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/462500.aspx>Don’t Give Up - the Eternal Battle</a>. Warning: it contains specific facts and evidence, so is best avoided by those who thrive on mere assertion.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 6 February 2011 5:15:55 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
Flo and Suxanonline.
Type into a search engine “single parent families + disadvantaged children” and seek the information for yourself.

Why is it that education programs in schools rarely reduce the number of disadvantaged children in society?

De facto relationships are the No1 cause of single parent families, eventually leading to disadvantaged children, and education programs in schools rarely reduce the number of de facto relationships.

The UK is a good example, where they had lots of special education programs for disadvantaged children in schools, but the number of children born outside of marriage increased, and subsequently the number of single parent families increased, and subsequently the number of disadvantaged children increased.

I’m sure most teachers in Australia know about this as well, but it doesn’t stop them for saying that there should be lots of special education programs for disadvantaged children in schools.

Chris C,
If teachers want smaller class sizes, then they don’t get as much money, because they have less to do and less responsibility.

If they get more money for teaching less children, it could become like a subsidised farmer in France earning a very good income with only 5 cows, a few chickens, a small barn and only a few acres of land.

But it does sound very much like black-mail that is occurring. Give us more money, or we will not teach your children, even though we are being employed to teach your children.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 6 February 2011 7:00:09 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
The best asset any school has is their teachers - quality of teaching staff matters more than any amount of money thrown at new technology or ovals and school halls.

The most disadvantaged demographic needs the highest quality teachers if there is to be any chance. Like Riddler, I have seen such stupid purchases in Canberra Schools instead of directing the money to it's best assets - teaching staff particularly in early intervention.

The real issue is a much bigger picture - teacher training. Why do potential teaching students require a lower University entrance score than lawyers - an over supplied and overpaid profession if ever there was, raise the salaries of teachers, raise the standard of entry and some of the problems in education will be solved. Many teachers in my experience tend to mill like sheep, following the current new trends so as not to be seen as a luddite or old fashioned, without using their intellectual abilities to distinguish the B*S.

It is no wonder many parents go to private schools. We did for our oldest for various reasons and while the education was better I am not sure it was 'value' for money as recent reports reveal the cost of private education is way over inflation in some schools.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/back-to-school/parents-bear-the-burden-of-surging-private-fees-20110122-1a0jq.html

I am happy for some funding to private schools but it should be needs based.

Why not address the elephant in the room - improve the standard of public schools and get back to pushing respectful behaviours and discipline to reduce disadvantage in poorer schools. If the lot of public schools was improved there would be less movement out of them.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 6 February 2011 7:03:19 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
Vanka <"Type into a search engine “single parent families + disadvantaged children” and seek the information for yourself."

I couldn't be bothered at this stage Vanka, because this thread is about public schools versus private school funding, and not the 'evils' of single mothers and defacto relationships.
But you go ahead, by all means.

Pelican hit the nail on the head by saying that we need to vastly improve public schools all round, if we want to stop the 'bleeding' of students from these schools to private schools.

I very much doubt most parents would waste money sending their kids to private schools if they could get an equally good 'free' education in the public system.

The problem still remains however, that there are more kids going to public schools who are just there because the law says they must.

Maybe we need separate 'schools' for troublemakers so that the other kids can learn in a more supportive environment?
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 6 February 2011 9:57:04 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
There are to good reasons to stop arguing about public vs private schools. The first is that education of students in private schools costs taxpayers 30%-70% less than educating them in public schools. That frees up an awful lot of money to spend on public schools, and given the current government's money woes, it'd be plain silly to dis parents' contributions to their kids' education. Second, private schools enable parents to exercise choice. That creates a healthy competition between public and private institutions. Public schools which don't deliver a good education will bleed students to better managed private institutions, while private schools need to deliver better outcomes because if they don't they'll bleed students into the cheaper public system. Board of Studies bureaucrats need to face some penalty for poor performance, and that's what private schools do. It's a good system as it stands, and making it more 'uniform' can only reward Public Service dills. Or, as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Posted by donkeygod, Sunday, 6 February 2011 10:53:22 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
Vanka you gave the figures, not me. They are of no value unless you can source them, making your arguments feeble.
Others are right in saying this is not what the thread is about, except that government have the responsibility to educate all children.
As far as eduction is concerned it matters little how they became disadvantaged. What is important for many, education is a way out of the poverty trap.
I do not think you are interested in the children but in pushing your belief on how people who do not endorse your belief in marriage are responsible for all societies ills.
Yes, private schools do take on some disadvantage children but only those they consider worthy or deserving.
I believe we have a very high standard system of schooling in this country.
I believe that parents move away from the public system for many reasons. Many have allowed them selves to mistakenly believe owing to the concentrated efforts of the MSM and the Opposition that public schools are inferior. Other reasons are that parents want to control what the children learn and keep them isolated from general society. Others do it for snobbish reasons. Some believe the children will benefit when they enter the workforce. Sadly there could be some truth in this reason, as some employers are also snobs.
I believe that the government has a responsibility to supply appropriate education for all. Those who are not happy with this have the freedom to move to the private system, but they should not expect the government to pay for their choice
Posted by Flo, Monday, 7 February 2011 4:53:30 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
Flo,
"I believe that the government has a responsibility to supply appropriate education for all."

Well the latest system being used in the UK is to reduce welfare payments to single parent mothers when the child starts going to school, and to spend the money more directly on the child at the school, (and the school is a public school).

So the father is eliminated, and the mother is eventually eliminated, and teachers and the state now control the child.

The child is not much more than a ward of the state, and it would be the ultimate of public education.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 7 February 2011 6:25:18 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
Be careful of the word Public school in the UK. Over there public school means private school.
Posted by a597, Monday, 7 February 2011 7:25:11 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
Be aware of the word public school in Australia. Here it means state religion indoctrination centre.
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 7 February 2011 9:51:39 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
vanna

I have no idea where you are coming from or what your problem is. Where is it being said that the education system takes control of children.
Posted by Flo, Monday, 7 February 2011 1:25:48 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
Flo,

Of course the education system takes control of children.
They are barely out of nappies these days before they are institutionalised for indoctrination into consumer society.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 7 February 2011 1:48:27 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
I think ChrisC addressed most of what longweekend58 had to say, however I'll have a go anyway:
- no sensible person argues about "equality of outcomes" as a goal of education- agreed, children have different potentials, and I agree that any parent with 2 children will tell you they have different personalities, interest and passions - I know of one family with two boys, one is a budding scientist; his brother is teaching tap dance and about to start a year of ballet training. Who is to say which brother is "better", though one is more academically talented.
Education's goal should be to ensure each child reaches their potential (whatever that may be for each individual), and that they are assisted with obstacles (like dyslexia for example) that might otherwise stop them reaching their potential.
In the case of disabled children, a good education may make the difference between a future on welfare (on a disability pension) or, alternatively, being able to perform a simple paid job of some kind and participate in society. It is lot more important to society (economically and on other criteria) to put more effort into education for disabled children to get better outcomes for them, than to put a lot of effort into making sure already bright middle class children get an 10 extra marks in their final year high school results.
The AEU argues that more funding needs to go to resources for disabled children, as well as children from disadvantaged backgrounds - you can check their website to see where they want extra funding to go - it's no mystery.
As for the assertion that superior teachers only inhabit private schools - well where did the private schools got these superior teachers from? They got them from public schools, by offering higher salaries. There are a number of well known examples in Sydney where talented principals of selective schools have been poached by nearby private schools with better salary offers.
Posted by Johnj, Monday, 7 February 2011 3:47:55 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
Johnj
I disagree somewhat.

If by disabilities you mean physical or mental disabilities such as severe autism or Down’s syndrome, there is no cure, and most of these children cannot participate in a normal school setting.

If schools intend to cater for impoverished children through early intervention, then such programs have little use. I can’t find the link now but one Australian study found that any gains made by a student through early intervention programs tend to wear off by about the age of 7.

Most of these poor children are coming from single parent families, and these children tend to become single parents themselves, and the system of living on welfare goes on and can also extrapolate, and the current situation in the UK is a good example, where 30% of children are now regarded as being impoverished, in the 4th richest country on the planet.

When teachers talk of “Government spending” they are talking of “taxpayer funding”, and many taxpayers have already spoken by taking their children out of the public school system.

From what I have seen of teachers in the public school system, I would be doing exactly the same.

It is not the school buildings or lack of facilities or lack of equipment. Quite often a public school has much more than the private school down the road.

Ultimately it is the attitude of the teachers and their union that is the problem.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 7 February 2011 7:40:37 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
Vanna
I was referring to children with mental disabilities such as autism (sorry I should have clarified). Yes - autism and Down's syndrome have no "cure". However, you are incorrect in saying that "most of these children cannot participate in a normal school". In NSW most of these children (except the most severely disabled) are in mainstream public schools. According to the AEU 80% of children with disabilities are educated in public schools. There would be more specific NSW information on this issue in a 2010 NSW parliamentary enquiry report here: www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/BD30607CCEED0133CA25776200264698
A child I know, who is disabled due to a rare genetic condition, has just completed the NSW HSC (over 3 years instead of 2 due to his disabilities) and scored between 60% and 66% for all his subjects. He is now studying at TAFE. All due to the wonderful western Sydney high school he attended.
My own daughter, who has high functioning autism, attends our local public high school. Her teachers are wonderful, though public schools do differ from one area to another, largely on the basis of area socio economic status. So far, after 9 years engagement with the NSW public school system, as a parent of a child with autism, I have had few negative experiences with teachers.
It is easy for people to generalise and bash public school teachers and the public school system generally: but sometimes the critics are people who have no recent experience with the public school system (sometimes complaining because they had some bad experience in a public school 30 years ago, clearly irrelevant now).
Meanwhile scandals at private boarding schools involving a level of abuse attracting criminal prosecutions are usually reported just once in the media, and then glossed over....
Posted by Johnj, Monday, 7 February 2011 8:43:53 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
JohnJ

Physical ailments such as high functioning autism are not the same as sever autism, and high functioning autism is actually quite common.

My experiences with the education system are very current, up to and including a daughter who has recently completed 12 years of school in a public school system. Throughout she only liked one teacher only (a chemistry teacher) out of all the teachers she had in those 12 years.

My experiences also extend to quite a number of P&C meetings and I was actually a member of a teachers group (QSITE) for some time.

Quite frankly, the teachers want to do as little as possible while grabbing as much money from the taxpayer as possible, and you can guarantee that if they are given money, they will spend as much as possible on imports from another country without the slightest conscience in the matter, and while spending their taxpayer funding they will use the public as a scapegoat for everything they can, while hiding as much as possible from the public as they can.

I think that covers it in a few sentences.
Posted by vanna, Monday, 7 February 2011 9:11:33 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
Vanna,

One shouldn't write off high-functioning autism as if it's hardly a challenge at all.
Although these children are not severely disabled, there are many challenges for them within a classroom and schoolyard environment.
Seemingly so close to neuro-typical children, often expectations in both behaviour and sensory compliance are way above the coping ability of these children.
High-functioning autistic children and those diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome who succeed in the school environment are a credit to themselves, their parents and their teachers.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 7 February 2011 10:34:43 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
Poriot
I have seen children who would have had a form of autism, who were severely bullied by teachers in a public school.

Most children with autism are male, and I have also seen feminist teachers in public schools with a totally dismissive attitude towards all male students.

In a private school, the parent has a much better chance that they can make a complaint about the teacher’s behavior, and that complaint will be acted on.

“a credit to themselves, their parents and their teachers”

One of the most noticeable characteristics of principals and teachers in the public school system, is that, if a student does well, they will say that this is because of the school and the teachers.

If the student does badly, they will say that this is because of the parents or the student.

They are some of the greatest con artists and excuse makers in the country, and they are allowed to be this way because of minimal accountability in the education system.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 6:37:19 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
“Quite frankly, the teachers want to do as little as possible while grabbing as much money from the taxpayer as possible..”
I think that covers it in a few sentences."
No Vanna all that it covers is your perception of your experience with the education system.

My experience is different. I am 69 years old. I was educated in both the Catholic and Public system. I attended eleven schools, city, and country including two years of boarding.

My four children were educated in the same primary and secondary schools in a poor suburb of Sydney. I became a single mother after thirteen years in a violent marriage.

The support I had from most of those teachers and Principals was always of the highest quality. I participated in school activities such as Mothers Club and actually was involved to the extent that for twelve months, I ran the school canteen.

My children during this time were very disturbed from the home life they endured. They were not the best-behaved children to teach. The teachers never gave up. As a result they are now today reasonably well-adjusted and successful adults.

I have kept my contact with schools through my grandchildren and great grandchildren. My observations are that the majority of teachers give all for the benefit of children.

I have also observed in the last couple of years, the schools being bought into the twenty-first century as far as resources go.

Interaction with the education system is a two way street. I met during my long involvement with schools, many parents that no one could please. Many who blamed the schools for their own children’s behaviour. Many parents who believed their children could do no wrong. Many parents who did not take responsibility for their own children’s actions.

I am not saying I did not come across bad teachers or Principals, I did.

What I am saying that the picture of government schools not being up to the grade is very much misplaced
Posted by Flo, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 7:38:06 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
Vanna,

I agree with about the bullying of high-functioning autistic children, both from teachers and other students.
Many of these children are undiagnosed or diagnosed late - and unfortunately a label in this situation is necessary for the extra care and understanding needed.
My son is high-functioning autistic and our experience was a bit of both. Although he was undiagnosed at the time, he attended kindergarten and pre-school and had two fantastic teachers both of those years in the public system. His grade 1 teacher, however, was of the opposite mind and wasn't intending to give him an inch. He attended briefly before I pulled him out for homeschooling which, I'm pleased, to say has worked out wonderfully for us.
There is much grief endured by high-functioning autistic children and their families in attempting to conform to the education system - having said that, those who do make a success of it (children, parents and teachers), should be commended and their dedication recognised.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 8:24:56 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
Vanna,

I repeat: the research evidence is that smaller classes improve student learning. If you go the other way and increase class sizes, many able teaches will leave the system, while those who stay will reduce their effort per child in order to retain their overall work-life balance. Thus, students will be worse off for two reasons.

Pelican,

The reason potential teachers require a lower university entrance score than potential lawyers is that university entrance works on supply and demand. The courses in more demand will have higher entrance scores than the courses in low demand. To increase the entrance scores for teacher training requires either a reduction in teacher training places (with the consequence that there would not be enough teachers) or the restoration of teacher pay and conditions to what they were decades ago in order to attract the sort of able people who went into teaching decades ago. Of course, the later mean society as a whole has to reject the teacher-bashing nonsense spouted by the Vannas of the world, who persistently refuse to deal in facts; e.g., the fact that smaller classes improve learning (Tennessee STAR study), the fact that teacher pay has fallen dramatically (by $35,019 in 36 years), the fact that Victorian secondary schools are worse staffed today then they were 30 years ago (10.9:1 in 1981, 11.9:1 on the most recent figures).
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 1:28:34 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
Chris C, Pelican et al:

<<I repeat: the research evidence is that smaller classes improve student learning.>>

Chris, I agree but the wisdom currently in vogue is the opposite. The Australian College of Educational Research seems to be accepted by governments as the font of wisdom, and when I last looked the conclusion the ACER has reached is that class-size is not a factor in the academic progress of students. They are pushing the "quality of the teacher/teaching" as the only key.

<<To increase the entrance scores for teacher training requires either a reduction in teacher training places (with the consequence that there would not be enough teachers) or the restoration of teacher pay and conditions to what they were decades ago in order to attract the sort of able people who went into teaching decades ago.>>

When Gough Whitlam's drive pushed up the teacher salaries considerably over a few years in the 1970s the status and enthusiasm of teachers soared. It might be nice if we could pursue education as a vocation only, rather than a source of material gain. But the reality is that it needs to be a mixture of both.

I started with my first class in 1970 on a salary of $3008 -- even allowing for the difference in monetary value over the 40 years, that was pretty poor in the socio-economic scale. If the pay had not improved greatly over the next few years I could never have continued in the game. But now the relative pay-rate has gone back to the poor status it used to be.
Posted by crabsy, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 2:05:01 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
Chris C
The increase in standard entry levels would have to accompanied by an increase in salary to attract good candidates as I mentioned in my previous post. I agree it will only exacerbate the problem if the entry level was raised and the salaries remained low. Supply and demand is not the only measure of entry - we need more GPs but I would shudder to think the conditions of entry would be lowered to attract medical students.

crabsy is right IMO, the love of teaching (or any 'giving' profession) is paramount but the mix of salary/vocation has to be right.

Naturally quality of teachers is not the only issue. There is also issues of class size (really important), lack of teacher supports in the early intervention area and too much interference from the bureaucracy at times some odd 'new fangled' ideas that are more career aspirational in line with current trends, many not adding any real value.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 2:38:27 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
Chris, Chris, Chris. On the one hand, you concede supply and demand means teachers are not in high demand, and on the other that we should pay them artificially high wages? Every profession thinks they're special, the reality is that teaching is no more or less important than most other professions, be it a carpenter, electrician or sewage worker, and shouldn't get an artificially high salary. The problem is not a lack of money, it's a poor allocation of that money, and an idiotic and obstructionist union full of hacks. The sooner the Education Union is crushed the better we'll all be.

When the UK introduced comprehensive education, the system became worse, and less equitable. I don't really know or care how some politically devised mechanic compares them to a diverse group of countries like the OECD, because to know they're sucking all I have to do is look at the before and after, personified by Northern Ireland. You see, NI stuck with the system the UK used to have when it was abolished on the mainland (though in name, they've supposedly abandoned some of it) and the result is that the second level schools in NI are actually beating UK students overall, an incredible turnabout, in a country which has a comparable system and students.

I don't care if teacher pay is lower than it used to be, that just means it was too high to begin with! And the amounts listed are way too high for a profession which has so little demand, and which so resists change and accountability.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 4:41:31 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
By the by, since you accuse me of being inaccurate, can you tell me which part of what I said is inaccurate? Classics & Grammar have been killed off in schools, Principals don't get to select their own teachers, and teacher pay is very healthy. If you're going to throw stuff like that out there, it'd be nice if you could back it up.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 4:51:51 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
I should clarify (even though it'll eat up my 3rd post of the day).
1) The amounts of money you listed are very generous. They compare very well to the average salary.
2) Victoria is not where we were talking about, which is Australia as a whole (and Canberra specifically in my post), and the fact that classics courses "exist" is hardly an argument against the fact that both grammar and classics have been almost wholly phased out of schools.
3) Likewise, local selection is not a reality in most schools in Australia, and certainly not in Canberra, where Tom is from. I confess not to know of this scheme (your link doesn't work btw), but knowing how the Teacher's Union works I am very sceptical it in any way refutes what I've said, you can't refute a trend with an outlier.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 4:58:15 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
Poriot,
I am quite aware of high functioning autism, and quite aware of the difficulties and frustrations for someone with that ailment. I am also very concerned when people start talking about having a two-tier system at public schools. It becomes easier and easier to place someone into the second tier and then forget about them, while all resources go to the students in the first tier.

In our extremely feminist system, I am left with absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of students placed into the second tier would be boy students. Many of these boy students might be having difficulties, but those difficulties are ignored and they are classified as trouble makers.

In fact I have never once heard a teacher in a public school make any positive comment regards boy students in general.

I have heard everything from boys are “lazy” to boys are “disruptive” to boys are “immature”. But I have never once heard a teacher in a public school make one positive comment about boy students.

I would be left with absolutely no doubt that teachers would immediately place boys into the second tier, whether the boys should be there or not.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 7:13:18 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
Vanna,
A friend who is a teacher at a public boy's high school in Sydney, often praises his "boys". When I last saw this teacher friend, he told me about a wonderful, compassionate, intelligent prefect (a boy from a Sudanese refugee family). It's just not true that teachers put down boys all the time. However, teachers are also not blind to the age-related developmental differences between girls and boys - my teacher friend notes that my daughter with high functioning autism has a similar (lack of) organisational skills as his boys of the same age, whereas her girl's school demands a much higher level of organisational skills (which she of course struggles with). However, the boys catch up later anyway - boys are not permanently behind the girls. If they were, how come boys generally land better jobs than comparable girls after the school years?
On teacher salaries, I recently returned from a trip to the Phillipines - the average wage in the city I was in was about $1200 pesos a week (according to the taxi drivers). A Phillipino friend earns $2500 pesos a week as a high school teacher - this is more than double the average weekly wage.
They really value their teachers in the Phillipines, don't they? I think it's because they all know that education is the best route out of poverty.
Posted by Johnj, Tuesday, 8 February 2011 9:24:07 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
Johnj
You can find a published article that has been written by a teacher in Australia that says something positive about boys as a group.
I have actually searched quite extensively, and I have found almost nothing.

I remember hearing a teacher at a P&C meeting condeming boys as being "lazy" when the whole school was built by males.

Teachers are taught to believe that boys are "immature" at teacher's training college, but I have actually searched quite extensively, and I have yet to find a scientific paper that says that boys are immature, or less mature than girls. It is myth only.

If someone has the money, they simply send their children to a private school.

There are far too many con artists and feminists in the public schools to risk your children by sending them to a public school.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 5:37:46 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
crabsy,

John Hattie has done extensive research on the factors that improve learning. He does not rate class sizes as the most important, but he does say a smaller class will give a nine-month advantage over a larger class. It is in the interest of the IPA et al to argue the opposite because of their ideo-illogical attachment to small government, though the remain silent when private schools charge more than $20,000pa in fees – no cries of “provider capture” arise then.

Pelican,

The conditions of entry for medical students would be lowered if demand for medical places fell. It’s all automatic.

Riddler,

I backed up what I said. I’ll quote what I posted:

“The English courses of any school I taught in had grammar in them. The VCAA website, has Classics courses for VCE.”

“The new top level, which now takes ten years to reach, now pays $81,806 – a relative cut of $35,019 or 30 per cent.”

“Victoria phased local selection in from the mid-80s.”

The fall in teacher pay has been accompanied by a fall in entry scores for teacher training. (You can see Andrew Leigh’s work for details.) Reversing the pay decline would reverse the decline in entry scores and thus increase the average ability of people training to be teachers. That teacher pay is slightly above average rather than much above average, as it was three decades ago, is one reason that the ability of those becoming teachers has fallen.

The link was about education in Victoria, not teacher selection. It does not work because the name got added to the address. Try http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/462500.aspx.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 2:26:41 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
Um, you haven't really answered anything, so I'm assuming you missed my add on posts (though I don't know how, they were right underneath)

1) Grammar and classics are now barely taught. Whether a classics course exists really doesn't tell us anything about how little they're taught does it? And I don't know what you mean by grammar being taught still, but it's simply untrue, actual grammar classes have been almost totally phased out. If you disagree, give me some evidence, even if it is only specific to Victoria.
2) Teachers are well paid, the fact that pay has fallen 30% (we'll just take the AEU figures at face value for the moment), really has no bearing on that point. I realise you're having trouble keeping up, so I'll spell it out.
a) The average wage of a teacher is high relative to the average wage of workers.
b) The face it used to be that high means teachers were wildly overpaid, because
c) Teachers are not special, the job they do is not more valid as a form of employment than being a plumber of carpenter or sewage worker,
d) The salaries are also too high because they ignore the basics of supply and demand. Only in union land would a profession who has become much less essential be asking to be paid more (because there has been a steady move to the private sector).
I explained these points above pretty clearly, I'm not sure which parts exactly you're not following.

[Last part over 350 words long, might have to wait until I can make a new post...]
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 5:17:55 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
Your entry scores point shows you are confused. If the Govt gave an extra 30% salary to sewage workers or botanists, that would also increase the demand (and entry training/scores) for those things too. It's just not clear why that's desirable given we need less and less public school teachers (demand is falling). The union just has no credibility on these issues, since their advice has invariably led to poor results. You claim that the teacher standard will rise, yet to hear the AEU talk, the standard is already great, and teacher's are doing a fine job, that they are civic minded individuals who teach for the love of their jobs, etc (this is the argument always trotted out to defend their performance). But now you conversely claim that teacher quality will improve if we offer them more money? I thought that wasn't an issue. And if it is, why can't we introduce a vouchers model, or flexible working hours, or have teacher feedback mechanisms that they're accountable for. Why can't teacher pay be based on something other than tenure? These things would do far more to improve quality. But the AEU tells us that the current teachers (who didn't require higher scores or tougher training) are absolutely fine, none need to be fired, and in fact they deserve a 30% bump in wages... if that's the case, why would quality go up, when the current system has apparently produced the best teachers? In which case, why spent 30% more when there will be no tangible benefit? That's the problem with the AEU narrative, it's not consistent.

3) My experience with the Australian education sector has been that teacher selection is almost completely non-existent. If it's different in Victoria, please provide the evidence of that, so we can see how many people this affects, etc, and what the conditions are.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 5:18:15 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
Riddler,

I have answered your points twice now. You just don’t accept the answer.

The evidence that grammar is taught is in the English courses of every school I taught in. I am unable to supply video evidence of lessons, so you are free to ignore my statement.

I make my own argument. The AEU can make its. The figures I gave are not AEU figures, but ones I calculated myself from public sources. The fall in relative teacher pay has been accompanied by a fall in entry scores for trainee teachers. If you are content for the average ability of teachers to fall, you would support this pay cut. If you want to increase the average ability level of teachers, you would want the pay decline reversed. I want more able teachers. Teacher training entry scores are for all teachers, not just those who end up inn public schools.

The evidence that teachers are locally selected in Victoria is all over the place. It is the standard method, so it affects everyone. It’s one of those things that should not need proving, like the non-flatness of the Earth. You can search at the DEECD website if you want proof.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 10 February 2011 12:14:42 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
How sad that the usual ideologues have hijacked this debate. Once again the argument is about "choice", plus the usual hackneyed jibes about "feminist" and "socialist" education in the state sector. Unfortunately Chris Curtis seems to be a lone sensible voice in the debate here.

I've yet to see a convincing argument here against the following, taken from the original article - in fact, many of those arguing here seem to be avoiding it entirely:

"Ultimately, education is not about parents, it’s about children. Children do not choose their parents or their parents’ income level or their attitudes to education. The circumstances we are each born into are purely a matter of chance. A fair and intelligent funding system should not reward good luck in the lottery of life but seek to mitigate against bad luck."

So, is this wrong? Who is going to argue that kids should have to "cop" the life they've been born with and that too bad if their parents won't make the effort to give them opportunities?
Posted by petal, Thursday, 10 February 2011 12:18:39 PM
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
If it is true that teachers salaries have been cut by 30% then all it proves is that they were massively overpaid in the past. Yet I dont accept this claim anyhow. There is no conceivable way that any profession would have had its pay cut by this amount without strikes etc.

Teachers are NOT underpaid. They are not paid huge money either but then again, why should they? They are paid above average salaries yet in the public sector are providing a poor return on that investment. The private sector pays a little more yet extracts vastly better outcomes from its teachers. I am of the firm (and growing) opinion that money is NOT the problem in the public sector but rather entrenched ideologies and union involvement that the private sector doesnt have.The only thing more money would give the public schools is smaller class sizes which have already been proven to not affect academic outcomes. In the end it ALWAYS boils down to the capacity and passion of the teacher. The private sector enhances it and the public sector crushes it. The best teachers dont get headhunted to private schools; they FLEE there. The lousy teachers stay in the public system because they cant get out.

My solution is this: outsource 100% of public schools to the private sector. let them run zero-fee public schools without the interference of the teachers union and the myriad other pressures and ideologies. Could they possibly do worse?
Posted by longweekend58, Thursday, 10 February 2011 12:46:01 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
I don't think I'm asking for much in the way of proof, "go look it up yourself" isn't much of a response. Just tell me what grammar classes in the town in Victoria you're from does... are they a sub-part of English classes, are they for all year groups, etc. I can assure you they don't have it in Canberra, and nor do they have many other parts of Australia.

Do you teach at a private school, a public school, or a selective school?

Likewise, I'll be happy to look later for this supposed teacher selection, but I don't see why someone who apparently teaches there can't tell me about it.

As to pay rates, this has been explained to you, and you've just ignored the answers above. There is obviously no reason to increase wages.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 10 February 2011 1:58:48 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
Riddler go look at Recruitment OnLine within the Victorian Ed Dept's website. You'll see plenty of schools advertising for teachers off their own bat.
Posted by petal, Thursday, 10 February 2011 2:40:11 PM
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
"But the AEU tells us that the current teachers ... are absolutely fine, none need to be fired, and in fact they deserve a 30% bump in wages... if that's the case, why would quality go up, when the current system has apparently produced the best teachers?"

Because their argument is that too many of these teachers are leaving the profession long before they should. They are being produced - it's just that they leave the profession very quickly.

Which should put paid to the other arguments being launched here - if teacher salaries are so good, why are too many good teachers leaving the profession for more lucrative opportunities outside of teaching?
Posted by petal, Thursday, 10 February 2011 2:44:49 PM
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
Maybe it has got something to do with the rights of students.
The teachers don't have rights, they are there to teach.
Whatever the students dish out the teachers have to wear it.
It could be put down to frustration, lack of satisfaction in the job.
One person against 20 or 30 students is bad odds.
Posted by a597, Thursday, 10 February 2011 2:57:24 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
That doesn't make sense. They make the least money when they first enter, and the most when they stay. The argument that awesome teachers are signing up for less money, then leaving for more, is incredibly disingenuous. What are they moving to? They just wanted to get 5 years of teaching in before they pursued their career as a corporate lawyer? Please.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 10 February 2011 3:38:49 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
This thread pretty much encapsulates the main arguments against private education in that there are none at all. Most of it has been spent talking about 'disadvantage' as though this were a new phenomenon and then about salaries as though that is a new thought!

What virtually no one has done or dared to comment on it the 'value-for-dollar' argument because it is emphatically undeniable that private schools offer both government and parents excellent value for money and significantly superior to that offered by public schools. And because that is undeniable the argument shifts to the murkier shadows of disadvantage and other areas to try and avoid the undeniable facts.

Many parents are going without or working two jobs to send their kids to private schools while some bogan parents make headlines by refusing to pay $200 to stick their 7 children through a public school. Why do they do that? Maybe the truth to this entire argument is that parents are voting with their feet and despite having to pay a lot of money they are choosing the expensive option over the cheap one because private schools offer so much more than state schools.

So suck it up people. Subsidised private school education is here to stay because any government that removed it or significantly reduced it would get massacred at an election and they know it. It was controversial when it was introduced and even more so when it was increased. Opponents claimed the world would end and just like with the GST, they were wrong and now it is considered a good policy and an indispensible way of running government. The same applies to private schools.
Posted by longweekend58, Thursday, 10 February 2011 3:52:28 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
What is school choice anyway - as private schools will not take any student - many parents have no choice - I personally know of a Catholic school that refused to accept an autistic child into Kindergarten (so much for Christian charity anyway)....
Posted by Johnj, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:26:25 PM

JohnJ - to what degree is their child autistic? There are varying degrees in autism. Public schools also recommend the Special Schools in capital cities for some children who display significant autistic characteristics that have been assessed and recommended to a special school environment as opposed to the public arena vulnerable to playground bullies and problems. A friend of mine teaches children who are autistic.

While we are on the subject, families desperately need funds for autism relating to research, education and more importantly, support and respite. I give to this organisation when fundraisers present themselves, yet I would like to assist in other ways.
Posted by weareunique, Thursday, 10 February 2011 11:14:06 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
Petal,

I try, but there are too many people who just pass on what someone has told them. If I give evidence for what I say, it is not accepted. More evidence is demanded, and this demand comes from those who do not supply any of their own.

Longweekend58,

I have quoted precise figures on teacher pay, so if my figures are wrong, perhaps you can do some research to give different figures.

Private schools do not attract “vastly better outcomes”. Private schools perform no better than public schools once socio-economic factors are taken into account. I have provided a long extract from the OECD findings on this matter at:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/maralynparker/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/trounced_by_china_and_on_the_way_down/

Research by John Hattie and the Tennessee STAR study shows that you are completely wrong to say that “smaller class sizes…have already been proven to not affect academic outcomes”. I have provided an explanation as to why small classes make a difference at the above link. Warning : it contains specific facts!

Small classes are not the only thing that more money would give schools. It could give them better-paid teachers, better equipment, better-stocked libraries, etc. It is fashionable to say that money does not make a difference. That is why it is also often described as being “thrown” at education. For years, I have been awaiting the outcry from the Institute of Public Affairs and its fellow travellers about “provider capture” and “throwing money at the problem” about private school fees. After all, it and others on the right decried expenditure of around a third of that amount on government school children in the early 1990s as “extensive over-staffing of teachers, inefficient work practices and ‘union’ capture of education expenditure” (IPA, Schooling Victorians, 1992) in order to soften up Victorians for the coming “slash and burn” Liberal Government. It remains silent now because it knows money does make a difference.

Riddler,

I don’t teach at any school. I left teaching four years ago.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 11 February 2011 9:17:09 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
Ok, I can't access that website, so I'll just content myself to saying what my original point was. One of the obstacles to good teaching currently is the absence of teacher choice by schools, and to the extent that it doesn't exist now (which is in most places) then that's a bad thing. The AEU doesn't agree with me, I suggest there are obvious reasons for that.

You haven't answered by point about classics and grammar, and it seems like you're mentally unable to follow the point about teacher pay. You keep quoting this figure claiming pay has gone down, and then act like that matters, even though it has been explained to you at great length why it doesn't. In related news, slave owner stock has plummeted in the last 200 years... is that a bad thing though?
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 11 February 2011 9:38:18 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
Riddler,

The website opens for me, so if it does not for you, I suggest you go to the Maralyn Parker Blog and look at the thread “The nation’s report card is G, for Going backwards”.

Just for fun, I’ll repeat the point I have made about grammar. It was taught in every school I taught in. If that’s not good enough for you, so be it.

Just for fun, I’ll repeat the point I have made about teacher pay. The decline in teacher pay has been accompanied by a decline in the ability of people entering teacher training as measured by entry scores. If society wants that decline in ability to continue, it will continue to cut teacher pay relative to the pay of other occupations. If it wants to increase the ability of people entering teaching, it will, among other things, reverse the decline in pay. Nowhere have you answered this point.

If there is evidence that one obstacle to good teaching is “the absence of teacher choice” by schools I’d like to see it. It is often asserted, usually by people who claim educational standards have fallen but who ignore the fact that the period from which the fall has allegedly occurred was the period on which the administration side of education was far more centrally controlled it is now, but never proved. My experience of teaching began in a system in which schools had no say in which teachers were appointed, yet the principals of the time seemed able to lead whomever they got to produce good education. They did not need to select their own staff.

The local selection in this state was brought in initially at the advocacy of the teachers union. I attended many meetings of the VSTA committee that helped devise it. It’s so long ago that there is probably nothing on the web I can to link to for the history of the matter.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 11 February 2011 2:05:34 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
Chris C. I simply dont get how you can make the ridiculous unsubstaniated allegation that teacher salaries have dropped 30%. That is sheer nonsense. Can you imagine the industrial action by any major group of salaried professionals in this country if their pay was cut by this huge amount? As parent of one teacher on $86,000 I struggle to imagine how she should be paid $115,000pa under your fantasy scenario. It simply DID NOT HAPPEN.

You are obviously ideologically opposed to private schools which is why you can up with some rather silly statements. The outcomes of private schools IS vastly superior to public schools and no amount of socio-economic levelling or other pseudo-statistical methodology will change that. When the vast majority of university entrants are privately educated, where most senior execs and community leaders such as MPs etc are privately educated them it is a bit hard to pretend otherwise.

This thread was about the FUNDING of private schools yet you have turned it into you own rant and rave about the worth of them and in the process revealing little more than your own ideological opposition.

If you want to argue against private schools try some REAL objections. By no measure has even your jaundiced assessment been able to counter the primary argument that private schools represent outstanding value for the public dollar. Around half the public money is spent educating private as against public students. Even ignoring the outcome issue, the decision is obvious. Private schools schould continue to be funded in similar fashion to that currently. To do otherwise would be economically foolish as it would cost government a fortune.

If you want to compose an actual rebuttal using AUSTRALIAN facts then go ahead, but it will be a little hard to do so when public students cost us twice as much as private ones.
Posted by longweekend58, Friday, 11 February 2011 2:33:54 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
"The outcomes of private schools IS vastly superior to public schools"

Evidence, please. Our two selective high schools in Victoria came top of the VCE results. State schools. Better than private schools results.

And please don't use the "but they are selective so they get the best" argument. Elite private schools do the same. And even with the massive fees parents have to pay at these schools, the kids at the free school up the road do better.

Your rubbery figures re schools funding have been disproven time and time again. An excellent site that shows this is http://www.saveourschools.com.au/

Anything the private school organisations try to tell you on this matter conveniently leave out tax breaks and grants.
Posted by petal, Friday, 11 February 2011 2:40:58 PM
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
First of all that website is no more than a highly selective, very biased site for a LOBBY GROUP. It is only considered valuable for people who cant tell the difference between analysis and lobbying. Every now and then a public school student tops the year 12 results and the predictable remarks come from people like yourself. Then for the intervening 5 years when 9 of the top 10 coem from private schools you are quiet. Social outcome studies have long recognised the superior life outcomes of private educated students. You dont have to like it and clearly dont, but that doesnt entitle you to ignore it.

But as previously stated, the argument is not even on OUTCOMES but on funding and in particular, value for dollar. Do you even dare to suggest that paying HALF as much to educate a private student as opposed to a public student is somehow BAD policy?

I have found that most opponents to government subsidy of private schools primarily employ side-argument, factually deficient positions or plain out fantasy posturing. So far you are covering all three. Keeping them on the primary argument proves difficult and sometimes impossible.

The principle argument in all of this is one of CHOICE. Parents should be allowed free choice in basic things like health and education and in both cases, 'private' saves the government money. And in both cases the outcomes are indisputably superior but cost the participant significantly more. With choice comes cost. You seem to be demanding that there be NO choice, because for a majority of parents, removing the subsidy would be exactly that.
Posted by longweekend58, Friday, 11 February 2011 2:55:41 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
Private schools are only good while the employment is ok.
Private schools are good for snot value.
Private schools are good for just that, it's up to you.
Ever increasing funding is wrong.
It will force the sale of public schools.
Posted by a597, Friday, 11 February 2011 3:00:59 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
longweekend58,

I asked you to provide the figures to show that my figures were wrong. You have not done so because you cannot. My figures are right.

Instead, you decide to make false claims about what I believe about private schools. I have never argued against private schools or funding them. I refer you to the following letter from me - the title of which I did not choose – to show that you are wrong again:

“UNTIL advocates of public education such as Jane Caro ("Schooled in denial of systemic, creeping apartheid", 25/1) face up to the reasons many parents choose private schools, the public system will continue to lose students. Imagine that the government gave out free cars and people rejected them in favour of ones that they had to pay extra for. You would have to conclude that the government free cars just weren't good enough….’
(“State schools not good enough’, The Sunday Age, February 1, 2009)
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/letters/state-schools-not-good-enough-20090131-7uen.html?page=-1
If you care to do some research instead of just making stuff up, you will see that while private school education does give students an advantage in university entry, it does not give them an advantage in success once there. The success of students at private schools is not due to the private schools. It is due to the students who go there. If you took the students from a high-performing private school and put them in an average government school, that government school would become high-performing. That does not mean there is not room for improvement in government schools there certainly is.

I have not turned the thread into anything. I have corrected false claims made by other posters. I have not expressed a single word of ideological opposition to private schools. I have pointed out what the evidence says.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 11 February 2011 4:56:34 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
Chris, Your post is still full of denial of some basic facts. BTW I notice you arent defending your ridiculous claim that teacher salaries have dropped 30%! Your claim about university performance is both true and yet at the same time still denying a basic fact: more private school students get there primarily because their educational performance is superior. The public students are also there because of their performance, but far less of them - thus also underlying the claim that as rule those public schools perform relatively poorly. In fact, university performance is a litmus test for exactly what I am saying.

I love this sentence: " If you took the students from a high-performing private school and put them in an average government school, that government school would become high-performing".

What total rubbish! I can speak as one of the hundreds of thousands of parents who moved their kids from public to private and saw their academic and general progress zoom ahead. The reason people take their kids there is precisely that! The notion that academic success is solely a function of the child's ability is rather naive and patently wrong. In fact if there is a defining function of success it is the TEACHER at least as important if not more so than the intellectual gifts of the child.

But yet I return to the argument that this thread is still mainly about FUNDING of private schools which you object to. You have still failed to give me any genuine reasons as to why you do! It is clearly and undeniably an economically good decision. The outcomes are superior and for a better price? what could be better? The model needs some refinement but thats part of life and refinement of good policy. But the principle of subsidising private schools is an intrinsically good and ultimately outstandingly successful one.
Posted by longweekend58, Friday, 11 February 2011 5:13:28 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
Chris, could you maybe respond to the actual arguments people are making? Just for fun?

I've told you that grammar has been phased out, and classics are barely taught, and your rebuttal is "they taught it at my schools". That's not an argument, it is as robust an intellectual position as me saying that cigarettes don't kill people, because my grandfather smoked every day and lived to be 100. Grammar is not a compulsory subject in schools (go look up the Dept websites yourself), and to the extent it is taught at all it's as a small part of general English classes. I charitably assumed this is what you meant when you said grammar was still taught in schools, and asked you whether it was taught as a subject, or a sub-set of English, and you did not give me a straight answer.

As others do here, I dispute teacher pay was that high (are you calculating in inflation or something?), but even if it was, you've been told why it's too high, and why it should not be that high. Do teachers really need 100K a year to do a good job? That's ridiculous, especially given the pay structure (another point that has been ignored).
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 11 February 2011 5:13:50 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
Petal, Chris, etc. If the public system is so awesome, why are parents leaving it? Why has it been bleeding students? It's disingenuous to look at outliers (a few selective schools) and conclude public education is doing awesome. If it's doing so well, why are parents leaving it?

And I laugh at anyone quoting save our schools, the refuge of 130 hippies who want to send their kids to Cook Primary, even though there are 10 other schools in area without enough kids.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 11 February 2011 5:18:27 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
Smaller classes in itself does not lead automatically to better education outcomes if the only aim is to make all classes smaller. In some schools, there could be many larger classes, that open up the opportunity for the school to provide individual or smaller classes for those who have special needs, whether they have physical, emotional or behaviour problems. I have never seen any private school, that in the interest of the children that attends their school, they intend making classes larger. For all their faults, the public system has to cater for all students, with a wide diversity of needs.
Posted by Flo, Saturday, 12 February 2011 9:23:59 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
longweekend58,

If you are going to make stuff up about people, you ought to do a little background checking. I’ll leave aside the fact that nowhere on this thread – or anyone else in my life - have I expressed any ideological opposition to private schools or to funding them. I know that there are lots of people who have no moral objection to putting words people have never said into their mouths, who are incapable of reading what has actually been written and who have an overwhelming desire to put everyone else in little boxes. However, if you intend to accuse someone of an ideological opposition to private schools and of objecting to the funding of private schools, you really ought not make the accusation against a former parliamentary candidate for the very party whose long, determined campaign won public funding of private schools in the first place. Doing so is, not only dishonest, but also damaging to your credibility.

Given that subsequent to my putting in black and white for you the fact that I am not opposed to private schools you made another post saying I was, I am quite ready for you to respond to this post by saying that I was not a candidate for the DLP and/or that the DLP did not fight for and win state aid. As there is a vast amount of information on the public record to support these facts, I don’t think it necessary to dig them up for you.

My intervention in this discussion was not about private schools, which I did not even mention in my first three posts. I mentioned them in my fourth post to make two points: that the better performance of private school students is not due to anything that private schools actually do (for which I gave a link to a quotation from the OECD); that the IPA is hypocritical for saying that spending money on government school children is a waste (for which I gave a source) but remaining silent when three times that amount is spent on private school children.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 12 February 2011 9:35:13 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
longweekend58,

If you claim that my figures on teacher salaries are wrong, you ought to present your own figures instead of blustering about how what happened could not have happened because there would have been strikes. I have fixed mistyped number after the decimal point, but it makes no difference to the argument.

In 1975, sub-division 12 teacher was paid $10,325 (The Secondary Teacher, No. 4, May, 1981). If this is wrong, you will be able to tell us the correct figure and your source. In 1975, this represented 150.5 per cent of male average ordinary time earnings (The Secondary Teacher, No. 4, May, 1981). If this is wrong, you will be able to tell us the correct figure and your source. In 1975, sub-division 14 teacher (the top unpromoted sub-division) was paid $11,400 (“Annual Gross Salaries for Teachers in Victorian Government Secondary Schools”, VSTA, 1988). If this is wrong, you will be able to tell us the correct figure and your source. If $10,325 is 150.5 per cent of MOTE, $11,400 is 166.2 per cent. If this is wrong, you will be able to tell us the correct calculation.

The current top unpromoted salary is $81,806 (Victorian Government Schools Agreement 2008). If this is wrong, you will be able to tell us the correct figure and your source. MAWOTE earnings were $1343.90 ($70,123 pa) in August of last year (ABS). If this is wrong, you will be able to tell us the correct figure and your source. 166.2 per cent of $70,123 is $116,554. If this is wrong, you will be able to tell us the correct calculation.

The difference between $116,554 (the 1975 salary equivalent) and $81,806 (the 2011 salary) is $34,738 (30 per cent). If this is wrong, you will be able to tell us the correct calculation.

To forestall your practice of claiming I am saying things I am not saying: I am not arguing that the salary should be returned to exactly $116,554, just that it ought to move in that direction.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 12 February 2011 9:35:36 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
Chris. I wish I could put into words how painful it is to read what passes for English in your posts, interminably repeating lame catch phrases, writing confusing and unenlightening paragraphs, and ignoring the tenor of what has been said by everyone else. You do the public school system no favours by acting as their advocate, with friends like you they have no need of critics like myself.

I will ask you for the last time to answer the points I have made in my earlier posts. Answer, or go away, but drop the patronising tone of your writing. I have no problem with arrogance when it is deserved, but you've only embarrassed yourself on this forum.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 12 February 2011 10:55:16 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
Chris, Your posts miss the point time and time again. Being a parliamentary candidate is irrelevant and of even less interest. Bottom line is, your analysis on teacher salaries is fraudulent and fails the most basic test of comparing 'like to like'. The only valid way to test yoru ridiculous statement that teacher salaries have dropped 30% is to compare 1975 salaries adjusted by the CPI with today's salaries. It is therefore a great pity (to you) that this shows teach salaries have in fact RISEN in real terms - as have almost all salaries.

Your 'analysis' is to compare RELATIVE INCOMES which is a poor and sinjectve methodology in the short term and totally fraudulent over the time span you specify. Since the mid 70s the australian economy and workforce has been compeltely transformed. What was once a predominantly semi-skilled, low-paid manufacturing economy has moved into a semi-professional/professional economy with significantly higher wages. Keep in mind the massive, very highly-paid IT industry effectively didnt even exist in 1975. Comparing teacher salaries to the average wage (which is itself a poorly understood concept) over the decades is interesting in a socio-economic analysis, but of zero value in an absolute wage-earning one.

So, in short... You were wrong but at least we now know why.
Posted by longweekend58, Saturday, 12 February 2011 11:23:33 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
longweekend58,

The relevance of my being a DLP candidate is that your accusation was that I was opposed to private schools and their funding, even though nothing I posted here said this. Yet, I stood for parliament on the platform of the very party that succeeded, via preferences, in bringing in government funding of private schools, demonstrating how absurd your accusation was. You should be thanking me for the fact that private schools get government support. Instead, you made a false accusation against me. I gave evidence, the stuff you don’t actually bother with, showing how ridiculous it was.

You have misrepresented what I said in my first post. I did not say, “teacher salaries have dropped 30%.” I quoted figures re percentages and average earnings and said that teachers had a “relative” pay cut and that restoring the “relative” value of their salaries would require an increase. The wording makes it clear that I was never talking about purchasing power.

I did not compare teachers’ salaries to the average wage, but to male average ordinary time earnings, “male” because that is how the comparison was presented in 1981 and “ordinary time” to remove the influence of overtime and penalty rates. Yet again, you fail to produce a single figure to back your assertion that I am wrong.

The change in the economic structure of Australia does not alter the point of my argument, which I would be wasting my typing to repeat for you, but which anyone else (except Riddler) can get by reading my previous posts.

P.S. I did not say that academic success is “solely” a function of the child’s ability, but given that I don’t have to say anything at all for you to accuse me of saying it and that even when I say one thing you follow up by accusing me of saying the opposite and that if I present relevant evidence you tell me you are not interested, perhaps you could save me some time and submit all my future posts for me. That way, you could make up anything at all.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 12 February 2011 3:43:57 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
Take yourself off, you're only embarrassing yourself now.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 12 February 2011 4:56:16 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
I know that you think being a candidate for a 5th tier party like the DLP makes you special, but it doesnt. And the 'logic' of your argument explains why the DLP is such a waste of voter space. But moving on from you and your unjustified ego...

RELATIVE positioning of salaries is the argument that people who dont understand the real world make. If EVERYONE had to maintain a relative salary position in a rapidly changing world then teachers would be paid a million dollars a year now and complaining because the average wage was $900K. In salary terms, a relative measure is worthless which makes me wonder why you think it is so important. Teachers are not underpaid and never have been. Their salary has kept up with inflation and then some - just as everyone else has. But other occupations have arisen that inflate the average wage without damaging the absolute position of teachers. Private schools make a total mockery of the notion that improved salaries make better teachers. they get paid basically the same with vastly superior outcomes. But they exist in superior schools which allow them to show superior skills and generate superior outcomes.

If there is one thing this topic brings out it is the people like yourself who bring in irrelvancies and meaningless rubbish while avoiding the three obvious criteria in play here: choice, outcomes and cost to the public purse. In all three, private schools are significantly superior. I dont even know what your position even is. Beyond complaining about everyone else and wasting time debating irrelevant measures (which you get wrong anyhow) and telling us how great the DLP is (insert mock here), I have no idea what you REAL position is!

So whats your complaint again? And please, no more references to the DLP. No one is impressed. If anything, it makes you look worse - like being a Family First candidate or a Green.
Posted by longweekend58, Saturday, 12 February 2011 5:12:39 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
longweekend58,

Male average weekly ordinary time earnings were $132.50 in December, 1974. As best as I can work out from annual CPI increases, inflation since then has been approximately 551 per cent, meaning that the real value of the December 1974 MAWOTE is now $862.58. MAWOTE was $1343.90 in August last year, giving a real increase of $481.32, or 55.8 per cent.

The top unpromoted teacher salary in January, 1975, was $11,400, $72,414 in today’s dollars. The top unpromoted teacher salary is now $81,806, giving a real increase of $9,392 or 13 per cent.

In the case of promoted teachers the difference is even starker. A senior teacher was paid $13,025 in January, 1975, $84,793 in today’s dollars. Today’s equivalent, a leading teacher, starts on $84,536, $257 less in real terms. That’s right – a leading teacher starts today with less purchasing power than the equivalent senior teacher had 36 years ago – despite a huge increase in overall prosperity in the country.

A leading teacher, subject to successful performance reviews (which the critics tell us don’t exist), can reach $89,423, giving a real increase of $4,630 or 5.4 per cent.

In other words, in a period in which the average employee received a 55.8 per cent increase in real ordinary time pay, the majority of teachers received a 13 per cent increase in real pay, the starting leading teachers went backwards in real terms, and the top level leading teachers received a 5.4 per cent increase in real terms. These differences are not trivial. Teachers helped create the prosperous Australia we have today, but their share of the increased wealth varies from nothing to one quarter of the average.

The consequence is, as has been pointed out already, in most detail by Andrew Leigh, a fall in the entry scores of those training to be teachers via direct entry. The consequence of that fall is not immediate because there are still teachers in the system who trained 30 and 35 years ago, but the consequence is real and relevant to both public and private schools.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 12 February 2011 5:32:46 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
You really can be ludicrous Chris, not to say thoroughly repetitive. All that your last post has done as restated, using different figures, the same pointless argument you made in 27 earlier posts. RELATIVE salary positioning is irrelevant in a market that has completely transformed. And it HAS transformed. Even the teaching profession bears little in common with the way it was in the highly regulated, union controlled, promoted-by-seniority predominantly public school era.

It is a common problem that people seek to make comparisons from decades back and leap to some extraordinary conclusions while ignoring the fact that the world is totally different now than back then. It doesnt matter if we are comparing salaries, life expectancy or sporting results. If you dont factor in the changes in the environment you will get results that are increasingly invalid while being statistically correct. You will, with great confidence and enthusiasm, come to the totally wrong answer.

Now I am sure you dont understand much of what I just said,m but let me throw caution to the wind and throw another spanner in the works. REAL salary increases have to be funded by productivity or subsidy increases. Thats the only way it happens. Many industries have had massive increases in productivity (banking, mining etc) and as a result earned increased REAL salaries. Teachers have not. That is not a criticism but rather a commentary that it now takes more teachers to teach fewer students to a lower level than acheived 30 years ago. That is hardly worthy of the 30% pay rise you think they deserve because some other profession now out-earns them.

Bottom line is this: our employment situation has totally changed in the last 35 years. Some industries and professions have done far better than others. Now let's see you restate your position yet again while totally misunderstanding anyone else's.
Posted by longweekend58, Saturday, 12 February 2011 6:04:21 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
And compounded inflation rates make the figure you are looking for at 741% not 551%.
Posted by longweekend58, Saturday, 12 February 2011 6:13:05 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
Maybe he can name drop a few more pseudo economists like Andrew Leigh. Your act is getting tired Chris.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 12 February 2011 9:53:27 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
Chris C,

If someone is paid $100 a week, and receives a pay rise of 5% each year, their pay after 5 years is about $127 a week.

Unfortunately for teachers, most organisations now pay employees according to performance and productivity, and they would only give the employees a 5% pay increase if there was a measureable improvement in productivity or improvement in performance of 5%.

If teachers pay has fallen compared to the rest of the country, that is only to be expected, as national benchmark tests indicate that student marks have not improved in 20 years, and boys marks have actually decreased in that time period.

Paying someone according to years of service or according to what the rest of society is getting went out with the Ark.

The best option for a parent is to avoid the public school system now filled with excuse makers, feminists and various hangers-on, and try and get their children into a school where the teachers are paid according to actual performance.
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 13 February 2011 4:20:31 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
Teachers dont get paid according to results in the private sector either. You need to recognise that better performance in the private sector is a function of many things of which teachers are simply the most important.
Posted by longweekend58, Sunday, 13 February 2011 5:02:58 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
longweekend58,

You initially said, based on no evidence whatsoever, that I was opposed to private schools and to funding them. Now that I have supplied specific evidence showing that this is not the case, you say you do not know what my position is. I’ll sum it up this way: You have state aid to private schools because of the efforts of people like me who argued that you should get it. That really should be clear enough.

The only reason I mentioned the DLP was to indicate that obviously I was a supporter of the funding of private schools. In response you have chosen to extend the topics to critical comments regarding that party. I am not seeking to divert this thread even further, but I feel a duty to respond. The DLP was a moderate social democratic party that pioneered opposition to the White Australia Policy, that pioneered votes for 18-year olds, that supported land rights for Aborigines, that pioneered environmental concern, that spoke up for moderate trade unions, that opposed capital punishment, that worked for prison reform. I have made lots of comment on the DLP and you can find links to many of them on the thread:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/06/25/galaxy-52-48-to-labor/comment-page-14/#comments
I’ll leave it at that, except to point out that had parents of children at private schools voted for the DLP 40 years ago, they would have a lot more government assistance now. They chose not.

For you to accuse me of bringing in irrelevancies is hilarious. You are the one that decided to invent a set of beliefs on private schools to ascribe to me. You are the one that decided to go off on a tangent about the DLP, when my reason for mentioning it was completely clear. You are the one who claims not to know my position after I have explained it more than once.

Riddler,

Be as abusive, as nasty, as belittling and as insulting as you like. I won’t be taking instructions from you.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 13 February 2011 5:13:43 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
longweekend58,

If you were correct in saying that the CPI had increased by 741 per cent, then a teacher paid $11,400 in 1975 was paid $95,874 then in today’s dollars, meaning that contrary to your earlier claims, teachers actually have less purchasing power now than they did then- $14,068 less in this case, to be precise.

My CPI information has been sourced year by year form press reports when the information was released or directly from the ABS. The percentage increase in the CPI for each year since and inclusive of 1974 was 16.3, 14.0, 10.8, 9.3, 7.7, 10.0, 9.3, 11.3,11.0, 8.6, 2.6, 8.2, 9.8, 7.1, 7.7, 7.8, 6.9, 1.5, 0.3, 1.9, 2.5, 5.1, 1.5, -0.2, 1.6, 1.8, 5.8, 3.1, 3.0, 2.4, 2.3, 2.8, 3.3, 3.0, 3.7, 2.1, 2.9. If I make 1974 the base year and give it 100 and then multiply it by (1+ the inflation increase of each year), rounded off to one decimal point at each step, I reach an index of 743, very close to your claimed percentage increase of 741 per cent, but I have to include 1974 to do it and it is an index, not the percentage increase. If I take out 1974, logical given that I am starting with salaries as at January, 1975, the index is 651, which means the increase is 551 per cent.

Feel free to correct any year whose inflation I have wrong or my calculation.

I will return another day on the salaries question – unless you want to bring up a new topic again. But then you are “sure” I don’t understand what you are saying, just as you are sure that I think teachers deserve a 30 per cent pay rise, even though I said above, “I am not arguing that the salary should be returned to exactly $116,554, just that it ought to move in that direction”, just as you were sure that I was ideologically opposed to private schools and to funding them.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 13 February 2011 5:14:22 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
You have some serious issues to address, Chris. First, your posts are often about as 'clear as mud' and terribly confused, to say the least. Saying that YOU are partly responsible for public funding of private schools places you clearly in the box labelled 'wannabe' or perhaps even 'delusional'. The DLP is a party born out of a split with the labor party in 1955. It has been a long, long time since they even had representation in parliament, never mind an actual say or influence on anything policy related.

You are almost thoroughly tangential in your arguments, finding it difficult to stick to the topic at hand - 'private school funding' just in case you forgot. Your maths makes me wonder what level of schooling you had as well. 741% of 11,400 is 84,474 - not what you said. Your maths is torturous and illogical - not to say total garbage. But that too is an irrelevency to the topic at hand.

If you think that people misrepresent you then there is a fairly decent solution. Most people dont deliberately misrepresent others on forums and boards. The problem here is that you are exceptionally difficult to understand, you misconstrue facts and your maths and understanding of statistics are well... lamentable. You may well be in favour of Private schools, but you tend to hide it well behind your bluster and use of irrelevancies.

No one cares here about teacher salaries as it is irrelvant to the topic. And if there is a complete irrelvancy today, it is certainly the DLP.
Posted by longweekend58, Sunday, 13 February 2011 7:10:06 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
Longweekend,
There are private schools that don’t pay teachers according to performance, but if teachers don’t perform in private schools they can be dismissed more readily.

2 ways.

- If parents complain to the principal, the teacher or teachers involved can be dismissed because the school does not want to lose students.

- If parents do begin taking their children out of the school, the principal may also dismiss teachers because there are not enough children left to teach (and I personally know of a school that lost so many students that the principal had to dismiss teachers and then begin teaching classes himself).

Compare that to the public school system.

I also know of a parent that made a serious complaint to the principal of a public school over the phone, and the principal literally laughed at them.

The parent dug their heels in and took the matter to the regional office for education. After several letters and phone calls a meeting was arranged with a staff member of the regional office, and finally the regional office investigated the matter at the public school.

The teacher involved seemed to disappear somewhere, and the principal took early retirement the next year.

If the parent had not been so determined that the matter be addressed, it would never have been investigated within the public school system
Posted by vanna, Sunday, 13 February 2011 7:42:45 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
It's a real shame that people have wasted time on irrelevant issues, when we should be focusing on attacking the author for his ridiculous analysis of the situation.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Sunday, 13 February 2011 8:18:11 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
longweekend58,

I made a comparison of the pay of a teacher at the top of the unpromoted scale now with the pay of a teacher at the top of the unprompted scale in 1975. The teacher at the top in 1975 had taken only seven years to get there, whereas a teacher at the top of the unpromoted scale now takes nine years to get there.

The salary paid in January, 1975, to a teacher with seven years’ experience was $11,400, $72,414 in today’s dollars. A teacher with seven years’ experience today is paid $69,946, $ 2,768 less in real terms than 36 years ago. So, there are some teachers whose pay is not only lower in relation to that of other occupations but also lower in purchasing power.

You have outlined changes in the structure of the Australian economy again. I told you the first time that I understood this. It does not alter my point: the relative decline in teacher pay has been accompanied by a decline in the entry scores for those training to be teachers. In other words, because teaching has become less attractive as a career compared with other careers, fewer able people opt into it. That is the issue that affects the education of children. It does not mean that the education system has suddenly become a disaster area, but it does indicate an area of concern.

“Between 1983 and 2003, the average percentile rank of those entering teacher education fell from 74 to 61.” (page ii)
and
“For women, teacher pay fell from 114 percent to 103 percent of non-teacher pay between 1983 and 2003. For men, teacher pay fell from 108 percent to 91 percent of non-teacher pay.” (page 20)
(Andrew Leigh and Chris Ryan, “How and Why has Teacher Quality Changed in Australia?”, September 2006)
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 3:48:32 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
Longweekend58,

You say I find it difficult to stick to the topic at hand. My initial post was to respond to specific claims made by other people on this thread. Then my posts were to respond to various other comments and to untruthful accusations made against me by you.

Now you concede that I “may well be in favour of private schools”. Well, that’s progress on claiming that I was oppposed to them and progress on saying that you don’t know what my position is. Was the clue when I said, “You have state aid to private schools because of the efforts of people like me who argued that you should get it”? You made an accusation that was false, and you had no reason to make it. You could have simply responded to the point I made about the relative educational success of private and public schools, but, at best, you decided to make assumptions. I don’t know why people do that, but they do. You’re not the first to behave like that, and you wont be the last, but that is no reason for me to just accept it.

It is “a long, long time” since the DLP won state aid for private schools – in the 1960s, to be precise – and since that aid became substantial – in the 1970s, to be precise. The DLP was a significant force in politics then. In the first case, it was DLP pressure on Henry Bolte that won per capita state aid in Victoria. In the second case, it was the very existence of the DLP, with its substantial block of voters (19 per cent in Victoria in the 1970 Senate election), that prompted Gough Whitlam to get the ALP to overturn its opposition to state aid and to bring in funding via the Schools Commission in order to win the 1972 election.

It is not so long since the DLP in a re-incarnated form, had representation in parliament - last year, to be precise, and a new DLP senator will take his seat this year.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 3:48:55 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
Longweekend58,

I take it that you accept the percentage increases in the CPI that I give for each year since and including 1974 as correct, as you have not said otherwise.

If, as I said, “inflation since then has been approximately 551 per cent”, then you need to add 551 per cent of the original amount to get the value in today’s dollars, not multiply the original amount by 5.51. Thus, if you seek to correct me and say that the figure should be 741 per cent, not 551 per cent, then you need to add 741 per cent of the original amount to it to get the value in today’s dollars, not multiply the original amount by 7.41. It is the difference between the Consumer Price Index and the percentage increase on the original amount. If the amount is 100 and the CPI increases by 100 per cent, the new CPI is 200. The percentage increase, however, remains at 100.

741 per cent “of” $11,400 is, as you say, $84,474, but my 551 per cent was not “of” $11,400, but the increase on $11,4000 needed to give it the value it would have today. The Consumer Price Index today, with 1975 as the base year (i.e., 100), is 651. The increase to reach 651 is 551 per cent. My maths is correct.

Riddler raised the question of teacher salaries, so I posted a few facts.

You claimed I was opposed to state aid, so I posted the fact that I had been a candidate for the DLP, the party that advocated state aid in the first place.

Vanna claimed that the UK was below the OECD average in “everything”, so I posted an OECD figure showing that was not so.

Had the discussion remained about the desirability of funding or not funding private schools, I would not have needed to p0st any of the above at all.

If you had replied to me simply by disputing my account of OECD research, I would have basically stuck to that point in my response to you
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 3:49:15 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
vanna,

Productivity isn’t everything for the obvious reason that the value of money falls year by year, so, if there were someone whose productivity had remained the same, the real value of their income would fall, making them worse off even though they were doing the same job as before.

The critics say that standards have fallen over some time period, but they ignore the fact that teacher pay has fallen over that time too – relatively in some case, in absolute terms in others. Do you not get the point that falling pay has reduced the average ability of those going into teaching? Do you not see that, if this trend were to continue, fewer and fewer able people would remain to teach our children? Do you not understand that there are many factors other than what a teacher does in the classroom that affect student performance? Do you not know, for example, that there has been a 10 per cent worsening of the secondary staffing ratio in Victoria compared with 30 years ago? Do you not know that retention rates have increased dramatically so that teachers are now dealing with students who would not have even been in school 30 years ago? Do you not realise that the environment outside of school is less conducive to learning now that it was 30 years ago?

What’s unfortunate for teachers is unfortunate for students. A society that spends its time teacher-bashing is not one that values children.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 3:49:37 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
Is this a "ridiculous analysis", then?

"A further rationale for the increased public funding for non-government schools arising from the SES scheme was that it would save public money overall, when funding from all Commonwealth and State sources was taken into account. This kind of justification for public funding of private schools has a long history in the politics of Australian education, based on the assumption that State governments, in particular, would reduce their funding commitments for public schools, including through school closures, when significant numbers of students moved from public schools to the private sector.

But the political and financial realities are quite different from this theoretical assumption. In 2006, for example, some 200,000 additional students were enrolled in non-government schools compared with the 1996 level. Had these 200,000 students been accommodated instead in public schools over this decade, this would have required additional public funding of around $2 billion. Over that same period, however, the real increase in public funding for these same students, in the non-government sector, was more than $3 billion, mostly provided by the Commonwealth. In other words, governments funded the additional non-government school students by $1 billion more than would have been required for the equivalent number of students in fully publicly funded government schools."

From http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2010/Schoolfundfutures.pdf

Watch the usual suspects weave their moonbat magic in refutation without the use of figures or links.
Posted by petal, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 3:51:25 PM
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
I note that longweekend is torching you with a vengence on the stats, so I'm going to limit my reply to you and Vanna to the following:
"The critics say that standards have fallen over some time period, but they ignore the fact that teacher pay has fallen over that time too – relatively in some case, in absolute terms in others. Do you not get the point that falling pay has reduced the average ability of those going into teaching?"
The responses to this are many.
1) You actually haven't proved a salary reduction, bad math aside you've just argued that teacher pay is lower relative to the average worker wage. Longweekend has explained why this is not how economics is done, but you continue to ignore his explanations. I'm more interested in,
2) How you don't understand causation or logic. Observation 1- salaries have "fallen" (let's just assume this is true for a minute). Observation 2- standards have fallen. But that does not lead to the logical conclusion that there is a connection between those two things, anymore than if I played that game with a different section of the economy (mining wages have increased, therefore mine workers must be working more productively today than they were in the 70's... needless to say, this isn't necessarily true at all). It's like arguing that a rock can keep tigers away. You have to explain why the things are connected. The AEU certainly doesn't claim they are, because they assert teachers are doing awesome.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 4:25:50 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
But more than the AEU, who I can't believe Vanna still has the gall to link us to, it's not what the results say. Parents are leaving public education in droves, so it doesn't make sense for us to pay teachers the same level they were getting in the 70's (assuming for the sake of argument Chris understood math). When sewing machines were invented, loom makers made less money. That wasn't a bad thing. When less people want a service from the government, the government should spend less on it, especially when the government can't give the product away (public is free, yet people still have been leaving for years and years).
3) Chris has still been unable to show that teachers were paid correctly in the 70's under his math, rather than overpaid. An IT worker in India might be getting $4 an hour, working very hard, and giving 90% productivity. It doesn't follow that if we increase his wage to $100 an hour he will be 20 times more productive. That's absurd. If teacher's were paid over $100K a year in real terms as Chris (falsely) asserts, then they were overpaid. There is zero analysis from Chris on the reasons that the current wage is problematic. Which is annoying, because I already argued:
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 4:32:37 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
4) That the funding isn't the problem, it's the way the funding is allocated, and the obstructionist policies of the union. No response to any of those points in my initial posts were forthcoming. Which leads me to Vanna,
5) Vanna's AEU article (unsurprisingly) begins from a false premise, namely that anyone here gives a damn about the SES system, or what the underlying premise of the SES system was. If I had my way I'd have a vouchers system with a fixed amount per student, provided schools were run autonomously and subject to real principles of competition. I explained in the first posts I made that how to tinker with the SES was a distraction, and the reasons for it aren't especially relevant. Again, this seems to have been too confusing a point for Vanna.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 4:35:56 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
Chris C,
If someone is paid $100 a week, and receives a pay rise of 5% each year, their pay after 5 years is about $127 a week.

If someone is paid $100 a week, and receives a pay rise of 10% each year, their pay after 5 years is about $161 a week.

If employees achieve a demonstrable increase in productivity, they should receive an appropriate increase in wages.

That is how many industries operate (through such systems as EBA’s), and I have worked in companies that were looking for a 10% improvement in productivity each year, and paid accordingly.

From what I have seen of teachers in the public school system, they not only have the least likely chance of increasing productivity, they are not even part of this country, and I would not judge them as being Australian.

While using the public as a cash cow, they import nearly everything they use, they attempt to do as little as possible, they use the public as a scapegoat as often as possible, and they are indirectly responsible for many of the social problems now besetting this country.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 6:30:04 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
Well spoken on that at least Vanna
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 7:03:28 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
What is the reason for all the verballing against teachers on here?
Is it because teachers are seen as "class traitors" by reactionaries (as they are educated, middle class people, but are unionised)?
Is it because teachers are incapable of turning average kids into Einstein, no matter what school the average kids go to and how high the school fees the parents pay are (i.e. unrealistic parental ambitions) ?
Is it because teachers get some extra time off (school holidays), compared to other working people, while also working late and doing a lot of unpaid volunteer hours for their schools during term time (which of course isn't noticed)?
Is it because the radio shock jocks spend a lot of time (for whatever reason, I don't know) verbally bashing teachers?
Is it because - compared to most 4-year degree graduates - teachers start on a good wage, but end up being underpaid after 10 years experience, compared to, say, an accountant graduate after 10 years, and therefore they are less valued than accountants?
I have (so far) only ever encountered one teacher with a "tact bypass" in 9 years experience as a parent of a public school student: the rest of my daughter's teachers, school principals and other teaching support staff, have been caring professionals keen to do the best for their students.
Posted by Johnj, Tuesday, 15 February 2011 10:19:25 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
johnJ
Have two of your children taught by the same teacher in a public school and see what happens.

You will most likely find that they get the same homework and the same assignments and the same exams.

Their teacher is likely to change nothing from year to year, attempting no innovation or improvements in their teaching methods, and content to say that if a student in their class does badly, it is because of their parents, and their union will support them 110%.

In fact, the teacher will most likely ask for a payrise for doing the same thing year after year, with no improvements shown or increases in productivity.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 5:03:55 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
Just as I predicted.

All moonbat bluster and no substance.

I bet they're not even reading the links, figures and so on properly.
Posted by petal, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 9:43:09 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
I noticed I attributed Petal's remarks to Vanna. A typo obviously. Petal, if you believe the article is relevant, why not explain why it is relevant, instead of acting as though it speaks for itself. I've explained multiple times what position your opponents on this forum are taking, and you keep attributing positions to us that we don't hold. Do I care what the (claimed) purpose of the SES was? No. Maybe if you'd read my first post, or any of the subsequent ones, you wouldn't look so foolish.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 16 February 2011 6:33:30 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
Riddler,

Longweekend58 is not “torching [me] with a vengeance on the stats”. He has the concepts of an index and a percentage increase mixed up.

I will give the CPI increases year by year again with the Consumer Price Index itself for each year with the beginning of 1974 as the base and with the beginning of 1975 as the base. The CPI increased by 16.3 per cent during 1974. Thus, the Consumer Price Index rose from 100 to 116.3 over 1974. The CPI increased by 14.0 per cent in 1975. Thus the CPI rose from 116.3 to 132.6 (rounded off to one decimal place). If 1975 is the base at 100, then the CPI rose to 114 over 1975. The rest follow:
1976 - 10.8 per cent increase (CPI 146.9 with 1974 as the base year, 126.3 with 1975 as the base year), 1977 - 9.3 (CPI 160.6/138.0), 1978 - 7.7 (CPI 173.0/148.6), 1979 - 10.0 (CPI 190.3/163.5), 1980 - 9.3 (CPI 208.0/178.7), 1981 - 11.3 (CPI 231.5/198.9), 1982 -11.0 (CPI 257.0/220.8), 1983- 8.6 (CPI 279.1/239.8), 1984 - 2.6 (CPI 286.4/246.0), 1985 - 8.2 (CPI 309.9/266.2), 1986 - 9.8 (CPI 340.3/292.3), 1987 - 7.1 (CPI 364.5/313.1), 1988 - 7.7 (CPI 392.6/337.2), 1989 -7.8 (CPI 423.2/363.5), 1990 - 6.9 (CPI 452.4/388.6), 1991 - 1.5 (CPI 459.2/394.4), 1992 - 0.3 (CPI 460.6/395.6), 1993 - 1.9 (CPI 469.4/403.1), 1994 - 2.5 (CPI 481.1/413.2/), 1995 - 5.1 (CPI 505.6/434.3), 1996 -1.5 (CPI 513.2/440.8), 1997 - -0.2 (CPI 512.2/439.9), 1998 - 1.6 (CPI 520.4/446.9), 1999 - 1.8 (CPI 529.8/454.9), 2000 - 5.8 (CPI 560.5/481.3), 2001 - 3.1 (CPI 577.9/496.2), 2002 - 3.0 (CPI 595.2/511.1), 2003 - 2.4 (CPI 609.5/523.4), 2004 - 2.3 (CPI 623.5/535.4), 2005 - 2.8 (CPI 641.0/550.4), 2006 - 3.3 (CPI 662.2/568.6), 2007 - 3.0 (CPI 682.1/585.5), 2008 - 3.7 (CPI 707.3/607.4), 2009 - 2.1 (CPI 722.2/620.2), 2010 -2.9 (CPI 743.1/638.2).

A CPI of 743.1 means an increase of 643.1 per cent. Leaving out the 1974 increase of 16.3 per cent means that there has been an increase in the CPI of 538.2 per cent since the beginning of 1975.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 19 February 2011 2:49:58 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
I earlier used a shortcut to calculate the percentage increase in the CPI since 1975 as approximately 551 per cent, not 538.2 per cent. I’m not sure how I did this, but the new calculation has been derived year by year, so I expect it is accurate. A recalculation of teacher salaries on the basis of the 538.2 per cent increase follows. However, changes to superannuation need to be explained first.

The Revised Superannuation Scheme was closed in 1988. It was a defined benefit scheme in which the government as employer made no contribution until retirement, when teachers and principals received a CPI-indexed pension. Actuarially, the government ‘contribution’ was calculated to be about 21 percent of salary. The New Scheme provided a lump sum only with a lower government ‘contribution’. After 1992, the New Scheme was also closed and all new employees were forced into the federally mandated scheme, which now has an employer contribution of 9 per cent. Thus, a teacher in the Revised Scheme earning $81,806 is really getting an additional deferred benefit of $17,179, but one in the mandated minimum scheme is getting an additional deferred benefit of only $7,362. That makes a huge difference over a 30-year period. The reason for this cut to the long-term living standards of teachers was the claim that the state could not afford to be so generous! However, it apparently could continue to be so generous to principals, who were placed on salary packages including the full 21 per cent for superannuation whether or not they were in the Revised Scheme.

A beginning teacher was paid $8,150 ($52,013 in today’s dollars) in 1975. A beginning teacher is paid $55,459 today. That is a real increase of $3446 (6.6 per cent). However, the beginning teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $62,936 in 1975. A beginning teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $60,450 today. That is a real decline of $2,486, (4.0 per cent).
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 19 February 2011 2:50:23 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
A sub-division 14 teacher (the top unpromoted sub-division, automatically reached after seven years) was paid $11,400 ($72,755 in today’s dollars) in 1975. A teacher with seven years’ experience is paid $69,946 today. That is $2,809 (3.9 per cent) less today than 36 years ago. However, a teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $87,792 in 1975. A teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $76,241 today. That is $11,551 (13.2 per cent) less.

The top unpromoted teacher salary is now $81,806 (reached after ten years and performance reviews), giving a real increase of $9,051 or 12.4 per cent. However, a teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $87,792 in 1975. A teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $89,169 today. That is $1,377 (1.6 per cent) more.

A senior teacher was paid $13,025 ($83,126 in today’s dollars) in 1975. Today’s equivalent, a leading teacher, starts on $84,536. That is $1,410 (1.7 per cent) more. However, the senior teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $100,582 in 1975. A leading teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $92,144 in the first year today. That is a real decline of $8,438 (8.4 per cent).

A leading teacher, subject to successful performance reviews, can reach $89,423 today. That is an increase of $6,297 (7.6 per cent). However, the senior teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $100,582 in 1975. A leading teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $97,471 on the top level today. That is a real decline of $3,111 (3.1 per cent).
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 19 February 2011 2:50:45 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
The top principal salary was $17,300 in 1975 ($110,409 in today’s dollars). However, we cannot make a direct comparison with principals’ salaries now.

Firstly, they are now paid on the size of the school budget, not enrolment. Thus, in 1975, the top salary was paid to principals with over 800 students in their schools. Now the top salary is paid to principals with a budget of $8,197,869.

Secondly, there were two pay levels in 1975, while now there are 24, with movement up the range related to performance assessment. Thus, no one receives the top salary today unless successful at several reviews and in a large-budget school.

Thirdly, they are now on salary packages, not salaries. Superannuation was in addition to the 1975 salary, but is included in the current salary package.

The principal’s 1975 salary of $110,409 was equivalent to a salary package of $133,595. The current top principal’s salary package ranges from $143,209 to $161,470. For a principal in the Revised Scheme, the actual salary range is approximately $118,354 to $133,446. For a principal not in the Revised Scheme, the actual salary is higher as compensation.

Thus, in real terms, a principal, at the start of the top salary range is $7,945 (7.2 per cent) better off today in real salary terms than a principal on the top salary in 1975. Such a principal is $9,614 better off in real terms on the salary package measurement.

A principal on the top of the top salary range is $23,037 (20.9 per cent) better off today in real salary terms than a principal on the top salary in 1975. Such a principal is $27,875 better off in real terms on the salary package measurement.

Apart from principals who reach the top salary level, teachers have, at best, had small increases in the purchasing power of their salaries over the last 36 years. Some have had actual declines in purchasing power of their salaries over that period, while most levels looked at have had declines in the purchasing power of their salary packages over that period.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 19 February 2011 2:51:15 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
You have just used all four of your posts for the day to reply, but not one of those posts contains a reply to any of the points I raised, instead they focus on the statistical claims that were debunked by longweekend days ago. If you're not going to bother to reply to any of my posts, just say so, instead of addressing me, and then making posts that have no bearing on any of the points I've been making, and do not address them at all.

You've been told why your numbers were wrong, you even partly concede this now, but long before this I said I was willing to assume this for the sake of argument (temporarily anyway), and asked you to respond to a number of points I'd been making from my first post onwards, which questioned the validity of your underlying arguments. You still don't respond to any of these points, after what must be the 20th challenge to do so. Why should anyone take you seriously?
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 19 February 2011 3:44:55 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
Chris C, the only reason I havent returned to debunk your rather bad mathematoics/statistics is that it would take too long to correct your errors and I genuinely doubt that you have the ability to understand it. Applying CPI increases to a base figure is hardly rocket science and any year 9 student could do so - but you cant. You spend post after post trying to erroneously claim that teachers are underpaid while not only being totally wrong but banging a drum that is in no way relevant to the issue. Andjust to put a little perspective on your superannuation claim, do you think teachers are the only ones who had unfunded, over generous superannuation plans back in the 70s? I was in the public service one which was also incredibly generous and totally unaffordable. Do you even know why we have a Future Fund? It is to pay for the stupidity of our forefathers in promising superannuation that wasnt budgeted for.

I enjoy debating statistics and interpretation of data etc. But I prefer to do it with someone who can at least apply CPI correctly and understands the basics of comparing one generation to another and the limitations that apply.
Posted by longweekend58, Saturday, 19 February 2011 4:19:41 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
Chris C,

I know of primary school students in a public school that have a normal teacher who also has a teacher’s assistant.

As well, the students have a number of specialised teachers including a sports teacher, a music teacher, a Japanese language teacher and a spelling teacher.

While the students are being taught by these specialised teachers, the normal teacher stands at the back of the room and does nothing.

And now there is a call for specialised maths and science teachers, because maths and science has hit rock bottom.

Of course all teachers want more money, but seldom mention that student marks have not improved in 20 years.

Paying someone according to CPI is about as archaic as paying someone according to years of service.

Most people are now paid according to their level of skills and their productivity.
Posted by vanna, Saturday, 19 February 2011 10:10:46 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
You're wasting your breath asking Chris questions like this. He's been asked them in a dozen different ways, a dozen different times. He just wants to go on his rant, and ignore them (the response of others is more intentionally selective... can't answer criticisms, ignore them). He can't even explain why the amount they would be paid under his scheme is appropriate, just that using an invented formula (which he's incorrectly applied multiple times), it would be higher today... if we were aiming to keep teacher salaries the same, even though the economy has changed, the teaching market has changed, and almost everything else has changed. Chris, I for one am sick of you dodging everyone's posts in an attempt to ramble on like grampa Simpson on one of his less coherent days. We don't care about your grievances with your old school, we don't care about your political leanings, and we certainly don't care for your grammar and writing style. Either reply properly to what people have said, or take yourself off.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 19 February 2011 10:51:12 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
How about governments (both state and federal) just dump the current inequitable funding arrangements for private schools which send lots of money to schools that patently don't need it, and agree tp pay teacher salaries for all schools (public and private) - on the basis of an informed view of how many teachers are needed for particular student numbers. Private schools would only get extra funding for teachers for students with disabilities, from NESB or low socio-economic backgrounds. Public schools would also get extra funding for the same categories of students. Then if the private schools want to employ extra teachers, have another squash court etc etc they can pay for that out of their own funds.
Incidentally, one thing that people always forget to include when looking at subsidies to private schools is that the religious ones don't pay any rates to the local council areas they in (due to exemptions for religious organisations), whereas all commercial businesses that own land have to pay rates - and let's be honest, most of these schools ARE commercial businesses - if they weren't why are they putting up their fees all the time way above inflation rates?
Posted by Johnj, Sunday, 20 February 2011 2:23:44 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
Riddler,

You say that I have bad maths, yet fail to point out a single mathematical error (4.25:50pm, 15/2) in my calculations. The only error pointed out as of my last post was the one I pointed out myself.

You say that I have not proved a salary reduction. I did not set out to do so. My initial poin, was that teachers had had a “a relative cut” (5.15:55pm, on 6/2).

You say that I “continue to ignore” Longweekend58’s explanations of how economics is not done by comparing teacher pay to average pay. Yet I have twice responded to this point:
“The change in the economic structure of Australia does not alter the point of my argument…” (4.56:15pm, 16/2)
“You [longweekend58] have outlined changes in the structure of the Australian economy again. I told you the first time that I understood this. It does not alter my point: the relative decline in teacher pay has been accompanied by a decline in the entry scores for those training to be teachers. In other words, because teaching has become less attractive as a career compared with other careers, fewer able people opt into it. That is the issue that affects the education of children. It does not mean that the education system has suddenly become a disaster area, but it does indicate an area of concern.” (3.48:32pm, 15/2)

Longweekend has, twice at least, given an explanation for the changes in relative incomes in Australia. I have pointed out a consequence of those changes. Neither point invalidates the other.

You say that I “don’t understand causation or logic” because I draw a connection between falling relative pay for teachers and falling entry scores for teacher training. The connection is obvious. Pay is one factor that people consider when embarking on careers. It is not the only factor, and I have never said it is. You may take an $81,806 job in preference to an $82,806 job because the former has better future opportunities, a lower workload or a more satisfying fit with what you want to do in your life, etc.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 20 February 2011 3:11:17 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
As the average percentile rank of those entering teacher education fell from 74 to 61 between 1983 and 2003 and the average teacher pay for men pay fell from 108 percent to 91 percent of non-teacher pay and the average teacher pay for women fell from 114 percent to 103 percent of non-teacher pay over the same period, there is prima facie evidence of a connection. Both falls are significant. If you factor in the increase in the proportion of school-leavers who entered tertiary education between 1983 and 2003, the drop in entry scores becomes more significant. It is a percentile rank, not an absolute standard, so a 61 in 2003 is lower in actual academic standard than a 61 in 1983.

The connection is not proved beyond absolute doubt, but it would be hard to make the case that the falling relative pay of teachers has had no effect on the average ability of those who enter teacher training or on those who decide to leave teaching.

Few people argue that we might as well cut teacher pay to half that of MAOTE. It is obvious that such a move would lead to a massive exodus from teaching. It stands to reason that the more teacher pay falls relative to the pay of other occupations the fewer the able people who will want to be teachers. Given an entry score of 61 in 2003, do we sit back and let it reach 51? 41? Or do we take steps to lift it back to 74?

There is one dominant employer of teachers in each state, the education department. It knows it can allow teacher pay to fall relative to the pay of other groups and still get teachers. However, it has to consider the ability of people it gets.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 20 February 2011 3:11:47 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
Pay is not the only factor. One other is workload, with objective and subjective measurements involved. The most obvious objective factors are class sizes and scheduled hours. A class of 25 will involve less preparation and correction than a class of 30. A teaching load of 18 hours a week (the Victorian high school standard in the 1980s) will involve less work than one of 20 hours. A time allowance – deduction from class teaching - for English coordination of five periods will involve less overall work than one of three periods. A requirement to attend two meetings a week will be less demanding than one to attend three meetings a week. A class size maximum of 25 students has been the ideal since the 1970s, when it was enforced in union high schools, and since the 1980s throughout the state when it became the legally required standard. In technical schools, the maximum was 20. Maximum teaching loads have varied over the past 36 years, but the details do not need enumeration here. The nearest overall measurement of the objective factors is the pupil teacher ratio because class sizes and teaching loads set how many teachers are required for a set number of students.

The primary PTR was 20.3:1 in 1975 (Compilation of Statistics, Education Department of Victoria, 1978) and 15.7:1 in 2009 (DEECD, Summary Statistics 2010). That suggests a significant improvement in the workload of primary teachers over that period of time. In other words, we are employing far more of them now than then apparently to do the same work and cannot be expected to pay them the same relative pay now as we did then.

The secondary PTR was 13.3:1 in 1975 (Compilation of Statistics, Education Department of Victoria, 1978) and 11.9:1 in 2009 (DEECD, Summary Statistics 2010). That suggests some improvement in the workload of secondary teachers over that period of time, though nowhere near as significant as with primary teachers, though that improvement is not one in relation to 1981, when the secondary PTR was 10.9:1 or 1992 when it was 10.8:1.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 20 February 2011 3:12:11 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
However, the figures do not tell the whole story because today’s PTR contains teachers performing functions that schools did not perform decades ago. We now have careers teachers doing a job that once was not done in schools. We have student welfare coordinators doing a job that once was not done in schools. We have integration teachers doing a job that once was not done in mainstream schools. We have Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning coordinators doing a job that once was not done in schools. It is not possible to quantify these new positions, except to say that they are in the hundreds as they are typical in almost all secondary schools.

It could be argued that the significant increase in primary staffing and the small increase in secondary staffing have been paid for by a relative pay cut for both primary and secondary teachers, with the secondary teachers coming out of it all much worse off. But the top unpromoted primary teachers have had a 30 per cent relative pay cut for a 23 per cent cut to the PTR, while secondary teachers have had a 30 per cent relative pay cut for an 11 per cent cut to the PTR. In neither case does the pay cut match the PTR cut.

That’s not the end of the matter either. The statistics show an improvement in the PTR, which should mean a reduction on workload. However, teachers now do things that they did not have to do 36 years ago. Reports used to be a single sheet for all the subjects of one student. Now there is a page for every subject for every student. Performance reviews were non-existent. Now, hundreds of thousands for hours throughout the state goes into them, for both the teacher being reviewed and the teacher doing the reviewing. There is far more paperwork.

In fact the average teacher workload increased from 44.5 hours a week in 1984 to 50 hours in 1992 (VSTA News, May 6, 1993).
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 20 February 2011 3:12:38 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
John, under the model of funding I would support, each student would have a fixed amount attached to them, regardless of whether they go to a public or private school. However, for that to work, there has to be the freedom such a voucher model brings with it, and which advocates like yourself and the author of this article likely oppose. Parents must be free to move there kids to any school they wish, and schools should be run as independent entities, who should not expect (nor receive) any funding from the government outside of this amount attached to each students. That way bad schools will lose students, and be forced to close, while good schools will prosper, expand, and take over the buildings of the old schools, bringing the new and different curricula and teaching philosophy that made them successful in the first place. The problem is that public school defenders want equal funding, regardless of success. That's stupid. Merit should be rewarded, but the current system is totally opposed to such merit based concepts. I've made a number of posts about this, maybe you can go back and read them, while I get to Chris.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Sunday, 20 February 2011 4:05:24 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
Chris, your selective reply belies your claimed willingness to respond to the issues people are actually discussing here. Your posts are just coherent enough to merit a proper response however, and rather than start at the beginning, I'm going to start with what I consider to be the most dishonest parts of your reply.

Firstly, your use of statistics neatly underlines your intellectual dishonesty/ignorance. You claim the average % rank of those entering as teachers fell (from 74 to 61, in the arbitrarily chosen time frame of 1983 to 2003). Firstly, I doubt that is true, and welcome a reputable study to support it. A simple google search shows us that the entrance scores today to get into a B.Education which certifies you to teach in secondary schooling ranges from 80 (or higher) at Sydney (http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/future_students/careers/uai_cutoff.shtml), to more modest numbers like 70+. Even in extremely low ranked universities like the ACU, the entry scores for even a primary Bachelor of Education are no lower than 57.55 and 59, and that's only for the Canberra and Ballarat campus, where they don't expect to be able to attract students. In the others it's much higher (75-85). http://www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/238399/05Course_cut-offs_for_09-10.pdf
It's just an obviously inaccurate claim. Even La Trobe tends to require a score well over 60. I'm not sure if you're basing this on some kind of study that includes pre-school teachers, primary school teachers, etc (though why would you, that's not what is being discussed here), but it's obvious you're wrong. The timeframe is also either dishonest or irrelevant (I wouldn't mind a reference to it btw), in choosing 1983 and 2003 as the point of comparison. Wouldn't a more helpful period be the 70's (the period you're using for your argument) and today? I'd also like to know if your study is for public school teachers only, which seems impossible since the entry scores are too high.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Sunday, 20 February 2011 4:47:23 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
If the 61 average is true it would indicate that score drops for educational degrees occurred much earlier than (claimed) salary drops, which again shows your causation to be faulty. I've looked back through recent years, and it's clear that current scores would be dragging that 61 ATAR number up, not down, since most ATAR requirements for a bachelor of education are substantially higher than 61.

"There is one dominant employer of teachers in each state, the education department. It knows it can allow teacher pay to fall relative to the pay of other groups and still get teachers."
Yes, and that's why we should break this uncompetitive monopoly, a subject you continue to remain silent on. Private schooling is helping of course, but there needs to be a way to make public schools work to improve too, which every teacher (no doubt including yourself) seems opposed to.

While it's not really relevant to the matters under discussion, your bizarre attempt to us PTR to assert an improved workload by teachers is also disingenuous. An incompetent teacher with 32 students in their class will teach much the same as if they had 27 students in their class, the difference being an extra 5 minutes each night using a red pen to tick/cross the answers on a recycled worksheet from the Dept of Education. I am far more moved to look at failing test scores, or the exodus from public schools, than such specious causation (by that logic the coach of my local soccer team now works harder than he did 10 years ago, because ten years ago he only had 11 players in the team, and now he has 15... this is nonsense logic).

Like any union, the AEU is totally opposed to performance based measures, and to the extent they exist, they're done internally, and are meaningless. They oppose benchmarks to measure failure or success, and the Dept of Education limits severely the sorts of data that is available to the public about school performance.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Sunday, 20 February 2011 5:03:27 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
"In fact the average teacher workload increased from 44.5 hours a week in 1984 to 50 hours in 1992 (VSTA News, May 6, 1993)"
This is another example of a meaningless and dubious statistic... why on earth is the base timeframe from 84-92, when that isn't the period your argument identifies as problematic? It's merely because it suits your argument... and anyway, considering the source I sneer at it, since working hours are basically the same. Do other professions not put in time after normal working hours when required? Of course they do.

But more than these problems, your overarching point is still dodging the real issues. You've basically elected to ignore longweekend rather than engage with the issues people here have talked about. You claim that you're arguing only for a "relative cut", but when that cut isn't real, only relative to something unrelated, it's not an intelligent analysis. It's like me saying NFL players salaries are lower than they were 40 years ago, compared to NBA players. That doesn't begin to answer the question of why the millions of dollars NFL players make is not adequate. If the only point you're making is that (using an arbitrary measurement, applied in an unscientific way that ignores normal economic measures) teacher salaries are lower, you're not making much of an argument. Why were those salaries at the correct level in the first place? You don't attempt to answer this and many other questions, so you don't get taken seriously.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Sunday, 20 February 2011 10:59:01 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
Riddler,

You say (4.32:37pm, 15/2) that I “falsely” assert that [teachers] were paid over $100K in real terms”. The practice of making things up continues. Nowhere did I say this. I said, in my initial post, “In 1975, after seven years, a teacher reached the top of the unpromoted scale and was paid 166.6 per cent of MAWOTE - $116,825 now.” That is not “in real terms”. If I had meant “in real terms”, I would have said “in real terms”.

You say that “[w]hen sewing machines were invented, loom makers made less money” and that “[w]hen less people want a service from the government, the government should spend less on it”. The number of teachers needed has not fallen. The ability level of those entering teaching has. Nor is it relevant that more people choose private schools. The biggest private employer is the Catholic system, which pays its teachers the same as the government system pays its.

It is in the interest of society as a whole that all children have good teachers. It is in the interest of society as a whole that it therefore provide the pay and conditions that will attract able people to teaching and keep them there. They do not have to be geniuses, and they do not have to be paid a fortune.

I will again explain the point about productivity that I made to Vanna. Productivity isn’t everything for the obvious reason that the value of money falls year by year, so, if there were someone whose productivity had remained the same, the real value of their income would fall, making them worse off even though they were doing the same job as before. That is why we have national wage cases, to ensure that award wages keep up to some extent with the growing wealth of the community. If productivity grows greatly in one area and pay in that area explodes, it will attract more employees to it. The problem is that the productivity of the areas they leave may decline as only the less able are left in them.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 21 February 2011 5:10:55 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
"You say that “[w]hen sewing machines were invented, loom makers made less money”"

Please can someone explain what is the connection between the loom and a sewing machine.

The loom makes the cloth. The sewing machine makes the garment from the cloth.

Now if the person said that when the loom became mecahanical, the worker earned less money, I think they might be correct.
Posted by Flo, Monday, 21 February 2011 5:28:21 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
I never expect much from you Chris, and somehow you still disappoint. The beginning of your lame reply is to claim I misrepresented you in a post I wrote a week ago, in what I assume is a desperate attempt to change the subject. And even then, this attempt hopelessly misfires, because you don't understand what "real terms" means. I'll help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value ."In economics, nominal values are values expressed in terms of units of a currency which may itself change in purchasing power over time, whereas real values have been corrected for inflation." Your whole argument has been that if we factored in changing monetary value, look at purchasing power, etc (albeit in an unscientific way) that the actual salaries of the 70's (well under 20K) should be worth over 100K in today's money. And people like myself and longweekend have called you out on erroneously applying the numbers to conclude that a teacher earning $X in the 70's would be earning over $100K in REAL terms today. God you're slow.

Flo, I was making a pretty obvious reference to Milton Friedman, you can read all about looms here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1668000/posts I confess not knowing the name of the machine that has replaced the loom, but you follow the gist obviously.

Back to Chris. Before I get to the rest of the points you've made, I notice that you seem to have abandoned completely the facts you attempted to bolster your earlier claims. Should I assume you are conceding that they were wrong and irrelevant? I would like to see the study that supposedly supports the view that the average entry score for a HS teaching degree is now 61 and falling, despite that being clearly wrong. Maybe if you didn't base all your arguments off documents produced by the AEU you wouldn't lose credibility in this fashion...
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Monday, 21 February 2011 6:04:06 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
" The number of teachers needed has not fallen. The ability level of those entering teaching has."
Yet the evidence for this claim, of standards radically dropping, has been abandoned by you. If teacher quality is falling, I assume you would support a massive overhaul of conditions, such as cutting salary for bad teachers, less job security, greater flexibility, etc. I've asked numerous times if you support measures like this, or a voucher model, and you've remained oddly quiet throughout.

"Nor is it relevant that more people choose private schools. The biggest private employer is the Catholic system, which pays its teachers the same as the government system pays its."
It seems very relevant. Less consumers will buy your product, even though you're giving it away, and others are charging for it. This is a very damning indictment on your product. The fact that you concede the catholic system is paying teachers no better actually deals a critical blow to your argument. It suggests:
a) catholic schools are putting out a better product with the same money,
b) the catholic system, with less job security and union protection (a system where teachers can be sacked easily, and principals all over Australia choose their own staff) can produce superior teachers to the public system.
This actually enforces my earlier point, that it's not a lack of funding that is causing the crash of public school scores and falling numbers, it's structural problems, mostly caused by the AEU.

"It is in the interest of society as a whole that all children have good teachers."
It is in the interests of society as a whole to have good plumbers/builders/sewage-workers/whatever. Strangely the principles of competition seem to ensure we can get that in the rest of the market (something as essential as our food is provided by the private sector, with market forces acting as the only protect for years, and that's worked just fine). This claim that education is special, and deserves special consideration, has never had legs.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Monday, 21 February 2011 6:14:31 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
If a builder does a bad job, people don't hire him, and he loses his job. That's true of most jobs, high and low, and it works. Our education system however refuses to apply these basic principles. If a teacher or school is doing badly they continue to get the same amount of money, and the school continues to get students sent to it, because the choice of where to send students is made by the Dept of Education, not by parents. In fact, efforts are made to hide problems in the first place (token data from myschools is opposed, league tables are opposed, performance pay is opposed, meaningful data is opposed, and almost nothing useful is published by the Dept to inform parents of a school performance). Thank goodness the wheels are finally in motion to turn this around!

You say productivity isn't everything, but according to the actions and policies of the AEU (and indeed, the Department until recent trends) it's completely meaningless, since they oppose any measurement at all. The best way to determine if teacher's are doing well is to give parents control over where children go, to vote with their feet, a policy I've advocated dozens of times on here, and which has been met with utter silence from the AEU lobby on here.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Monday, 21 February 2011 6:23:54 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
Riddler,

You say, “That the funding isn't the problem, it's the way the funding is allocated, and the obstructionist policies of the union. No response to any of those points in my initial posts were forthcoming.” (4.35:56pm, 15/2) I am not arguing for or against any particular funding model or funding amount, so don’t see any need to respond to that point. I don’t know what obstructionist policies of the union” you are referring to. If you mean the AEU’s opposition to the funding of private schools, I have already pointed out that I do not share that view. If you mean the federal AEU’s opposition to local selection, I have already pointed out that the Victorian unions have supported local selection for more than 20 years and that we have had it in Victoria for a longtime, beginning for the principal class in the 1980s.

You ask why anyone should take me seriously? (3.44:55 pm, 19/2) The answer is that I give facts and figures and the sources from which they come, that I do not resort to name-calling of those who disagree with me, that I do not make up things about people who disagree with me, that I understand that there is a difference between disagreeing and not understanding. If you don’t the answer I give, that does not mean that I have not given an answer.

Vanna,

You make a number of assertions, that teachers “are not even part of this country”, that they use the “public as a cash cow, that “they import nearly everything they use”, that “they attempt to do as little as possible”, that “they use the public as a scapegoat as often as possible” and that “they are indirectly responsible for many of the social problems now besetting this country.” (6.30:04pm, 15/2) None of these things is true, and you do not produce any evidence that they are.

Johnj,

My experience matches yours (10.19:25pm, 15/2). It is fascinating and sad that so many Australians are ready to get stuck into teachers.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 4:01:19 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
Vanna

You said "In fact, the teacher will most likely ask for a payrise for doing the same thing year after year, with no improvements shown or increases in productivity."

Haven't you got teachers mixed up with politicians?
Posted by Johnj, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 4:16:56 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
Chris, you intentionally ignore the stuff you can't respond to, and your last post is a good example. I asked you some very simple questions. For example, after you claimed certain "facts" to be true, I asked you to cite evidence for your claims. You haven't done so. I don't think that was an unreasonable request, given I pointed out that the entry scores demonstrate your fact is wrong, unhelpful, or both. No reply from you. I asked if you support a voucher model. No reply from you. I asked if you support firing incompetent teachers, and changing working conditions so pay is not based on tenure, but on merit (and so we can get flexible hours for teachers). No response from you. I pointed out the devastating concession you had made, that teachers from catholic schools are paid no higher, yet are stealing your students, despite the obvious advantages the public system enjoys (like being free). No response from you. I asked why the current wage isn't high enough, and we've essentially had no response from you beyond your use of made up formulas for what the wage was in the 70's. Just tell us the reason the current salary is not a fair reflection of market value, and without reference to the 70's if you don't mind, since we've explained to you why it's not relevant (or if you insist on bringing up the 70's, tell us why the wages you erroneously claim were paid in the 70's in REAL terms were the right numbers, and not an overpayment).

The only reply you've given to anything I've said is that in Victoria they have selection, assumedly conceding that is a good thing. I actually asked for more information on this, queried the extent to which they allow it, as I've never heard anything about it, and you refused to answer, just told me to find it myself. You've been anything but responsive to arguments people have made here.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 22 February 2011 7:39:33 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
Just for anyone who Chris has genuinely confused btw, here is a link to the RBA inflation calculator:
http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html
$11,400 is the amount he lists as a payment for a sub-division 4 teacher today, assuming his figures are even correct, which is dubious on his past record, is worth $68,678 in 2010 money, yet Chris erroneously claims it is worth $72,755 in today's money. He can't even add correctly. I could go into the individual payments, but since Chris never answered longweekend's point about super in the 70's, I'm not going to bother, as the time period he's chosen is the height of unbudgeted government extravagance, right before Whitlam was thrown out, and cuts made to everything to right the books. Uni education was free then too, but it would be dishonest of me to selectively take 1975 university costs (ie, nothing), and compare them to current fees, to claim fee rises have been unacceptable. The actual salary, not including the ridiculous super boost that got thrown on top, is actually higher than inflation!
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 8:18:26 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
While I'm asking questions Chris, I'll add repeat 2 more you've never responded to:
1) Have classics and grammar classes increased or decreased since 1975? Please answer the actual question, not your own question (about how at your school they taught some grammar and had a classics class)
2) Why have parents been flocking out of the public system? Do they like paying fees instead of getting a free product? If it's the teacher quality in public schools that's falling, why has the catholic system been able to draw students away with teacher salaries that you concede are no higher than your own?
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 8:25:23 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
Riddler,

You say, “We don't care about your grievances with your old school”. Given that I have not mentioned any “grievances with my old school” in any of my posts, perhaps you might like to tell us that you don’t care about my views on urban planning or vegetables as well.

You say, “we don't care about your political leanings”. As I have explained already, I mentioned my past DLP candidature as evidence that longweekend’s invention that I was ideologically opposed to private schools was false. Rather than simply deny what he made up, I found publicly available evidence that he was wrong. You don’t have to “care” about it at all. You ought, however, to recognise it for what it is – relevant evidence in answer to a false claim made about me. Surely, even you do not believe that is okay for longweekend to invent stuff but impermissible for me to supply evidence to defend myself.

You say, “we certainly don't care for your grammar and writing style.” Tough! I don’t care for your nasty language, your tone, your gratuitous insults of teachers or your claiming I have said things I have not said, but I have to put up with them.

You say, “take yourself off”. I have already told you that I won’t be taking instructions from you.

None of my statistical claims has been “debunked” (3.44:55pm, 19/2) by longweekend or anyone else.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 11:40:24 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
Longweekend,

You say the only reason you have not “returned to debunk [my] rather bad mathematoics/statistics is that it would take too long” and that you doubt my “ability understand it” (4:19:41 PM, 19/2). What a cop-out! Lest Riddler chime in with something else he says “we don’t care about”, I’ll leave aside the question of my mathematical ability. If my figures of the increase in the CPI were wrong for any year, it would be really simple for you to say which year and what the correct figure is. If my figures for the CPI itself have been wrongly calculated at any year, it would be really simple for you to say which year was wrong and what the correct figure was.

I know that teachers were not the only ones in the unfunded public sector schemes in the 1970s. That does not change the fact of the case; i.e., the teachers’ renumeration packages (salary plus employer superannuation “contribution”) were higher in real terms in the 1970s than they are now.

I do know why we have a Future Fund.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 11:40:44 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
Vanna,

So, you know of a primary school where, “While the students are being taught by these specialised teachers, the normal teacher stands at the back of the room and does nothing.” (10:10:46 PM, 19/2) I’ve never heard of a school like this. It must be unique.

You say “that student marks have not improved in 20 years”. That is probably true. You may like to think abut the factors behind this; e.g., the improved retention rate, the decline in the ability of people going in to teaching because of the fall in salaries in relative terms (not “in real terms”).

“Paying someone according to CPI” may be “about as archaic as paying someone according to years of service”, but that does not alter the factual point about the real value of pay year after year.

You say, “Most people are now paid according to their level of skills and their productivity.” Teachers have to demonstrate a level of skill to become teachers in the first place. They have to demonstrate a higher level of skill to move up the salary scale. They have to demonstrate a higher level of skill to be promoted.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 11:41:06 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
You always seem to be replying to something I wrote a week ago, as if you only just read it properly, which given your (non)replies is probably accurate. I mean, you just posted a reply that literally ignored the last half dozen posts calling you out, why even bother to reply at all? With friends like you, the DLP hardly needs enemies. I'm not surprised the author of this article hasn't come to defend you, it's embarrassing having to read through your rambling, irrelevant, unthinking posts.

More seriously though, your latest post has almost convinced me that your user name is an elaborate exercise in satire at the expense of the teacher's union, not to be taken seriously. Nobody else I asked seems to read it that way, nor does it seem well written enough, but I can't otherwise credit the absurdity of your replies. I mean, was that seriously your response? I asked you no fewer than 8 direct questions in the last few posts I made, and you've answered none of them, even implicitly... you don't seem that illiterate, for all your grammar hurts the eye... you're a joke account, right?
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 12:12:22 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
Riddler,

If you go to the RBA calculator and put $11,400 (the subdivision 14 salary, not the subdivision 4 one), the year 1975 and the year 2010, you will get $68,678 as your result. However, we are looking at the CPI changes, not from 1975 to 2010, but from 1975 to 2011. The calculator itself tells you how many years its calculation has covered. In your case, it says 35 years, yet I have been talking about 36 years. The RBA calculator averages the CPI increases in each quarter of one year, then averages the CPI increases in each quarter of the following year and works out the difference. If you have taken in what I said in my earlier posts, you would realise that I am comparing January 1975 salaries with January 2011 salaries. The nearest CPI date to January 1 in any year is December 31 of the year before. So, you need to go to the quarterly calculator on the RBA site. Put in $11,400, December, 1974 (i.e., the nearest CPI date to January, 1975) and December, 2010 (i.e., the nearest CPI date to January 2011). The January, 1975 salary of $11,400 is $75,136 in January, 2011 dollars, even more than by my calculation. The RBA calculator is saying that the total CPI increase from January 1975 to January 2011 is 559.1 per cent, somewhat higher than I calculated in my earlier posts.

Now that I have RBA figures for the period I am looking at, I will now re-calculate the purchasing power of today’s teacher salaries compared with those of January, 1975.

A beginning teacher was paid $8,150 ($53,716 in today’s dollars) in 1975. A beginning teacher is paid $55,459 today. That is a real increase of $1,743 (3.2 per cent). However, the beginning teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $64,996 in 1975. A beginning teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $60,450 today. That is $4,546 (7.0 per cent) less.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 24 February 2011 12:39:26 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
A sub-division 14 teacher (the top unpromoted sub-division, automatically reached after seven years) was paid $11,400 ($75,136 in today’s dollars) in 1975. A teacher with seven years’ experience is paid $69,946 today. That is $5,190 (6.9 per cent) less today than 36 years ago. However, a teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $90,915 in 1975. A teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $76,241 today. That is $14,764 (16.1 per cent) less.

The top unpromoted teacher salary is now $81,806 (reached after ten years and performance reviews), giving a real increase of $6,670 (8.9 per cent). However, a teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $90,915 in 1975. A teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $89,169 today. That is $1,746 (1.9 per cent) less.

A senior teacher was paid $13,025 ($85,847 in today’s dollars) in 1975. Today’s equivalent, a leading teacher, starts on $84,536. That is $1,311 (1.5 per cent) less. However, the senior teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $103,875 in 1975. A leading teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $92,144 in the first year today. That is $11,731 (11.3 per cent) less.

A leading teacher, subject to successful performance reviews, can reach $89,423 today. That is $3,576 (4.2 per cent) more. However, the senior teacher was paid an additional 21 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a notional salary package of $103,875 in 1975. A leading teacher is paid an additional 9 per cent of salary into superannuation, giving a total salary package of $97,471 on the top level today. That $6,404 (6.2 per cent) less.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 24 February 2011 12:39:46 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
The top principal salary was $17,300 in 1975 ($114,023 in today’s dollars). However, we cannot make a direct comparison with principals’ salaries now.

The principal’s 1975 salary of $114,023 was equivalent to a salary package of $137,968. The current top principal’s salary package ranges from $143,209 to $161,470. For a principal in the Revised Scheme, the actual salary range is approximately $118,354 to $133,446. For a principal not in the Revised Scheme, the actual salary is higher as compensation.

Thus, in real terms, a principal, at the start of the top salary range is $4,331 (3.8 per cent) better off today in real salary terms than a principal on the top salary in 1975. Such a principal is $9,614 better off in real terms on the salary package measurement.

A principal on the top of the top salary range is $19,423 (17.0 per cent) better off today in real salary terms than a principal on the top salary in 1975.

Male average weekly ordinary time earnings were $132.50 in December, 1974. The RBA quarterly calculator makes that $873.30 in today’s dollars.

The ABS has released average earnings figures for November last year.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6302.0Nov%202010?OpenDocument

Male average ordinary time earnings for November, 2010, were $1356.90, $483.60 (55.4 per cent) more in real terms than the December, 1974 equivalent.

Of course, the RBA calculator could be wrong. The ABS could be wrong. My maths could also be wrong, but I’d like to seen an exact explanation of where.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 24 February 2011 12:41:11 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
I skimmed your post, but I didn't read it. Why should I? You've deliberately ignored almost everything I've said, in order to discuss a subject that interests you, and is borderline irrelevant to the topic at hand. Answer some of the 8 questions from my last few posts and I'll be happy to reply to your lengthy rant about inflation (which I am sure ignores everything I've said about it to date), but I'm not going to bother with a serious reply to a (bad) joke account.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 24 February 2011 3:56:38 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
Now that the ABS has released average earnings figures for November last year, we can update the figures on where teacher pay stands in relation to the average.

Male average ordinary time earnings for November, 2010, were $1356.90 (c$70,801 pa), $483.60 (55.4 per cent) more in real terms than the December, 1974 equivalent.

In 1975, a beginning teacher was paid 118.8 per cent of MAOTE (The Secondary Teacher, No. 4, May, 1981). That would be $84,112 today. A beginning teacher is paid $55,459 today, $28,662 (33.8 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained.

In 1975, sub-division 14 teacher (the top unpromoted sub-division, reached after seven years) was paid 166.2 per cent of MAOTE. That would be $117,671 today. A teacher with seven years’ experience is paid $69,946 today, $47,725 (40.6 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained. The top unpromoted teacher salary is now $81,806 (reached after ten years and performance reviews), $38,856 (30.5 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained.

In 1975, a senior teacher was paid 189.8 per cent of MAOTE. That would be $134,380 today. Today’s equivalent, a leading teacher, starts on $84,536, $49,844 (37.1 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained. A leading teacher, subject to successful performance reviews, can now reach $89,423, $44,957 (33.5 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained.

As I explained previously, the situation with principals is more complex because they are no won salary packages, with different proportions of their packages going into superannuation. They may also package other items (e.g., cars).

In 1975, a principal in the top classification was paid 252.1 per cent of MAOTE. That would be $178,489 today. A principal in the top range now and in the Revised Superannuation Scheme starts on approximately $118,354, $60,135 (33.7 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained. A principal, subject to successful performance reviews, can now reach approximately $133,446, $45,043 (25.2 per cent) less than if the relativity had been maintained.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 25 February 2011 1:32:05 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
We can sum up the situation thus:
A beginning teacher today is paid slightly more in real salary terms than a beginning teacher was in 1975, is paid less in real salary package terms than a beginning teacher was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a beginning teacher was in 1975.

A teacher with seven years experience today is paid less in real salary terms than a teacher with seven years experience was in 1975, is paid less in real salary package terms than a teacher with seven years experience was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a teacher with seven years experience was in 1975.

A teacher at the top of the unpromoted scale today is paid more in real salary terms than a teacher at the top of the unpromoted scale was in 1975, is paid less in real salary package terms than a teacher at the top of the unpromoted scale was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a teacher at the top of the unpromoted scale was in 1975.

A leading teacher in the first year today is paid less in real salary terms than a senior teacher was in 1975, is paid less in real salary package terms than a senior teacher was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a senior teacher was in 1975.

A leading teacher in the top level today is paid slightly more in real salary terms than a senior teacher was in 1975, is paid less in real salary package terms than a senior teacher was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a senior teacher was in 1975.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 25 February 2011 1:32:24 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
A principal at the bottom of the top range is paid slightly more in real salary terms than a principal in the top classification was in 1975, is paid slightly more in real salary package terms than a principal in the top classification was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a principal in the top classification was in 1975.

A principal at the top of the top range is paid more in real salary terms than a principal in the top classification was in 1975, is paid more in real salary package terms than a principal in the top classification was in 1975 and is paid, relative to MAOTE, much less than a principal in the top classification was in 1975.

None of this means that we must immediately restore teacher and principal pay to the exact relativities that existed in 1975. There is no intrinsic argument that 1975 was the right year and, for example, 1965 was the wrong year. That is not the point. The point is that the change in relativities has been so great that, arguably, the average ability of those training to be teachers has fallen and that in the long run, this will have a detrimental effect on student learning.

My choice of 1975 has nothing to do with the Whitlam government. The only reason I chose it was the VSTA prepared a lot of information on that year for its 1981 salaries case. Nor is the fact that there was a wages explosion under the Whitlam government in the slightest bit relevant. The CPI since 1975 is the same for everyone. The MAOTE earnings changes include whatever clawback there has been from that wages explosion over the past 36 years.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 25 February 2011 1:32:43 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
Riddler,

I am so relieved to know my posts are “just coherent enough to merit a proper response” (4.47:23pm, 20/2). I was shaking in my boots that they might not meet your standards of abusiveness, rudeness and false claims about what I have said and why I have said it. It is like being talked down to by year 7 student. Sadly, I can’t give you a detention for your unacceptable behaviour.

You ask me to answer two questions that you claim “I’ve never responded to” (8.25:23am, 23/2).

“1) Have classics and grammar classes increased or decreased since 1975?”

That is not the question you first asked of me. You first said, “The Education Department and Union suck at education. They've eliminated classics, grammar, etc, from most schools” (7.16:17pm, 4/2). Saying “eliminated…from most schools” is a long way different from “decreased”.

I replied with,
“The English courses of any school I taught in had grammar in them” (5.15:55pm, 6/2).

You replied with, ” Classics & Grammar have been killed off in schools” (4.58:15pm, 8/2). Saying “killed off” is a long way different from “decreased”.

The short answer to your question is that classics and grammar classes have decreased in schools since 1975. If you had put it that way to begin with, I would have accepted it.

“2) Why have parents been flocking out of the public system? Do they like paying fees instead of getting a free product? If it's the teacher quality in public schools that's falling, why has the catholic system been able to draw students away with teacher salaries that you concede are no higher than your own?”

I answered the first and second parts of that list in the letter I quoted from and linked to earlier (4.56:34pm, 11/2). I could go through all your posts to see if you have previously asked me about Catholic schools as opposed to all private schools, but to save my time, I won’t. Parents choose Catholic schools for the same sorts of reason as they choose other private schools, with the additional component of faith.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 25 February 2011 1:33:04 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
You continue this bizarre habit of responding to things from weeks ago. I can only assume you type a reply, find it's too long, and then slowly and agonizingly post it, bit by bit, over the days that follow. I don't know why you bother, everyone else seems to manage to reply in real time with only 4 posts per day. I promise you, your rants are not special enough to require that you inflict them on us in all their unedited glory. But if your posts to date are any indication, it's probably beyond your skills to edit them down anyway.

Chris, even taking only that singular claim, that they've "eliminated classics & grammar from most schools", your response was not a refutation to even that initial point, because whether or not they had it at your particular school really has no bearing on whether it was eliminated from most schools, a claim you still haven't disputed or provided any evidence for, except to repeat "but my school had it". I explained why this was not evidence some time ago ("cigarettes didn't cause cancer in my grampa, therefore they don't cause cancer in most people"), but maybe I can expect you to reply to that post a week from now.

The end result is you are now, in a very shady and backwards way, accepting my initial point was correct. This makes you look stupid for disputing it for so long, and no engaging with me when I asked you questions like "tell me more about grammar/classics at your school, is grammar a separate unit, or part of English?" (which you never did).

So moving on to the next part of your response to another of my points, an article you linked to earlier (but in reference to a different point made by longweekend, not by me), and the relevant part was not quoted in your post. I realise you have a high opinion of yourself, but I doubt most people here are clicking on links you give when they're seemingly unrelated to their points.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 25 February 2011 2:14:06 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
Your letter to the editor and post at 4:56 makes these claims in the following order:
1) The government can't give away their product,
2) Parents are paying tens of thousands of dollars a year for students to have a better peer group
3) Parents expect results from this,
4) But it doesn't work, because "you will see that while private school education does give students an advantage in university entry, it does not give them an advantage in success once there", and "The success of students at private schools is not due to the private schools. It is due to the students who go there. If you took the students from a high-performing private school and put them in an average government school, that government school would become high-performing" But,
5) Parents continue to leave the public sector.

On point 1) we can agree, but overall this is a very foolish response for the following reasons:
1) If the private schools aren't working, parents are idiots for pulling their kids out of the public system. Your claim that their kids would be just as effective in public schools basically requires the parents paying tens of thousands to go private to be fools.
2) Of course, you concede a certain type of effectiveness, in that their peer group is better. But this isn't much of an answer, because:
a) Most systems for uni entry in Australia are either based on an individual metric (like the HSC), have separate schools for high school (yrs 7-10), and college (yrs 11-12, when it counts to your ATAR), or simply don't have systems that require a good peer group to score high. Even in the ACT system, perhaps the most dependent on peer group, there is plenty of evidence of a kick-ass student being able to do well regardless of their peers (a girl from Lake G, perhaps the worst college in the ACT, got the highest score about 5 years ago). So there is no logical reason to pay all this money for a peer group that logic says won't affect your score
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 25 February 2011 2:34:28 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
Nor has the shift to private schools in the ACT been limited to yrs 11-12.
b) If it was really true that public education was just as good, and that public kids are better taught for uni, then parents would be less likely to take them out of that system, since they want their kids to do well at uni too, and peer group mostly has a minimal connection to your performance. I have seem the dubious statistic on this claim, and have a different (more likely) explanation for it. It is that the number of kids who get to uni from the public system is smaller, and because the teaching at public schools is so bad, they have to work that much harder, and be that much more competent, to survive it and get to uni. For that reason, you'd see a higher performance from the (small sample size) of students getting to uni from a public (non-selective) school. I'm actually not convinced they exclude the selective school results though, which is another reason I'm dubious of such stats.
c) Kids don't enter the private system after they're awesome students, many enter at a young age, before they've had any other teachers. They don't sit any proficiency tests in most cases, to determine if they'll be allowed to enter, and in the case of many faith based schools like Daramalan the schools could care less about the educational background of the child when entering. Yet even religious schools like this are outscoring public ones. I doubt anyone who has seen the football culture of St Edmunds, or the tough culture of Daramalan, could really kid themselves that this is a school devoted to only letting socially charming flowers enter. Yet their scores are higher, and parents keep sending their kids there.

I personally do not believe parents are arrant fools, and that their leaving the public system despite a high cost is because they are unsatisfied with the results of the public system, and all the indications and logic available tell us they're right.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 25 February 2011 2:41:46 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
I made a number of points earlier explaining the many factors which are damning to the department of education and public schools in particular, and much like the other 6 or so points I referred you to earlier, there has been little response from you in regards to those flaws.

Much of the new claims you make are also exceptionally dubious. When you say that students would perform the same or better in public school, are you saying teacher's from the private sector (catholic schools particularly) are worse/the same as those in the public sector? And if catholic schools, who have more revenue to pay teachers with, are choosing to pay the same as public school teachers, doesn't that suggest that the payment they are offering is a fair reflection of their value? After all, why would teachers opt into the private system otherwise, when (according to you) the wage is the same, and yet they lack the many (unfortunate) protections offered by the AEU? Your ideas are very confused on all these counts, probably as a result of buying into AEU propoganda without thinking it through very much. Just be clear here, are the (identically paid) Catholic teachers better, worse, or about the same as the public ones?

Obviously you have alot of catching up to do in regards to unanswered points, can you give us some kind of timeframe as to when you'll clear the backlog of your unedited eloquence?
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 25 February 2011 4:17:29 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
Riddler,

The 1983 to 2003 timeframe on the fall in the average ability of those entering teacher training was not “arbitrarily chosen” (4.47:23pm, 20/2) by me. It just happens to be the time frame used in one study I knew of. You say you “wouldn’t mind a reference to it”. I gave one when I first mentioned it with a direct quote (3.48:32pm, 15/2), so if it is obviously an inaccurate claim, take it up with the author. I quoted it correctly as “percentile rank”, but I misinterpreted it to mean “entry scores”. It is actually a percentile rank of ability, and other research does show the same pattern of decline in entry scores.

The Senate Inquiry into the Status of the Teaching Profession quotes evidence saying,
“Information from the Department of Education Services shows that the minimum tertiary scores for students undertaking Teacher education courses continues(sic) to decline. Tertiary entrance data obtained from the Tertiary Institutions Service Centre (TISC) shows that since 1990 the cutoff scores for entrance to Teacher Education curses have dropped by around twenty to twenty-five points across all teaching areas and across all universities”
and
“There is evidence that students are being accepted into some teacher education courses with unacceptably low scores (eg some regional Queensland Universities accepted scores in 1996 of 19 on a scale of 1 to 25, where twenty-five is the lowest score attainable.”
(Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee, A Class Act, March 1998, p 170)

Private school teachers and public school teachers do the same teacher training so your final comment, “I'd also like to know if your study is for public school teachers only, which seems impossible since the entry scores are too high”, is silly.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 26 February 2011 2:26:39 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
It’s not only parliamentary inquiries that say there has been a decline in entrance standards for teacher training. The business world is concerned too.

“There has been a signi&#64257;cant decline in the minimum academic quality of individuals
studying teaching. In 1983, those entering Australian teacher education were in
the top 26 per cent of the talent pool.18 By 2003, this had slipped to the top 39 per
cent. Tight labour markets have recently contributed further to this decline, with
university entrance scores falling signi&#64257;cantly for both primary and secondary
teachers (Chart 4). The entry level for students studying secondary school teaching
have fallen by even greater levels, with some courses entrance levels falling from
87 to 65 in their eligible Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER).
(Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia, Building a Better Tomorrow – Education Reform in WA, September 2009, p13)

“ ENTER scores have recently been set as low as 56 (Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre, 2008).”
(Business Council of Australia, Teaching Talent The Best Teachers for Australia’s Classrooms, p23)

The BCA recommends in paying the best teachers $130,000, so it seems that some outside education are concerned to improve teacher salaries in real terms in order to attract and retain more able people.

The fall in entry scores for teacher training has been commented on in the press and in research for many years. It is not a matter of dispute among those who keep in touch with educational developments.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 26 February 2011 2:27:30 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
You accuse me of being opposed to “making public schools work to improve” (5.03:27pm, 20/2). I have a record of working to improve the schools I taught in. This will give you an opportunity for another insult, but I held leadership positions for 28 years in schools and worked assiduously to improve them every year in those various positions. In fact, I have a pretty good idea what makes schools work, which is why I oppose some of the current fads, whether performance pay from “the Right” or open classrooms from “the Left”. I continue that work now in retirement by, among other things, public advocacy for schools and the teachers in them, by putting submissions to inquiries and so on.

There are at least two good reasons for not breaking up the education department. One is basically economies of scale: there are functions more efficiently performed by a larger entity than the individual school. The other is consistency in all sorts of areas across schools. There has been a great deal of school autonomy in this state since the 1970s, even with the existence of the department. We have had elected school councils since 1975.

I don’t expect you to understand the logic that increased student numbers in a class increase teacher workload but the fact is that they do. There are not many teachers whose correction consists solely of “using a red pen to tick/cross the answers”. In fact, I’ve never met even one. Nor have I ever been in a school in which the education department supplied worksheets. There is a lot more to teaching than you describe.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 26 February 2011 2:27:57 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
You say, “the AEU is totally opposed to performance based measures”. It was the pre-cursor to the AEU, the VSTA, that initiated the measures for the Advanced Skills Teacher categories in Victoria. The problem here is that people use “performance based” and “merit based” to mean all sorts of different things. I will let the AEU speak for itself, but a system that pays a teacher a performance bonuses because that teacher’s students do better in tests is a narrow and useless idea, tried and abandoned in the 1890s. There are collegiate aspects to teaching, so that the success of a student in one teacher’s class can be assisted by the work of other teachers and by the environment of the school as a whole. A system which pays some teachers more than others because they are better is fine, and is not opposed by the AEU.

I don’t know what sort of data the education department restricts from the public. There is far more information (easily available on the web) now than there was 20 years ago, about individual schools and the system as a whole.

You say that I chose the base timeframe for working hours “merely because it suits [my] argument” (10.59:01pm, 20/1). This is not true, but why would that stop you saying it? I chose that period because I had it handy. I don’t have any figures from 1975, though I do have figures after 1992. But they are also from the source that you “sneer” at.

Yes, other professions work after hours. You have missed the point again. Even though pupil teacher ratios improved, teacher workload went up, so the relative pay cut was not justified by the improvement in PTRs.

As to your repeated points about relativities being irrelevant, I don’t accept that and have said why.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 26 February 2011 2:28:22 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
Ah. You’re still clearing the backlog. It really does take forever with you.

So, first argument, which is whether there has been a connection between “decreased” wages, and teacher competence. To assert this, you claimed the pay drop had fallen at the same time that entry scores had dropped. There were several problems with this:
1) You based this entirely on the Leigh study, which I pointed out couldn’t be correct (and if it somehow was, it couldn’t help your argument). You have (finally) addressed this, conceding “I misinterpreted it to mean “entry scores”. It is actually a percentile rank of ability”. So you were completely wrong, and 6 days after I called you out on it (and dozens of your posts later) you admit it.
2) The period of the study that you now concede is useless (after all, what is the basis of this claimed “ability rank”?) was also flawed. You claimed salaries had fallen from 1975 to 2011, yet your study begins from 1983, and goes until 2003. That’s not the studies fault, since the things it was trying to prove were not the same as the things you are trying to prove. It just doesn’t help your case, unless you’re going to use the average wages, inflation adjustment and skill drop from 1983 onwards. Since Whitlam was voted out in 1975, I’m sure teacher wages (and ridiculous super) had already been cut quite a bit by then, which is why it hurts your argument. It completely devastates your argument because the inflationary adjustment between 1983 and 2003 is nothing like the difference between 1975-2011, which makes your claims of underpayment look cherry picked ($11,400 in 1983 on the RBA inflation calculator comes up with a value of $25,470 in 2003… don’t you look foolish).

You take these AEU stats at face value, and are shocked when the dates are cherry picked. After all, why is 1975 the year when teacher’s salaries were correctly calculated? Why was the wage that year the correct one? You’ve never come to grips with these questions, or even tried.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 26 February 2011 4:51:49 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
So what of this new evidence you bring to support your claim. You argue a study shows “minimum tertiary scores for students undertaking Teacher education courses continues(sic) to decline”. Decline from what? From when? Let me remind you of what your argument is. You’re arguing that a drop in wages has caused a drop in standards. Saying that there has been a decline since 1990 (lol!) is as far from helpful to your argument as could be, not least of all since there are other factors, like the mass exodus from public schools since then.

All these statistics, and you still don’t know what causation is. Disappointing.

I particularly liked this (irrelevant) quote btw; “The BCA recommends in paying the best teachers $130,000, so it seems that some outside education are concerned to improve teacher salaries in real terms in order to attract and retain more able people.” I doubt you’d approve of most of what the BCA suggests, so I find you endorsement of them here highly comical. Btw, they’re not saying that education funding isn’t high enough, they’re saying you need flexibility in salaries. I’d have no problem paying a particularly awesome teacher more, because it’d be coming out of the salaries of tenured incompetents. I have asked you many times if you support the current wage structure in fact, and you never answer.

And btw, you don’t need an educational degree to work in a private school, so your claim they necessarily do the same training is simply wrong.

Second argument (which is not a response to one of the many I have previously raised, but something you throw out there in your second to last post), The “two good reasons for not breaking up the education department.” I didn’t actually suggest completely breaking up the Dept of Education, but it has definitely failed, and schools should definitely be run autonomously, so let’s cut to your reasons:
1) One is basically economies of scale: there are functions more efficiently performed by a larger entity than the individual school
Functions like what? Why can private schools perform them?
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 26 February 2011 4:52:42 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
2) The other is consistency in all sorts of areas across schools.
Consistency isn’t good, it’s bad, because each student is different, each area is different, and each schools focus may need to be different. And that’s why you see the best public schools having the most independent MO’s and curricula, like the example of Narrabundah I noted before, or the selective schools in Sydney (should they teach “consistently” with the standards of other schools? Of course not). You even basically concede this, with your continual reference to how they’ve started to do it in Victoria. I have to say I’m not impressed by this ala carte variety of argument, dodging major questions of principle. If a little autonomy is good, there’s no reason to think a lot is good too. After all, we currently allow home schooling anyway, it’s not like crazy religious schools are an issue here, because people can ensure that for their kids now. This is a debate about kids who are going to mainstream schools now.

Thirdly, has the workload of a teacher increased since 1975. You never really tried to prove this, but since you again throw out the class size thing I’ll cover it briefly.

There are good teachers, just as there are good electricians, good sewage workers, etc. The specific remark I made about ticking worksheets was levelled at bad teachers, which assumedly we’re seeing more of under your logic. Again, everyone would love a small class size, but there is no reason to think the class size of 1975 was the “correct” one, in fact given the irresponsible spending that characterised the Whitlam government there’s every indication is wasn’t a good number to start with. There are many factors that go towards class size (higher education is more likely these days for one), but there’s no reason to think class size is a reasonable way to measure workload, and the box ticking example makes that clear. Do we measure the workload/salary of a sewage worker by how many toilets there are? Things are not that simplistic.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 26 February 2011 4:53:48 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
Assumedly with the decline of grammar and classics I could as easily argue the workload has gone down. You’re not making a reasonable argument, or even a consistent one (since you keep claiming the teacher quality has fallen, we’d expect a worse standard from them regardless of class size). It’s also unclear to me why we should hire more teachers for schools that are increasingly empty. Surely the reverse is true.

You’re claim that “A system which pays some teachers more than others because they are better is fine, and is not opposed by the AEU” is simply a lie. The AEU supports (and implements) a payment system based on tenure (the longer you’re there, the higher the salary). In order to believe that you’d need to believe that the older the teacher, the better they must be. That’s ridiculous.

Likewise, the fact there was even less data 20 years ago does not make the current dissemination of information good. The AEU opposes league tables, opposes myschools, etc. They clearly oppose more information for the public, and want to restrict it as much as possible, which is why they don’t even allow parents to choose where their kids go. The department does. I know I’m sick of seeing the only real basis for comparison between ACT colleges being the “median score” of students, which encourages no end of dubious belcurving (though our whole system is at fault there too).

You keep asserting teacher’s work harder (for other reasons than the ridiculous PTR measure). I think you’re slow, because:
a) Have their actual working hours increased?
b) Are numbers polled and collated internally by the AEU, based on asking teachers how much work they feel they do, objective?
c) After hours work, and total workhours, have doubtless increased generally through Australia since (whatever arbitrary date you’re using this time), probably because people polled in the initial sample in (arbitrary date) didn’t include after hours work, which oddly existed before 1975 too.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 26 February 2011 4:54:04 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
Riddler,

Your definition of “real terms” is correct (6.04:06pm, 21/2). It is exactly the way I used it. Nowhere have I said that teachers “were paid over $100K in real terms”, which is your assertion (4.32:37pm, 15/2).

When I have mentioned salary figures of over $100K, it has been in sentences of the following sort:
“In 1975, after seven years, a teacher reached the top of the unpromoted scale and was paid 166.6 per cent of MAWOTE - $116,825 now.”
The amount over $100K is the percentage of MAOTE, not a teacher’s salary in real terms then or now.

My whole argument is not “been that if we factored in changing monetary value, look at purchasing power, etc (albeit in an unscientific way) that the actual salaries of the 70's (well under 20K) should be worth over 100K in today's money.” That is not even part of my argument. If we factor in purchasing power, teachers’ salaries today are, in most of the examples looked at, worth now as much as they were in real terms in 1975. If we factor in purchasing power, teachers’ total salary packages are worth now less in real terms than they were in 1975. If we compare teacher pay relative to MAOTE now, it has fallen relative to 1975. These are all facts.

It is untrue of you to say that I “base all [my] arguments on documents produced by the AEU”. The CPI and MAOTE figures come from the ABS. The figures on falling percentile ranks for trainee teachers and on teacher pay relative to non-teacher pay come from research by Andrew Leigh and Chris Ryan
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 27 February 2011 3:27:24 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
It is untrue of you to say that, “the evidence for this claim, of standards radically dropping, has been abandoned by [me].” (6.14:31pm, 21/2) You then make various assumptions, as is your standard practice. I might even get around to discussing them when I have finished dealing with the way in which you misrepresent what I have actually said.

You refer to public education as “[my] product”. It’s not mine.

Your point about people paying for what they can get for free is, of course, the one I made in the letter I linked to (4.56;3pm, 11/2). As a matter of strict logic, it does not mean that the Catholic “product” is better, just that some people see it as better for them; e.g., there are still some Catholics who actually believe in their religion and who send their children to Catholic schools to get a Catholic education. They are not necessarily saying that the Catholic school is better academically or in discipline. They may be, and it may be, but it does not follow automatically from their choice that they are the reason for it.

You mention a “crash” in public school scores. Any evidence
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 27 February 2011 3:28:10 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
It is not true that “the choice of where to send students is made by the Dept of Education, not by parents” (6.23:54pm, 21/2). Parents in this state are free to send their child to any non-selective government school that has room for them. (The four selective schools have entrance exams.) The Victorian government website provides far more information about schools than does My School. Schools have to issue annual reports on key indicators. There is an annual meeting for parents every year. There are elected school councils, which have parent majorities on them. If a school is doing badly, the education department intervenes. It does not just leave the school to slowly fail while the children in it suffer. Parents can take their children out of it too. If that happens, its funding falls. Victorian government schools are mostly funded on a voucher system ($5,922 for a prep student in 2010, $6,602 for a tyear 12 one). The education system you keep assuming exists is not the one that does and it hasn’t existed for decades.

You complain (7.39:33pm, 22/2) that I have not answered certain questions from you. I would have a better chance of doing so if I did not have to spend so much time correcting your false statements about what I have said and what my argument is. I could ignore them of course, but then a reader might assume from my silence that what you said was true. I choose to set the record straight. Even when you complain about my not jumping when you say, you can’t resist another false claim: “made up formulas”. The figures I have quoted have all been sourced. The CPI formula is the RBA’s one, the link for which you provided, even though you misused the calculator.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 27 February 2011 3:28:36 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
You say, “I can only assume you type a reply, find it's too long, and then slowly and agonizingly post it, bit by bit, over the days that follow” (2.14:26pm, 25/2). You are wrong - again. I don’t “type a reply, find it's too long, and then slowly and agonizingly post it, bit by bit, over the days that follow.” It might be useful if you stopped assuming.

When you declare that “it's probably beyond [my] skills to edit them down”, you are simply referring, in your usual sneering way, to the fact that I included precise facts and reasoning in what I say. That does take more time than inventing and abuse, but it helps convince the readers – if there are any left.

You then say, “The only reply you've given to anything I've said is that in Victoria they have selection, assumedly conceding that is a good thing. I actually asked for more information on this, queried the extent to which they allow it, as I've never heard anything about it, and you refused to answer, just told me to find it myself. You've been anything but responsive to arguments people have made here.”

The poster who belittles, abuses, invents and misquotes (“rambling, irrelevant, unthinking posts”, “you intentionally ignore the stuff you can't respond to”, “you're a joke account”, “take yourself off”, “your rants”, that I “falsely assert that [teachers] were paid over $100K in real terms”, etc) complains that I have been “anything but responsive”. Manners might help you. I could type out all the details for you, but I have already said, “It is the standard method, so it affects everyone” and referred you to the DEECD website (12.14:42pm, 10/2). You need to do a little digging because not everything is in the one place, but you could start here:
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/hrweb/careers/vacs/recruitinsch.htm
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 27 February 2011 3:29:38 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
Chris, everyone else here is able to respond in real time (using 4 posts a day), it is only you who takes so long to reply to each post that you’re still on a backlog of posts the was made a week or so ago. It’s almost pointless to reply to you, because instead of responding to what I’m saying, you focus the meat of your post on a side issue from a week old post that you didn’t get around to replying to yet. It doesn’t make you or your argument seem more impressive; instead you come off as ridiculous, farcical, like a geriatric Rotarian, struggling to keep pace with the conversation. Instead of tediously replying to every word I write, why not focus on the themes and arguments I’ve made, as I seem to manage to do (and as everyone here has managed to do)?

While we’re on the subject of what is “real” I think I understand a better way to convey to you the real earnings/relative earnings point you continue to bring up, so it can dealt with. And in fairness, I assumed your argument was much less foolish than it now appears to be. The short version is the male average weekly ordinary time earnings (or MAWOTE/MAOTE as you continually refer to it as) is a crap measurement. In 1975 the workforce was very different, the % of male workers, and their income, was significantly different. There’s no reason we should be using it as a benchmark of anything, no more than we should be using the salary of a miner today to determine the salary of a teacher. You’ve had this sort of flaw exposed numerous times, and all you seem to say in reply is that you don’t agree. But you haven’t given one iota of argument as to why it is relevant at all. The average wage of an MUA worker today is different to 25 years ago, just as it would be different if we used MAWOTE or real terms or CPI or whatever.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Sunday, 27 February 2011 5:00:02 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
It doesn’t prove the current wage on an MUA worker is wrong, and given the context there’s every indication it’s more accurate today.

The new point you bring up, that “parents in this state are free to send their child to any non-selective government school that has room for them” is a stupid one. You look to Victoria, who provides a part of the funding for Victorian schools, and say “it’s not far off vouchers”. If so, good, let’s have a proper voucher model for all of Australia, instead of a partial one for part of Victoria’s funding. You say there are lots of avenues of choice in Victoria. Good, let’s have total choice everywhere. This is not an argument against what I’ve been saying. I keep asking you balls out “do you support vouchers”, but you keep changing the subject by looking at outliers in Victoria. The reality is that many parents, even in Victoria, lack the choice I would like for them, because good schools may not have room for them, local students may well be preferred, they may not get into one of the limited selective schools. I want everyone to get a choice. Do you support that, or are you going to make more irrelevant points in reply?

The rest of what you say consists of a collection of irrelevant and random thoughts, much of which has been dealt with already, though very painful to read. I’m going to stop now because you haven’t actually said anything else new to respond to, and you still haven’t replied to my earlier arguments.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Sunday, 27 February 2011 5:00:25 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
Riddler,

Your underlings may have to put up with your putting words in their mouths, pretending they have said things that they have never said, ascribing motives to them that they do not have, calling them names because they dare to disagree with you, complaining that they have not responded instantly to your demands, claiming that they have changed their words when they haven’t, asserting that they get their information from only one source when the facts show that have not, issuing instructions that they go away, etc. I’m not one of your underlinings. My first priority is to correct the untrue things you have said in response to me. This will take some time. My second priority is to deal with your claims about teacher salaries, that being one of the issues on which I first tackled you. My third priority is to discuss the issue of public and private education, a matter that I had no intention of discussing beyond my original pointing out what the OECD research says about student performance in the different systems.

My own practice when faced with the “he said…no I didn’t” exchanges that develop on some forums is to skip them, so I expect most others still looking at this thread will do the same. But I will not allow you to get away with the false claims that you make pots after post.

You say, in regard to grammar and classics, that I am “now, in a very shady and backwards way, accepting my initial point was correct” (2.14:06pm, 25/2). There is nothing “shady or backwards” about what I said initially or later. I have quoted it. You say it makes me look “stupid”. Nothing has ever done that. You used terms like “killed off”, “eliminated…from most schools”, “almost totally phased out”. So when I say that they have decreased I am not accepting what you said initially or changing what I said about their still being taught.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 8:03:14 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
Catholic schools do not have “more revenue to pay teachers with” (4.17:29pm, 25/2)

According to the 2008 National Report on Schooling in Australia, the average per capita revenue available to Catholic schools was $10,745 (compared to $15,062 for private schools)

http://cms.curriculum.edu.au/anr2008/pdfs/anr2008_Statistics_16-8-10.pdf

No separate figure is given for revenue per student in government schools, though it is reasonable to think the expenditure would be close to the revenue. In 2007-08, per capita expenditure, not revenue, in Catholic schools was $10,826 (compared to $15,576 for private schools and $12,639 for government schools). The official figures say Catholic schools spend $1,813 less per student than government schools.

I did not base my claim that relative teacher pay had fallen at the same time as teacher training entry scores had fallen “entirely” on the Leigh study (4.51:49pm, 26/2). I gave the Leigh study as one example (3.48:32pm, 15/2) because I had it handy. The information contained in it is not controversial or new. It is well known. I did not and do not “concede that the study is useless”. It demonstrates my point clearly.

I was not “completely wrong”. Entry scores for teacher training have fallen. The Leigh study uses percentile ranks of ability. If the percentile ranks of those who enter teacher training have fallen, so must the entry scores have fallen, as the entry scores are based on academic ability.

You say that I “don’t know what causation is”. Of course I do. I have argued the causation between failing relative pay and falling entry scores more than once. You may not agree that there is any relationship, but it would be strange if pay had no effect at all on people’s choice to take on particular jobs.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 8:04:49 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
You say that “you don’t need an educational degree to work in a private school, so your claim they necessarily do the same training is simply wrong” (4.52:42pm, 26/2). Under the legislation establishing the Victorian Institute of Teaching, you do require an educational qualification (whether a degree or a diploma) to be registered as a teacher in any school in the state, whether public or private, so I am right - again. The New South Wales Institute of Teachers has the same requirement for registration, which it calls “accreditation”, in both public and private schools, though its scheme applies to teachers starting from 2004. The Queensland College of Teachers requires the same from teachers in both public and private schools. So does the Western Australian College of Teaching. So does the Teacher Registration Board of South Australia. So does the Teacher Registration Board of Tasmania. That covers the states. Teach for Australia student teachers are given “permission to teach” by VIT, as are a few other persons, such as instrumental music teachers, but the general rule makes no distinction between public and private schools. Other states have similar exceptions, but nothing I have found on their registration authority websites provides any general exemptions for private schools

You say, “Thirdly, has the workload of a teacher increased since 1975. You never really tried to prove this” (4.53:48pm, 26/2). You are correct – at last! I have not tried to prove that. What I have tried to prove is that the improvement in PTRs since 1975 has not led to a commensurate fall in workload because of other factors, but we are straying from correcting your misstatements, so I will leave that point for the time being.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 8:06:05 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
You say, “It’s also unclear to me why we should hire more teachers for schools that are increasingly empty” (4.54:04pm, 26/2). Indeed! Let’s leave aside the fact that a school is either “empty” or not. After all, a school that was “empty” would have no students and therefore need no teachers. I don’t believe I have made an argument one way or the other about exactly how many teachers we should employ. If a school has a particular number of teachers for a particular number of students, that may or may not provide a reasonable ratio, irrespective of whether its enrolment is falling or rising.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 8:07:13 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
"You say it makes me look ‘stupid’. Nothing has ever done that"
I confess when I read that I chuckled so hard I almost fell off my chair. Sure, let's play big boy.

Easy stuff first; when I say killed off "in MOST schools", your response that they still teach it in your school is no response at all. You can’t read... moving on.

So your new point about Catholic schools is that they achieve better results with less money? So the government should give them more money, yes? Come to think of it, the very study you quote tells us that the student-teacher ratio (table 16 btw) is much lower in public schools than other varieties like catholic schools, which makes me wonder why the workload they have is apparently too high. Under the logic you advanced earlier I can only assume you think the private schools are working even harder, and deserve more Government money under that logic too, as well as for superior results (but on reading further I see you actually concede a better PTR! And you think this helps your argument!). By the way, as a hint for future arguments, when you are trying to refute a (unimportant) point about whether Catholic schools have more revenue than publics, and the study you cite does not contain the revenue for publics, it is not a useful refutation (and no, you can't extrapolate the revenue from the expenditure, do you know anything about economics at all!). By the by, it's a terrible indictment on public schools for you to argue they spend 20% more (the difference between 10K and 12K) per student than Catholic schools, but are putting out such a bad product in comparison that they can't give it away.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 9:44:33 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
More to the point, you continue to use dishonest figures ($10,826 is a total that includes primary schools, which I was very clear was not what I was arguing, and bears no relevance to the subject under discussion... the actual figure for catholic expenditure per student is $12,735, though this is also lower, it’d be nice if you could use the correct stats). The $15K stat doesn’t distinguish between secondary and primary education either!

I never thought the day would come where I would be quoting Wikipedia, but here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_teacher#Australia
It’s a shame much of Australia has recently abandoned the sensible policies of the ACT, but my claim that “you don’t need an educational degree to work in a private school, so your claim they necessarily do the same training is simply wrong” still holds because the overwhelming majority of teachers at private schools at the present (and at the time of these studies) did not require it, it was introduced in NSW in 2004, Qld in 2005, WA in 2005, etc. So the new framework, already riddled with exceptions, while contemptible, doesn’t mean the overwhelming majority of teachers at private schools were affected by it. In addition, the “training” required is in no way uniform, and is incredibly varied, so I’m right again. Back to less tangential arguments…
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 9:45:07 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
The rest of what you say is a collection of dodges and irrelevancies. Let’s summarise the actual base issues you’re supposed to prove to date, for anything you’ve said to matter:
1) That there has been a pay decrease for teachers since 1975, and flowing from that,
2) That the figures you are using, which are not the conventional or recognised (or sensible) way of indexing salaries, should be applied here
3) That the time period of 1975 is the appropriate one to begin at
4) That teacher performance justifies an indexed salary (particularly given the shocking exodus from public schools, some of which is noted in your recent link)
5) That there is a causal connection between the (supposedly) lower salary, and the (conceded) worse performance of teachers (since the time the supposed drop occurred)
6) That the way to remedy this claimed problem requires more funding, as opposed to readjustment of the current funding (particularly as the AEU supports and implements a policy of tenure based salary, and you concede many teachers who have been around a long time are of a lower quality, which means they’re being overpaid)

Astoundingly, you have yet to prove a single one of these, or even advance a sensible argument for one of them. And in response to your latest missive, that you’d be shocked if the wage fell and performance didn’t, this has been answered repeatedly, and in different ways. Mining salaries have soared in recent years, does it logically follow that the miners suddenly began working much harder? Conversely, if we increased the wage of an Indian call centre worker from $4 an hour to $20 an hour, would it logically follow that his performance would increase by a factor of 5? You don’t understand causation, just as you don’t understand economics.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 9:45:26 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
You say, “$11,400 in 1983 on the RBA inflation calculator comes up with a value of $25,470 in 2003… don’t you look foolish” (4.51:49pm, 26/2).

Your calculation, using the annual calculator, is correct, but there is no reason for putting $11,400 in for 1983. Teachers were not paid $11,400 in 1983. In January, 1983, teachers at the top of the unpromoted scale, which they reached after seven years, were paid $24,1999. Using the RBA calculator, we find that the salary of $24,1999 in December, 1982, is equivalent to $55,983 in December, 2002 dollars. (We use December of the previous year because inflation is calculated in quarters ending March, June, September and December and December is the nearest quarter to the following January.) In January, 2003, teachers were paid $49,820 after seven years, meaning that they had a real pay cut of $6,163 (11.0 per cent). Teachers at the top of the unpromoted scale, which took longer to reach in 2003, were paid $54,202, meaning that they had a real pay cut of $1,781 (3.2 per cent). So, not only did teacher pay fall relative to other occupational groups between 1983 and 2003 (as the Andrew Leigh study says), but it also fell in real terms. My argument is reinforced. I’m not looking foolish at all.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 3 March 2011 9:24:55 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
Riddler,

You say “You’re(sic) claim that “A system which pays some teachers more than others because they are better is fine, and is not opposed by the AEU” is simply a lie” (4.54:04pm, 26/2). We have had a system under which some teachers are paid more than others for all the years since I began teaching. Senior Teachers were paid more after demonstrating extra ability. Then Advanced Skills Teachers 1, 2 and 3 - brought in at the union’s advocacy - were paid more for demonstrating extra ability. Now Leading Teachers are paid more for demonstrating extra ability. I even advocated such a system myself in my submission to the 1980 Green Paper on Strategies and Structures for Education in Victoria, which you may be able to get under FoI. More recently, I wrote:
“If we want to identify the best teachers, we need a simple and competitive process which really does select the best, say, five per cent. We need to pay them as much as leading teachers receive for moving to administrative duties but we need to insist that they keep a full teaching load.”
(“Keeping the best teachers in the classroom”, The Australian, 17/7/2006)

“The Australian Education Union has commissioned an independent company to survey its members and develop a set of standards as a basis for assessing teachers and paying more to those who excel.” (Justine Ferrari, “Teachers warm to merit pay”, The Australian, 17/1/2008). So there is no lie. Such a system is “fine” – my words – and is not opposed by the AEU. The dispute is over the criteria and means, not the paying more.

You say “The AEU… don’t even allow parents to choose where their kids go.” The AEU has no say in where parents choose to send their kids. The parents make the choice.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 3 March 2011 9:25:31 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
It looks like you want me to stay with my first priority (8.03:14am, 2/3).

When you say that I “can’t read”, you are just continuing your habit of making things up, whether as a deliberate debating technique or because you just can’t help yourself I do not know. I can read very well. What I read was your claim that they had “eliminated” grammar from most schools (later, “killed off”). I replied that they had not and gave the fact that it was taught in all the schools, not just one school, I had taught in. You later asked if it had been decreased. I agreed. You then claimed I had changed my point. I pointed out that I had not because to say something is “killed off” is not the same as saying it has decreased. You ought to know the difference between “decreased” and “killed off”.

My “new point about Catholic schools” is not “that they achieve better results with less money” (9.44:33am, 2/3). This is another of your inventions. Nowhere do I say this. Nowhere have I said that they achieve better results. I did not say that “private schools are working even harder”. I did not say that “private schools deserve more money”. I have not expressed an opinion one way or the other on how much money should go to private schools.

Yes, I do know something about economics. You can extrapolate revenue from expenditure for public schools because they cannot spend what they do not earn. If the average expenditure per government school student is $12,639, their average revenue will not be $12,000. It will be around $12,639 per student. I say “around” because there are funds carried forward from one year to a next, money put aside for building programs, etc. I have not argued that “public schools “are putting out such a bad product in comparison that they can't give it away”. Obviously, they can give it away because most parents still send their children to government schools.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 3 March 2011 9:28:14 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
Your claim that Catholic schools have more revenue than government schools, which you now say is “unimportant” was not unimportant when you first made it.

You say I am dishonest when I give the actual figures on Catholic school revenue because you weren’t talking about primary schools, which you say was “clear”. It wasn’t clear at all. The idea that primary schools are suddenly not relevant to the subject under discussion is absurd.

When teacher registration was re-introduced to Victoria, it applied to existing teachers, whether public or private. NSW is the only jurisdiction whose website clearly indicates that registration is not required of private school teachers already employed at the commencement of the professional registration system. Even in NSW, as new teachers are employed in private schools, they will be required to have teacher training. It beggars belief that the overwhelming majority of teachers in private schools, Catholic or otherwise, do not already have teacher training qualifications. There may be a few exceptions from a past era, but the original point holds.

Your summary of my argument on teacher pay is wrong. I did not say that “the time period of 1975 is the appropriate one to begin at”. I could have started with 1974 or 1976 or any of a number of years. The point is the long-term change. I could even have started with the 1960s and the argument on relative earnings would hold.

I did not say that “teacher performance justifies an indexed salary”. Nowhere have I argued for an indexed salary. I haven’t even said what a teacher’s salary should be or how a teacher’s career path should be structured.

I did not say that any teachers are “being overpaid”.

I did not say some of the other things either, though it is a reasonable inference that I think more should be spent on education
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 3 March 2011 9:29:36 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
Still replying to old posts, how pedantic.

1. The point of putting $11,400 into the 1983 inflation calculator is to point out that you can’t use the figures from 1975, and then a study from 1983, as though the 2 things are interchangeable, when the inflationary difference is huge. However, you are finally making an attempt to clear the hurdles of establishing the first of the 6 points I just outlined. While the figure you give suggests a (very small) prima facie cut from 1983-2003, there are numerous problems with such analysis (before we even get to points 2 or 3). Firstly, factoring in tax for 84-85 (the furthest back I found on the ATO site here: http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/73969.htm) the amount leftover for the 1983 salary of 24,199 (you’ve mistyped it, so I assumed this was the correct #) is $17,566.5, equivalent to $39,246 in 2003 money. Even the 7 year amount you choose of $49,820 comes out at $38,494 after tax, so the drop in real terms after tax is basically nominal.

Secondly, the number you choose, as you admit, is not the number we should be comparing here, since the actual top position is listed at you as being $54,202 (worth $41,058). The fact that the time it takes to get the top teacher’s salary is longer doesn’t make it a bad point of comparison, especially if it was AEU policy. On this latter number, they actually attained a raise, despite losing students, and having poor performance. An the tax rates introduced shortly after 2003 are even more favourable still, so any 1975-2010 comparison will end far worse for you.

Thirdly, the study you cited which uses the period of 1983-2003 isn’t even helpful to your point, as they don’t argue for an actual drop in entry scores for teaching, and certainly not the drop you claimed, the study makes a wholly different argument.

Fourthly, I’m dubious of any study you present, because you’ve consistently provided bad date, or misinterpreted the data presented. I’ll assume the figures for the sake of argument, but it took me 2 minutes on
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 3 March 2011 1:50:45 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
Google to search for teacher salaries, and find that NSW salaries in 2003 for the top teacher scale were over $58K (http://www.educationworld.net/salaries_aus.html), which is higher even if we ignore tax. Did teacher performance in NSW increase then, in light of their higher salary? And if so, why did we instead see a steady exodus from public schools, and crap marks?

Lastly, I query what Leigh actually says (I haven’t read the study) when he says teacher salaries fell “elative to other occupational groups”. Is this relative to lawyers and doctors, or to some meaningful benchmark?

Your findings on this point are simply specious. So it’s dubious if you’ve even shown a salary drop, let alone explained why a salary drop isn’t merited, or why 1975 (or 1983 for that matter) are somehow correct starting figures.

2. The AEU. You persist in pointing to outliers in Victoria rather than honestly confronting the way the system works, and this makes your argument weak. It would be akin to me arguing that Labor has a talented group of MP’s, because they have Andrew Leigh (“he’s an economist!”), while ignoring everything else. Most teacher salaries are not determined by the niche collection of exempted leader teachers in Victoria (salaries here for anyone curious
http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/hr/empconditions/Teacher_salary_rates.pdf)
Rather we determine AEU policy by their standard practise, which is a tenured based system. Victoria has a small number of teachers who aren’t judged by tenure… because they recognise discretion is important… now let’s continue with discretion and implement it fully everywhere. Your quote from the AEU is not the helpful refutation you think it is (much like your BCA quote was unhelpful). The AEU does not oppose EXTRA payment for really good teachers, but not at the expense of bad teachers, which if you read down to the level of my actual words is what I’ve been advocating since my first 4 posts on here.

The AEU does not control where children go, I did not say they did, but they support the policy of their quasi-lobby in the education department, which is that parents do not have
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 3 March 2011 1:52:19 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
a real choice. This point has been covered. Repeatedly. It’s nice some parents have some choice, but most don’t, and I want to change this. Your continual references to outliers is unhelpful at best, and dishonest at worst.

3. Whether or not you can read
I said grammar and classics had been eliminated in MOST schools, and generally killed off. You interpreted that to mean X, I told you it didn’t mean X. Whether it was initially a product of your failure to read my sentences I don’t know, but at this stage it clearly is. I don’t care what you interpreted my words to mean, I know what I meant by them, and have been very clear in explaining exactly what they meant for some time now. Your call for me to defend an imagined position I never held is tired to say the least. For the tenth time I will ask you (for curiosity, not because it’s an important argument here), “did your school teach grammar as a subject, or a sub-part of English?” You’ve already conceded however that grammar and classics have dropped generally, there’s really little to say about this anymore.

“My ‘new point about Catholic schools’ is not ‘that they achieve better results with less money’ (9.44:33am, 2/3). This is another of your inventions.”
I realise you’re immune to sarcasm, but even you should have picked up on this one. You argue that catholic schools pay their teachers the same, according to your study they have a worse PTR & spend less per student, yet public schools (with a free product) can’t compete with them, and have been losing students to them in flocks and droves (yet they receive less public money). I don’t think the myschools scores (or general performance) does them poorly either, but I don’t want to get you distracted from your own argument just yet. All this seems to suggest that Catholic schools should get more money, not public schools. Yet the dialogue of the AEU is quite different. But doubtless you’ll reply (again) with a vague statement like
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 3 March 2011 1:52:45 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
“I didn’t say what my real position was”. Maybe you should, since I made mine clear from the first post, and it makes you look like you’re dodging the arguments.

Why is the exact revenue of catholic schools unimportant? Well, I originally raised it by noting “catholic schools are putting out a better product with the same money” and then followed that up by saying; “And if catholic schools, who have more revenue to pay teachers with, are choosing to pay the same as public school teachers, doesn't that suggest that the payment they are offering is a fair reflection of their value?” Of course, whether Catholic schools have more revenue doesn’t necessarily matter one way or another to my argument, that ‘they seem able to get teachers good enough to beat public schools with the same money’, it’s merely a fragmented observation in that broader argument. We don’t know that they’d need or want to pay them more if they had a higher revenue (and given they can steal the best teachers from publics now without their union protection, there’s no indication they would). It’s extra irrelevant because you have not produced any figures for public school revenue, just guessed them. Try to keep up.

I made it clear we weren’t discussing primary schoolers on the 20th, by now even you should have read it. Common sense would have helped (as if people are suggesting classics for kindergarten).

Existing teachers were indeed backdated into this system, even if from 2005 onwards they required periodic updates, nobody just “de-accredited” all private schools teachers. And as I noted, this is a distraction, since most of the data you cite (and teachers!) pre-dates this, and since there is little uniformity to the required “training”/registration.

“I did not say that any teachers are “being overpaid”.
You certainly are arguing that the competence of teachers has fallen from [whatever arbitrary date we’re now using], in which case surely these less skilled teachers should not expect the same wage that previous, more competent teachers obtained. Feel free to respond with a vague, irrelevant answer.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 3 March 2011 1:53:06 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
Riddler,

“Sure, let's play big boy.” (9.44:33am, 2/3)

This is a pathetic debating style.

Is this how you are in real life?

I have not “consistently provided bad dat[a]” (1.50:45pm, 3/3). I have not “misinterpreted data”. I have sourced my facts and figures. What you call “misinterpreted” is just that I dare to not interpret according to your views.

You now say “The AEU does not control where children go, I did not say they did” (1.52:19pm, 3/3). Yet you earlier said “The AEU opposes league tables, opposes myschools, etc. They clearly oppose more information for the public, and want to restrict it as much as possible, which is why they don’t even allow parents to choose where their kids go.” (4.54:04pm, 26/2) So, on the one hand, you claim that you did not say that the AEU controls where children go and, on the other hand, you claim that the AEU “don’t even allow parents to choose where their kids go”.

Victoria does not have “a small number” of teachers who aren’t judged by tenure. Victorian teachers must undergo a performance review every year to move up the pay scale. Whether or not this is a good practice is another matter, but it applies to all teachers, not just those promoted to leading teacher.

You say, “your continual references to outliers is unhelpful at best, and dishonest at worst” (1.52:45pm, 3/3). The “unhelpful” is matter of opinion. The accusation of dishonesty is unfounded, though typical of how you argue. It seems that you cannot bear to have anyone disagree with you and that you therefore endeavour, behind your anonymous screen name, to denigrate one who does. It’s much easier, isn’t it, to just throw out abuse? Though, anyone following the actual argument will see right though it.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 4 March 2011 9:33:05 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
You say, “I don’t care what you interpreted my words to mean, I know what I meant by them.” The Alice in Wonderland defence!

I have not “conceded” that grammar and classics have dropped generally. I disputed your extreme statement at the start. Had you at the start simply said that the teaching of grammar had declined, I would have agreed, but that is not what you said. If you wish to use extreme language, you may be taken at your word.

You say re private school funding, “Yet the dialogue of the AEU is quite different.” Indeed, it is, so take it up with the AEU. Do you think that a person who defends teachers or public education in some areas must therefore endorse everything the AEU says, even when the public record says the opposite, as it does in my case?

I have not “guessed” figures for public school revenue (1.53:06pm, 3/3). I have provided the official documentation on public school expenditure and pointed out that public schools cannot spend money they do not have. That the expenditure matches the revenue is not a guess. It is a logical inference. An ACARA table in The Australian today confirms that revenue per student is not more in Catholic schools ($10,000) than in than government schools ($11,100), perhaps via a different method than the MCEETYA figures I quoted earlier.

You say, “I made it clear we weren’t discussing primary schoolers on the 20th, by now even you should have read it. Common sense would have helped (as if people are suggesting classics for kindergarten).” (1.53:06pm, 3/3). I have re-read all your posts for the 20th. You do say, “I'm not sure if you're basing this on some kind of study that includes pre-school teachers, primary school teachers, etc (though why would you, that's not what is being discussed here)”, though why you assume that primary school is not being discussed is not clear, especially since you also say “the entry scores for even a primary Bachelor of Education are no lower than 57.55 and 59” (4.47:23pm, 20/2).
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 4 March 2011 9:34:02 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
Primary and secondary teachers in Victoria are on the same pay scale. Public money pays for both primary and secondary education in both public and, to some extent, in private schools. Grammar is relevant to primary schools, even if the classics are not. You don’t actually get to decide what “we” are discussing. After all, you have expanded the topics you are discussing way beyond my original points, particularly in regard to private schools, on which I initially made only one point, and it was not about funding, the AEU, teacher pay in the private sector, the revenue of Catholic schools, etc.

You say, “Existing teachers were indeed backdated into this system, even if from 2005 onwards they required periodic updates, nobody just “de-accredited” all private schools teachers. And as I noted, this is a distraction, since most of the data you cite (and teachers!) pre-dates this, and since there is little uniformity to the required “training”/registration.”

You need to know more about the history of teacher registration. The system was established in Victoria in the 1970s, with separate boards for government and private school teachers. The 1992-99 Liberal government abolished the government school system, but not the private school teacher system. The following Labor government established the one system for both sectors. Teachers in this state have had to have registration since the 1970s, with a gap for government school teachers in the 1990s. I don’t have specific figures on how many unqualified teachers there have been in private schools over the past four decades, in this or any other state. I suspect the number is very low for the obvious reason that sensible educational authorities would employ qualified people. The courses at different institutions will vary, of course, but they do not vary according to where the person will teach when he or she graduates. There are not private school teacher training courses and separate public school teacher training courses. A teaching qualification from any tertiary institution in the state will allow you to teach in any public or private school in the state.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 4 March 2011 9:34:45 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
You have challenged me on a number of choices I have made with my comparisons on pay.

1975 is not the “correct” year. I could use 1974 or 1976. The precise numbers would change, but the pattern would not. In January, 1974, the top unpromoted teacher salary was $9,700 ($74,352 in today’s dollars). In January, 1975, the top unpromoted teacher salary was $11,400 ($75,136 in today’s dollars). In January, 1976, the top unpromoted teacher salary was $12,223 ($70,424 in today’s dollars).

I could go back even earlier for comparisons with average earnings: e.g., on 30/6/1963, the equivalent salary to subdivision 14 was 210.53 per cent of male average weekly earnings, while by 27/3/1988 the subdivision 14 salary had fallen to 121.4 per cent of male average weekly earnings (VSTA, Subdivision 14 Annual Gross Salaries for Teachers in Victorian Government Schools – Comparison with average weekly earnings). 1963 and 1988 do not correspond with any other period I have used. The document I quote from begins in 1963 and ends in 1988. I use average weekly earnings rather than average weekly ordinary time earnings because that is how the document is constructed.

The only reason I chose 1975 is that the VSTA chose 1975 in its 1980 salary case and produced lots of information about it. It has nothing to do with the Whitlam government and the inflationary pressures and large wage increases of that era. As MAOTE, average weekly earnings and the like have all risen in real terms since the Whitlam era, whatever the excesses of that period, they have well and truly washed out of the system.

The reason I have used male earnings is that the VSTA salary submission used male earnings. It did so because that was the data available for the time. If we choose a less old period for our comparisons, we could use all persons average ordinary time earnings.

I chose ordinary time earnings to remove the effects of overtime payments and penalty rates, as teachers get neither, though the original salary case did include MAWE comparisons as well as MAOTE comparisons.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 4 March 2011 9:35:15 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
Your dishonesty and poor grammar knows no bounds. You accuse me of claiming that the AEU controls where children go on the basis of a partial quote of mine, deliberately excluding the last 3 words, which make it clear I do not believe that at all:
“The AEU opposes league tables, opposes myschools, etc. They clearly oppose more information for the public, and want to restrict it as much as possible, which is why they don’t even allow parents to choose where their kids go. THE DEPARTMENT DOES.”
In hindsight I would obviously have written “support allowing” instead of allow, but any confusion it could have caused is clearly negated by the following 3 words you obscured from your quote, not to mention the context of the passage, and all my posts generally (including remarks like “because the choice of where to send students is made by the Dept of Education” on Feb 21… it’s not my fault you can’t read properly). AEU policy opposes most choice for parents. This is bad. You don’t seem to disagree, though you insist on being exceptionally vague about it.

I do not put any serious meaning in internal performance reviews in Victoria before a pat on the back and an orderly move to the next scale. I would be interested in knowing how many teachers in Victoria do not advance at the normal progression (I’m guessing not many). But again, the policies of Victoria are not the policies of the rest of Australia, and not the policies of the AEU generally. Just answer clearly; do you support flexibility for teacher salaries, so each school can decide on what each teacher is worth? If you really support flexible salaries, then there is no problem, but instead of getting to the heart of the matter, you insist on distractions, like your claim that Victoria is already very flexible. So you support flexibility then? After a while, it becomes clear it’s a waste of time asking you questions like these, it would be too much like taking you seriously.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 4 March 2011 1:55:21 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
So now I’m told Grammar and Classics have “declined” but not “dropped generally”. I confess to have no idea what this means in your mind. And again, I notice you have avoided my question. Here’s hoping the 11th time is the charm; “did they teach grammar as a separate (compulsory) unit at your school/s, or was it just a smaller part of English generally?”

You should be able to understand an argument in the alternative as far as the (tedious) primary schoolers points go. I noted this wasn’t about primary schoolers, and also noted that even primary school teachers required higher marks than your (incorrect) claim would require (which given we were discussing secondary school teachers, boded poorly for your argument).

Oddly, I can decide for myself what argument I will make and discuss, and I’ve been very clear what’s relevant to it. If you wish to discuss things that are irrelevant to it, you should go elsewhere (though that hasn’t stopped you to date I suppose). Moving on.

The only remaining relevant (or unaddressed) point you raise is in regards to the first of the 6 points I noted you needed to logically prove to have an argument (perhaps one of these months, you will advance past the first and second points).

I guess the first thing to note is your math isn’t even trustworthy (as usual). Go to the inflation calculator, and enter $11,400 for 1975-2010, and you get $68,678. Your insistence on your own special methodology for this is not more accurate than the RBA inflation calculator, which is somehow $7K below your number. Likewise, $9700 in 1974 is equivalent to $67,305 in 2010. Your numbers are just wrong, a child could have shown as much. The 1976 figure you offer comes out at $64,953, showing 1975 was higher than 1974, and significantly lower than 1976 (what we call cherry picking, or what we would call cherry picking if you could do sums properly). I confess not to have bothered to try and work out the month by month inflationary difference.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 4 March 2011 1:55:58 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
If it really is so high that there was a $7000 difference in a single year, then clearly a period with this sort of inflationary pressures is a terrible benchmark to use, and faced with believing you or the RBA calculator, it’s an easy choice.

Your use of average male earnings at the time is a flawed figure (almost meaningless in fact). The fact that you used it because it was “how [an AEU] document was constructed” doesn’t give it some special merit (I don’t doubt the teacher’s union used such a flawed figure, intellectual dishonesty like that is quite usual for them). It’s not an intelligent way of comparing things, the whole economy has changed since then. Using a sensible starting point like real wage value, we see there has barely (if at all) been a cut since the (cherry picked) period (selecting some years suggests an increase), and if we factor additional factors like tax there has definitely been an increase. So you’re still unable to even clear the starting hurdle for your argument (i.e. prove that there actually has been a decrease in salary).

You have ignored most of my arguments, and dodged several of my explicit questions. I don’t know why I’m surprised, but if you’re going to reply, you may as well make it relevant.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 4 March 2011 1:56:19 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
I notice a slight typo above, which will doubtless confuse you. It should read that the sum in 1975 is higher than both the years before and after it, which is why it's a cherry picked stat. In 1974 the figure is $67K, in 1975 it's $68K, and in 1976 it's down to $64K. So you've taken what is likely the peak salary in the history of Australian teaching, when Whitlam was in government. Ridiculous. Not to mention that tax considerations you've ignored, and the absurd job security that comes with teaching, extremely rare in today's workforce.

You make a lame attempt to reply that you could pick any year and the result would be the same, but clearly you can't... because we went through 1983 and showed how there was an increase to 2003 (which would be even higher taken to 2010), and the other years you use don't use real wage, they use some bogus numbers which (among other things) try to measure salary based only what EVERYONE ELSE is doing. The fact mining wages went up does not create an argument for teacher wages to also go up, it's a ridiculous argument. And the inflation calculator for working out real wages does what such a statistic is supposed to show, what the wage they received back then is worth today.

Of course, this has been repeated over and over to you, and there has been no response at all.

I ask yet again:
One of your main arguments is that teachers have become less skilled since [whatever cherry picked date you are using], so given teachers today are less good at their jobs, why should we even be trying to pay them the same wage that (more skilled) teacher's got in the 70's? I won't hold my breath for an answer...
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 4 March 2011 2:17:52 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
Riddler,

I see that, having finally got a start on my second priority, “to deal with your claims about teacher salaries” (8.03:14am, 2/3), I have to return to my first, “to correct the untrue things you have said in response to me.”

While you keep going on about my not answering your imperious demands, you are actually ignoring my clear statement about how I will respond to you. If you continue your habit of making false claims about me, I will continue to correct them. If you keep getting basic facts wrong, I will continue to correct them. If you ever develop an acceptable level of honesty, if you are ever able to distinguish between the argument being made and the person making it, if you are ever able to stick at making an actual argument without the personal character assassination, I will be able to discuss the issues you tell us you want to discuss. Given the number of malicious comments you have made, it is unlikely that you will be able to do this. Perhaps you have been “successful” in life by putting other people down, making up stories about them, pretending they have said things they have not said, refusing to back away from claims that you have made even when they are proved to be false and generally acting in a bullying way.

You’re not the first person I have come across who acts as though the way to win a debate is to maliciously undermine the character of anyone who takes a different side, and you won’t be the last. You’re not the first person I have come across who claims to want to discuss an issue but actually wants
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 5 March 2011 2:52:09 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
Your comments suggest that you believe that petty put-downs and name-calling will help you. They will not.

Comments such as the following do not advance the discussion or even your own point of view:
“I realise you're having trouble keeping up”,
“Answer, or go away, but drop the patronising tone of your writing. I have no problem with arrogance when it is deserved, but you've only embarrassed yourself on this forum.”
“Your posts are just coherent enough to merit a proper response however,”
“your rants are not special enough to require that you inflict them on us in all their unedited glory”
“($11,400 in 1983 on the RBA inflation calculator comes up with a value of $25,470 in 2003… don’t you look foolish)”
“Sure, let's play big boy.”
“You can’t read...”
However, if you wish to waste your time including them go ahead. They will not change what I do and they will not undermine the case that I have made.

Similarly, the issuing of imperious commands does not advance the discussion or even your own point of view:
“Take yourself off, you're only embarrassing yourself now.”
“Either reply properly to what people have said, or take yourself off”
However, if you wish to waste your time including them go ahead. They will not drive me away and they will not undermine the case that I have made.

You have made a number of false claims about education:
“you don’t need an educational degree to work in a private school, so your claim they necessarily do the same training is simply wrong”
“You’re(sic) claim that “A system which pays some teachers more than others because they are better is fine, and is not opposed by the AEU” is simply a lie.”
“Victoria has a small number of teachers who aren’t judged by tenure”
This indicates you do not know much about the subject. It is not that there is no vague half-truth behind what you say here, but that you do not put things with the necessary precision, which is why I spend so much time correcting you.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 5 March 2011 2:53:31 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
You have made a number of false claims about me:
“you don't understand causation or logic”
“instead they focus on the statistical claims that were debunked by longweekend days ago”
“$11,400 is the amount he lists as a payment for a sub-division 4 teacher today, assuming his figures are even correct, which is dubious on his past record, is worth $68,678 in 2010 money, yet Chris erroneously claims it is worth $72,755 in today's money. He can't even add correctly.”
“This is another example of a meaningless and dubious statistic... why on earth is the base timeframe from 84-92, when that isn't the period your argument identifies as problematic? It's merely because it suits your argument...”
“The beginning of your lame reply is to claim I misrepresented you in a post I wrote a week ago, in what I assume is a desperate attempt to change the subject.”
“Maybe if you didn't base all your arguments off documents produced by the AEU you wouldn't lose credibility in this fashion...”
“"The number of teachers needed has not fallen. The ability level of those entering teaching has."
Yet the evidence for this claim, of standards radically dropping, has been abandoned by you.”
“I can only assume you type a reply, find it's too long, and then slowly and agonizingly post it, bit by bit, over the days that follow.”
“You based this entirely on the Leigh study, which I pointed out couldn’t be correct (and if it somehow was, it couldn’t help your argument). You have (finally) addressed this, conceding “I misinterpreted it to mean “entry scores”. It is actually a percentile rank of ability”. So you were completely wrong”
“The period of the study that you now concede is useless”
“($11,400 in 1983 on the RBA inflation calculator comes up with a value of $25,470 in 2003… don’t you look foolish)”
“you still don’t know what causation is”
“You can’t read...”
“you’ve consistently provided bad date (sic), or misinterpreted the data presented”
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 5 March 2011 2:54:22 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
Worse than the general false claims is that you hide behind your anonymous screen name to impugn my character:
“your use of statistics neatly underlines your intellectual dishonesty/ignorance”
“there needs to be a way to make public schools work to improve too, which every teacher (no doubt including yourself) seems opposed to”
“The end result is you are now, in a very shady and backwards way, accepting my initial point was correct.”
“You intentionally ignore the stuff you can't respond to”
“You’re claim that “A system which pays some teachers more than others because they are better is fine, and is not opposed by the AEU” is simply a lie.”
“More to the point, you continue to use dishonest figures ($10,826 is a total that includes primary schools, which I was very clear was not what I was arguing, and bears no relevance to the subject under discussion... the actual figure for catholic expenditure per student is $12,735, though this is also lower, it’d be nice if you could use the correct stats).”

Perhaps that is how you really behave, but it is an appalling attitude to take. You need to learn to distinguish between the argument and the person. You are not a mind reader, so it is ridiculous for you to claim that you know what is in my mind when I make a point.

There are insufficient words left for me to deal with all the false accusations you make in your posts of 4/3, so I will return to them on another occasion as I continue with my first priority. If that means there will be another set of false accusations for today, so be it. If you want to discuss the topics in a serious way, you will have to behave better.

As I started to say in my first post of the day: You’re not the first person I have come across who claims to want to discuss an issue but actually wants to denigrate a person. I will not allow your attitude to go unchallenged here.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 5 March 2011 2:56:40 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
You just used all 4 posts and 1400 words to say "waaa, you're mean and I hate you! Mommy!!" Nothing you just said, which mostly consists of quoting things that have been said already, has added anything to the discussion, not even as a reproach. At the risk of encouraging you to respond further, I'll even say why. If you're just going to quote things as though they speak for themselves, then surely they've spoken for themselves already, re-quoting everything that annoyed you in drips and drabs, without anything further from you, added really serves no purpose at all. I confess, after I got the tenure of it I just skimmed the rest, since I don't need to re-read what I wrote (I know what I wrote). You just wasted the time of anyone still following this discussion, congrats.

I have some advice for you next time you feel the urge to do this. Instead of quoting everything I've said that you didn't like under a heading, just write "I don't like what you said", since it will be as effective as what you just did. Of you know, you could explain why something was a lie/mean/whatever, and I'd respond. Or better yet, you could man up, stop crying to mother, and REPLY to the actual points you've had put to you, in some cases dozens of times as direct questions!
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 5 March 2011 3:19:24 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
Your figures are correct Chris and reflected in weekend media reports indicative of the fact that private systems have received less funding than public schools over past years contrary to the many OLO viewpoints on the debate raised many times here.

Some states have differed in the past and some schools required more funding than others for improvements.

I would love to know how many schools in the hotter parts of Australia now have airconditioning as opposed to fans? For many years, the Australian public who do enjoy sitting in airconditioned offices and vehicles for most of the day, have whinged about teachers and their fantastic conditions.

Has any person spared a thought for the teachers educating their children for 20 years during 33+ temps? Funding for both systems should have included some airconditioning for highly humid and heatwave weather.

Emotion over-rides fact with quite a few taxpayers who begrudge a few dollars going into our future Nurses, Doctors, Pharmacists, Police Officers, Defence force, tradespeople and population who require an education for employment to assist us all at one time or another.

500 NZ uni students have arrived to continue their studies here, with many south australian good hearted people accommodating these young people.

If there's an outcry from any Australians, just be aware, that quite a few of these wonderfully determined students will undoubtedly stay in Australia after qualifying and may one day be your GP or Specialist saving your lives.

Ditto with Teachers educating our future generation, regardless of either systems funded
Posted by weareunique, Sunday, 6 March 2011 10:51:02 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
Riddler,

In accordance with the priorities I have set myself, I will now respond to the untruthful accusation and inaccuracy in your first post of 4/3.

“Your dishonesty and poor grammar knows no bounds” should read “Your dishonesty and poor grammar know no bounds.” (1.55:21pm, 4/3)

You say “You accuse me of claiming that the AEU controls where children go on the basis of a partial quote of mine, deliberately excluding the last 3 words, which make it clear I do not believe that at all”.

I omitted the last three words because they change nothing in the meaning of the previous two sentences.

You say, “The AEU opposes league tables, opposes myschools, etc. They clearly oppose more information for the public, and want to restrict it as much as possible, which is why they don’t even allow parents to choose where their kids go.”

Quite clearly this means that the AEU does not allow parents to choose schools, that it has the power to stop parents choosing schools. When you say, “The department does”, you cannot mean that the department allows parents to choose schools as you have already told us that the AEU will not allow this. You mean that the department chooses schools for the students. Thus the words you wrote say that the AEU does not allow the parents to choose schools, but the department is allowed to and therefore does the choosing.

You now say that that you would obviously have written “support allowing” instead of “allow” in regard to the AEU. The following three words do not negate the original two sentences at all. I can read quite well, which is why I took you to mean what you actually said , not what you now say.

I accept that what you now say is what you meant to say originally because you tell me this is so, though you have not produced any evidence that either statement is true.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 7 March 2011 7:54:54 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
There may be some statements, even in recent years, from the AEU or its constituent branches that have said that parents should not have any choice of schools, that they must send their children to their local zoned school. I am not aware of any, but you are free to produce some with the dates they were made.

Parents in Victoria are free to send their children to any non-selective school that has room, and this has been the case for years. Even when we had fairly strict zoning, parents had a choice of high or technical schools and of co-ed or single sex schools and there were appeals allowed against zoning.

In NSW, there is zoning, but it not the end of the story:

“Finding a school
Each NSW public school has a defined local enrolment area. This means that your child is designated to a particular school based on the permanent residential address of the primary caregiver. Every public school reserves enough places within their school for students in their local enrolment area.
“Out-of-area schools
Parents may however apply to enrol their child at a school outside their enrolment area. Non-local applications may be considered by the school's enrolment panel, according to the department's policy and subject to selection criteria such as availability of appropriate staff and classroom accommodation….”
(http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/gotoschool/enrolment/index.php)

In WA, there is zoning, but it not the end of the story:

“Choosing a school
“Children usually attend the school closest to where they live. Your child has automatic entry to your local school in Years 1 to 12….
“You are encouraged to visit the school and have a look at the programs and facilities available and to meet the teachers….
“You may also apply to enrol at a school other than your local school if this suits your individual circumstances. You will need to meet the enrolment criteria set by that school. Entry to schools outside your local area is not guaranteed.”
(http://www.det.wa.edu.au/schoolsandyou/detcms/navigation/parents-and-community/schooling/)
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 7 March 2011 7:55:15 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
In SA, there is zoning, but it not the end of the story:

“School Zoning

“The Minister for Education has the authority, under section 55A of the Education Regulations 1997, to establish school zones.

“Approximately 80 primary schools and all secondary schools in metropolitan Adelaide are zoned. This means that a student’s zoned school is determined according to their permanent and primary place of residence.

“A place is reserved for each child in their zoned secondary school (except Adelaide High School and Urrbrae Agricultural High School who have separate Enrolment Policies). While students are zoned to a particular secondary school, they are free to apply for enrolment at any other out of zone secondary school in the State. Acceptance of an enrolment in an out of zone secondary school however, depends on whether the number of enrolments at that school exceeds the number of places available.

“Enrolment of children and students in out-of-zone school
If a student wishes to enrol in an out-of-zone primary or secondary school, selection for entry to the school should take place in accordance with the department’s Criteria for Allocation of Points. These criteria are communicated to parents in the Starting Secondary School Brochure….”
(SA Department of Education and Children’s Services, Enrolment – School Enrolment Policy, available at http://www.decs.sa.gov.au/portal/community.asp?group=matters&id=enrolment)

In the ACT, there is zoning, but it not the end of the story:
“Priority Enrolment Areas
Each public school gives priority to the enrolment of children living in its Priority Enrolment Area (PEA). ACT public schools are non-selective. If a school has room available after accepting students from its PEA, it may offer places to students who live outside the area.”
(http://www.det.act.gov.au/school_education/enrolling_in_an_act_public_school)
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 7 March 2011 7:55:35 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
In Queensland, there is zoning, but it not the end of the story:

“Enrolment Management Plans
“Education Queensland ensures that Prep-Year 12 students are guaranteed enrolment at their nearest school and supports the efficient management of local area facilities based on service delivery standards.
“All schools in Queensland are not enrolment managed. Schools that are enrolment managed are listed on the left side of this web page.
“Schools only develop an Enrolment Management Plan when:
the site capacity of a school is under pressure now, or has this potential in the future, from out of catchment enrolments;
a school's development of a distinctive approach to meeting school and community needs has the potential to impact on enrolments;
a new school is opened (An enrolment management plan is drafted prior to commencement of operations of the school since new schools can potentially attract large numbers of students who live outside the local catchment area).
“The local catchment area is defined by the equidistant boundary based on trafficable routes between one school and its neighbouring school/s. Minor adjustments are negotiated at the school level to meet local road access and entry points.
“For a school that has an enrolment management plan it's capacity to enrol students who live outside the local catchment is dependant upon:
the school's enrolment capacity.
catering for in-catchment enrolments
allowing for in-catchment growth during the year
ensuring an even spread of students across all year levels while maintaining class size targets.
“For further information regarding Enrolment Management Plans, please refer to SCM-PR-023: Enrolment Management Plans, or contact your School Principal.”
(http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/catchment/)

(I am not responsible for the misspellings in the Queensland Education Department’s website.)

In summary, Victoria has the freest system of the six jurisdictions looked at, but none of them has strict zoning. All of them allow enrolments from outside the zone under certain circumstances, which seem to amount to if there is room.
Posted by Chris C, Monday, 7 March 2011 7:55:54 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
Chris, you've once again negated the need to reply to you, by ranting to yourself about irrelevant (covered) subjects. I'm sorry you can't read, but my meaning was plain, both in the post you cite, and in the other posts you (claim) to have read. I'm at a loss as to how you could read the passage as you claim to, and more at a loss as to how you could believe I held that position when I had earlier made remarks like “because the choice of where to send students is made by the Dept of Education” on Feb 21. At this point I can't say I care about your confusion, as you keep using it as a distraction from the actual point, one which you could have answered in a single sentence by now; do you support parental choice, or do you not?

Of course, there is a related matter you raise, which is to (claim to) refute the lack of choice now. This is odd, because I've made it clear where I stand as far as outliers go, but let's go over it quickly once more:
a) "Parents in Victoria are free to send their children to any non-selective school that has room". I already answered this, good schools don't have room. In the ACT the equivalent would be to claim that any parent can send their child to Telopea or Narrabundah if they have room (but those schools are always full). Why don't good schools have room? Because most kids are sorted by zones, and this keeps bad schools open. A parent can "choose" which bad school (in a poor area) they will send their kids to, but that does not help them much. I want them to have real choices, and good schools in all areas, not just the affluent ones. There is no incentive to do that now. At the risk of treating you seriously again, do you support individual schools being able to expand as they wish? (at any rate, this is all aided by school autonomy, which you hint you oppose)
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Monday, 7 March 2011 8:19:41 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
b) As you note, NSW has some out of area placement. Guess how that works. Good schools take the best students from out of areas, and bad schools take worse students from far away areas to counteract the loss of students to private schools. But at any rate, this "helps" only a small number of kids, and isn't the solution I want. There should be good schools in every zone, but that doesn't happen when the bad schools get no real incentive (and there's always going to be some kids in a zone whose parents aren't able/willing to send them to a far off school).
c) In WA "your child has automatic entry to your local school"... and again, guess which zones have the best schools? The ones in wealth suburbs. Guess who lives there? This is not a new argument, you should have known better than to post this rubbish.

The rest of what you say is just repeating the lines off their website, as though they carry some special meaning that defies any of these realities. They don't. It's actually easy even in the ACT, where there is supposedly no selection, to ensure you're taking the best kids when you take out of area kids. You interview their parents, you ask what subjects they want to do, etc, you look for their name in the national competition results. I have advised plenty of kids applying to Narrabundah to say they're going there because they want to do [insert wacky subjects/program aimed at smart kids]. And it works. I don't know if you're as naive as you look, or if that would even be possible, but you've said almost nothing of substance above.

To wearunique. Seriously? Could you make a more obvious attempt to channel the politics of envy... air conditioning! The stockman and building construction worker doesn't get air conditioning either, I guess it's only right we take some of the teacher's wages from them (especially the air conditioned ones) and give it to them? Take yourself off. Teaching is not a special profession.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Monday, 7 March 2011 8:30:41 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
weareunique,

Thank you. The whole debate is full of misinformation and slogans, which is why I often just don’t comment on it at all.

In one school I taught in, the teachers pooled their tea money (which used to be paid when you had to stay for parent-teacher nights, but which, in line with the general teacher-bashing climate of the nation, was later abolished) in order to provide air-conditioning for their own staff room. Teachers’ physical contains of work are often very poor. I think the general teacher-bashing that is so widespread in Australia is very sad.

The facts on private school funding have been ignored for years, especially by the AEU. That said, the government school system is under-funded, as is the Catholic school system, as are some other private schools. However, I won’t go into all that now because my views require long elaboration as they are somewhat different from both of the main yellers in the “debate”.

The Victorian government has the most sensible funding system in the nation, insofar as most of the money comes into the school as a “voucher” for each student”, but the amounts are too low. Again, this is too complex to go into here. I have made some points at:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/maralynparker/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/teacher_strike/#commentsmore
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 9:15:14 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
Riddler,

I have not “avoided [your] question” (1.55:48pm, 4/2). As I explained earlier, I am responding in priority order. My first priority remains “to correct the untrue things you have said in response to me” (8.03:14am, 2/3). If and when I run out of things to correct, I will discuss teacher salaries (my second priority) and then private schools (my third priority). I’ll even fit grammar in somewhere after I have finished with my first priority.

There is no contradiction between my two statements on grammar; i.e., that it is taught and that it is taught less now than it used to be, so I am not accepting and have not accepted your initial point at all.

The relevant sequence on grammar is as follows:
Riddler: ‘The Education Department and Union suck at education. They've eliminated classics, grammar, etc, from most schools.”’ 7.16:17pm, 4/3)

Chris C: ‘The English courses of any school I taught in had grammar in them.”
‘ (5.15:55pm, 6/2)

Riddler: “Have classics and grammar classes increased or decreased since 1975?” (8.25:23am, 23/2)

Chris C: ‘That is not the question you first asked of me. You first said, “The Education Department and Union suck at education. They've eliminated classics, grammar, etc, from most schools” (7.16:17pm, 4/2). Saying “eliminated…from most schools” is a long way different from “decreased”.

‘I replied with,
“The English courses of any school I taught in had grammar in them” (5.15:55pm, 6/2).

‘You replied with, ” Classics & Grammar have been killed off in schools” (4.58:15pm, 8/2). Saying “killed off” is a long way different from “decreased”.

‘The short answer to your question is that classics and grammar classes have decreased in schools since 1975. If you had put it that way to begin with, I would have accepted it.’ (1.33:04pm, 25/2)

RIddler: ‘The end result is you are now, in a very shady and backwards way, accepting my initial point was correct….’(2.14:06pm, 25/2)
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 2:36:59 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
You say ‘So now I’m told Grammar and Classics have “declined” but not “dropped generally”. I confess to have no idea what this means in your mind.’

My actual wording was, ‘I have not “conceded” that grammar and classics have dropped generally….Had you at the start simply said that the teaching of grammar had declined, I would have agreed, but that is not what you said.’ The key word is ‘conceded’, which is why it is in inverted commas. I accept that the teaching of grammar has declined, but this is not a concession because I never said it had not. What I disputed was your initial statement, not that the teaching of grammar had ‘dropped’ or ‘declined’, but that it had been ‘eliminated…from most schools’.

‘We’ were not discussing only secondary teachers. You decided that.

I have no problem with you “deciding for [yourself] what argument [you] will make’, but you don’t get to decide what argument I will make or to make me go ‘elsewhere’ because I am discussing things that you don’t want me to discuss.

You persist in misusing the inflation calculator. I will explain it again.

If you put $11,400, 1975 and 2010 into RBA annual calculator, you will get $68,678 as your result. However, we are looking at the CPI changes, not from 1975 to 2010 (35 years), but from 1975 to 2011 (36 years). I am comparing January 1975 salaries with January 2011 salaries. The nearest CPI date to January 1 in any year is December 31 of the year before. So, you need to go to the quarterly calculator. Put in $11,400, December, 1974 (i.e., the nearest CPI date to January, 1975) and December, 2010 (i.e., the nearest CPI date to January 2011). The January, 1975 salary of $11,400 is $75,136 in January, 2011 dollars. The RBA calculator is saying that the total CPI increase from January 1975 to January 2011 is 559.1 per cent, somewhat higher than I calculated in my earlier posts.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 2:37:50 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
Anyone can go to the RBA Calculator at http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html and open the Quarterly part of it to do the correct calculations.

But then you ‘confess not to have bothered to try and work out the month by month inflationary difference’. That is why you leave a whole year out of your calculation.

You, who leave a whole year out of the calculation tell me that I can’t ‘do sums properly’. You say, ‘The 1976 figure you offer comes out at $64,953, showing 1975 was higher than 1974, and significantly lower than 1976 (what we call cherry picking, or what we would call cherry picking if you could do sums properly).”

I have already shown that you have the maths wrong because you do not use the period of time that I am talking about, January 1st of one year to January 1st of the other, so let’s deal with your accusation of “cherry-picking”, which is false.

When I first mentioned 1975, this is what I said,
‘Male average weekly ordinary time earnings were $1343.90 ($70,123 pa) in August of last year, according to the ABS. In 1975, after seven years, a teacher reached the top of the unpromoted scale and was paid 166.6 per cent of MAWOTE - $116,825 now.

‘The new top level, which now takes ten years to reach, now pays $81,806 – a relative cut of $35,019 or 30 per cent.’(5.15:55pm, 6/2)

I did not mention the CPI. I was using 1975 as a comparison with MAOTE. (Had I used other years, the comparison would actually have shown an even greater decline in teacher pay relative to the average pay.) It was longweekend who brought up the topic of the CPI (11.23:33am, 12/2), and that is when I did the calculations of the real value of teacher pay now compared with in 1975. I started with 1975 for the reason I have given already: ‘The only reason I chose 1975 is that the VSTA chose 1975 in its 1980 salary case and produced lots of information about it” (9.35:15am, 4/3).
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 2:38:32 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
Teacher’s physical conditions are poor relative to the CEO of a multinational company, or a lawyer in a private firm. But they are excellent relative to the general conditions of the workplace, most professions don’t have air conditioning in fact. Should we take money from teacher’s with air conditioning and give it to construction workers and stockman who don’t even have chairs to sit in, let alone air conditioning? Really, your silliness knows no bounds.

There’s a lot of irrelevant ramble in here, but I’ll address briefly the pertinent bits:
1) RE: Has grammar been eliminated.
It is truly embarrassing that you have continued with this. Here is the actual narrative; a) on Feb 4 I said they’ve eliminated grammar/classics from MOST schools, b) you responded 2 days later saying your school had grammar, c) my response to this on THE 8th (hint, it is totally disingenuous to take a reply from 15 days later as “my response”, not the post the immediately followed it on the 8th) said “fact that classics courses "exist" is hardly an argument against the fact that both grammar and classics have been almost wholly phased out of schools” which I followed up by noting “actual grammar classes have been almost totally phased out” (the 9th) and “I've told you that grammar has been phased out, and classics are barely taught, and your rebuttal is ‘they taught it at my schools’. That's not an argument” (the 11th), and on and on (with no response from you). It was only later, after you’d repeatedly dodged this stuff that I asked a DIFFERENT question, which was the one on the 23rd (“do you agree grammar and classics decreased?”). For you to try and rewrite our discussion in such a way, as though I was trying to change the subject, is absurd. If you’d merely answered the original question, put to you half a dozen times, I would hardly have bothered with a different tact.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 4:54:59 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
It’s also silly because my whole point was grammar AS A SUBJECT has declined (as in, it almost doesn’t exist in the public system anymore), not that grammar isn’t a sub-part of English. I repeatedly asked you to clarify this (the 10th, the 11th, the 25th, etc) and to tell me whether grammar was really taught as a separate unit, and you never replied.

2) You continue to defy the inflation calculator in a way that is frankly bizarre. Do you seriously believe that a single year is throwing off the salary calculation by that much? By $7000? That’s ridiculous. Either you’ve screwed up your calculation, or the benchmark you’re using (Jan 1975) is totally unreliable (assuming for a moment your number is actually correct, the reason would likely be that inflation spiked in Jan 1975 during the financial crisis). Seriously, you can’t be dumb enough not to see this, so I’m going to try it again. Slowly. If the inflation calculator for 1975 AS A WHOLE gives us a number $7000 lower than a number for ONE MONTH then it’s a ridiculous time to select to begin your measurement (should I measure German teacher salaries during the hyper inflation after WW1?). Do you even understand how crazy a $7000 difference for an amount that small is in that short a period? Predictably, a quick google search confirms that 1975 (and 1974) had the worst inflationary crisis in Australia’s history. You (or more accurately, the teacher’s union, whose data you’ve regurgitated like a parrot) have picked not only the highest year of inflation and wages, but you’ve literally cherry picked the exact month in a (almost hyper inflationary) year to make their argument plausible (http://www.google.com.au/images?hl=en&q=inflation+australia+history+graph&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1024&bih=653 and http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Inflation-CPI.aspx?Symbol=AUD). Are you really incapable of understanding why an argument which collapses if you pick a different month of the year is a cherry picked and weak argument? Do you know any area of employment, even CEO of a mining company, who gets their salary indexed PER MONTH to factor in for month by month inflationary increases?
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 4:55:48 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
It’s such a dishonest argument it’s readily apparent to all but yourself it seems.

MAWOTE is not a useful stat. The fact that the AEU used a bad stat in a case study does not make it a good stat. You don’t refute any of this, and it’s been pointed out dozens of times. End of argument, and end of your response, such as it is. It’s pretty disappointing stuff. Maybe I should come back in a week when you’ve actually replied to some more relevant stuff.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 4:56:25 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
You say, “If it really is so high that there was a $7000 difference in a single year, then clearly a period with this sort of inflationary pressures is a terrible benchmark to use, and faced with believing you or the RBA calculator, it’s an easy choice” (1.56:19pm, 4/3)

1975 was a high inflation year, but you were not faced with the choice of “believing [me] or the RBA calculator”, but with the choice of using the RBA calculator correctly (i.e., by including all 36, years as I did) or incorrectly (by including only 35 years, as you did).

You say in regard to the VSTA’s use of the average male earnings that you “don’t doubt the teacher’s (sic) union used such a flawed figure,(sic) intellectual dishonesty like that is quite usual for them.” The case used lots of material, average male earnings and average male ordinary time earnings being only two factors. This does not demonstrate any dishonesty at all. Nor have you shown that intellectual dishonesty is quite usual for the teachers union. It is just another claim you throw in without bothering to prove it. The only dishonesty I know of is the AEU’s campaigning against private school funding. If you have sufficient examples to prove that it I usual, you are free to share them.

Given that my argument has not been that “there actually has been a decrease in salary”, I do not have any hurdle to clear in regard to it. My argument was about relative salaries. I pursued the real value line of argument because longweekend brought it up, and it does show that teachers at some, though not most, levels do have less real pay now than in 1975.

I have not “dodged” your questions. I am following the priority I set long ago – to correct your untrue statements first. Given that you persist in making untrue statements, it is possible that I will never get to your actual questions. Of course, you could hurry up the process by ceasing to make untrue statements.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 10 March 2011 12:25:07 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
It is untrue of you to say that the typo “will doubtless confuse” me (2.17:52pm, 4/3). I saw immediately that you had made mistake in wording and I knew what you mean because of the context.

You then say that I have “taken what is likely the peak salary in the history of Australian teaching”. I have explained why I started from 1975. I have explained that the argument I set out to make from the start was about relative pay. While 1975 is probably the best year to choose to make an argument about real pay, it is not the best year to choose to make an argument about relative pay.

The following table shows the pay of a subdivision 14 teacher (or equivalent before 1972) in terms of the percentage of Victorian male average weekly earnings (not ordinary time, simply because the table does not give ordinary time):
30/06/1963 210.53 per cent
21/06/1964 208.14 per cent
07/11/1965 190.28 per cent
29/01/1967 203.42 per cent
17/11/1968 179.85 per cent
01/01/1970 184.16 per cent
01/01/1971 178.25 per cent
13/07/1971 176.94 per cent
14/05/1972 176.61 per cent
10/06/1973 165.64 per cent
18/12/1973 170.86 per cent
26/05/1974 166.76 per cent (
(“Annual Gross Salaries for Teachers in Victorian Government Secondary Schools”, VSTA, 1988).

Thus, the decline in teacher pay relative to average pay did not start in 1975, but long before it. As Victorian male average weekly earnings were $1390.30 ($72,543.87 pa) in November of last year, if I had chosen 1963 as my comparison year, I would have said that if teachers were still paid 21.53 per cent of male average earnings, they would be paid $152,726.51 now. But I did not choose the best year for relative pay. I chose a year that happened to be somewhere in the middle between the best year and the current year.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 10 March 2011 12:25:42 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
I did not reply that I could pick ‘any year at all’. I said, ‘I could have started with 1974 or 1976 or any of a number of years. The point is the long-term change. I could even have started with the 1960s and the argument on relative earnings would hold.’ (4/3) ‘Any of a number of years’ does not mean ‘any year at all’.

You say, ‘One of your main arguments is that teachers have become less skilled since [whatever cherry picked date you are using]’. I have not cherry picked any dates. I have explained why I started from 1975 several times. That choice did not involve cherry picking. I have explained why I used Andrew Leighs’s study starting from 1983. That did not involve any cherry picking. People doing research choose their own periods to look at. Therefore studies of related matters may cover different periods of time.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 10 March 2011 12:26:45 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
You say, ‘You just used all 4 posts and 1400 words to say "waaa, you're mean and I hate you! Mommy!!"’ I did not. I don’t actually hate you. I don’t like you and am glad that I don’t have to deal with people like you in real life, but that is a different thing from hate. The purpose of the four posts was clear. Anyone can read them. Your reply is equivalent to a burglar complaining that the person he had robbed was pointing out he had been robbed. It is like the school bully complaining that he has been told off for bullying.

You say, ‘Instead of quoting everything I've said that you didn't like under a heading, just write "I don't like what you said", since it will be as effective as what you just did. Of you know, you could explain why something was a lie/mean/whatever, and I'd respond. Or better yet, you could man up, stop crying to mother …’

I have explained why what you say is untrue. Whether or not it is a lie is something only you really know. For it to be a lie you have to know that it was untrue when you said it and have gone ahead and said it any way. It is possible that you actually believe what you say is true. There are many myths that people just believe (e.g., that John Howard changed the definition of unemployment; they are not lying when they pass it one, but they are still wrong).

‘[S]top crying to mother’ is the bully’s defence. I saw it quite often amongst children. You have made statements that are simply untrue. Yet you seem to expect that they must remain unchallenged and then you object, with the usual abusive language, when they are challenged. But I have said, more than once, that my first priority is “to correct the untrue things you have said in response to me” (8.03:14am, 2/3). If you want your questions answered, it is in your hands.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 10 March 2011 12:29:18 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
“my argument has not been that ‘there actually has been a decrease in salary’”
I’ll admit it, when I read that I wondered why I bothered replying to you at all. So this whole time you’ve rambled, dodged, recited misleading and inaccurate calculation after calculation, rambled some more, and you don’t even think there has been a decrease in salary. You would have saved everyone a lot of time if you had just said this 100 posts earlier.

Ok, so there hasn’t been a decrease in teacher wages. So remind me why we should be paying them more? Or is that another position you “don’t really believe”? So you can’t even argue a salary decrease, the first and most basic of the 6 points you need to establish to even have a prima facie argument. Unbelievable.

You do persist in your “MAWOTE” argument, that there has been a “relative drop” and that this somehow means something. What you don’t do is address any of the criticisms made of this methodology that render it valueless as a benchmark. I can only assume you’ve once again failed to comprehend what has been written, so I’ll explain it slowly, like I would to a child.
a) Joe makes $40,000 a year. This is exactly the average male earnings for that year.
b) Over the next 5 years there is no inflation (for the purposes of this argument, I don’t want to confuse you). So in 5 years, the real value of Joe’s $40,000 is the same.
c) In an entirely unrelated business sector, let’s call it mining, the industry becomes far more profitable during this 5 year period. They start paying their workers more money for overtime, to live permanently in the community, to get extra training, etc. The extra money going to this sector shifts the average wage from $40,000 a year to $45,000.
Now, explain why Joe should get a $5000 raise because of something that happened in an unrelated industry. There is no reason, what happened in the mining industry doesn’t provide any reason for his own wage to increase.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 10 March 2011 3:08:19 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
And that’s without factoring in all the changes in the workplace, such as the fact that the workplace has radically changed (women are now a larger part of the workplace for example, the economy has opened up, the profession of teaching is not as valuable and is losing market share to the private sector, etc). This has been repeated over and over, and you keep referencing MAWOTE like it matters. You say other things support the “relative salary drop” (like what?) without understanding that a relative salary drop isn’t an ACTUAL drop, and there is no reason you should pay people more because of a relative drop, not when the real value of the money they’re getting is just as good. Bob next door got an extra $150 a year, so I should get an extra $150 a year even though we work completely different jobs and that makes NO SENSE. I keep repeating this in the hope that you’ll actually address it at some point, but I seem to be typing in vain. That’s what MAWOTE measures… that’s why it has no value, because what Joe next door is earning shouldn’t dictate what I earn, only the value of the services and payment I get in real terms should dictate that. So if you’ve conceded there was no actual drop, you’ve conceded the whole argument. Jesus, I can’t believe it took this long to prise that information out of you. Doubtless I can expect a vague, rambling reply to something irrelevant. Goody.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 10 March 2011 3:08:38 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
Riddler,

You say ‘I'm sorry you can't read, but my meaning was plain, both in the post you cite, and in the other posts you (claim) to have read. I'm at a loss as to how you could read the passage as you claim to, and more at a loss as to how you could believe I held that position when I had earlier made remarks like “because the choice of where to send students is made by the Dept of Education” on Feb 21’ (8.19:41am, 7/3)

I read the passage as you wrote it: “The AEU opposes league tables, opposes myschools, etc. They clearly oppose more information for the public, and want to restrict it as much as possible, which is why they don’t even allow parents to choose where their kids go. “The department does…” (4.54:04pm, 26/2); i.e., the AEU does not allow parents to choose schools; the department does the choosing for them; in other words, the AEU is powerful enough to prevent parents choosing schools and the department is powerful enough to tell parents which schools their children must go to.

Yet, when we examine the details in six of the eight jurisdictions, we see that the department does not actually choose where parents must send their children. It guarantees a place in a local school and allows parents to choose any school with room or subject to other conditions. Now, those conditions may or may not be reasonable, but it is simply untrue to say that the department chooses the school to which parents must send their children.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 12 March 2011 2:29:56 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
You say that I ‘hint’ that I ‘oppose school autonomy’. To save you the bother of making up yet another set of beliefs or statements from me, I will say that it all depends on the definition and extent of autonomy. There is a difference between curriculum autonomy, which Victorian schools gained in the late 1960s and lost in the 1990s, and management/budgetary autonomy, which principals gained in the 1990s. There is also a difference between school autonomy, the term you use, and principal autonomy, which is what many people mean when they say ‘school autonomy’. I am even prepared to discuss the subject with you when I have completed dealing with priority one and probably priority two as the topic may fit under priority three.

Your statements about how zoning works in NSW may even be right (8.30:41am, 7/3), but they do not show that the department chooses which schools parents send their children too. You were wrong in your claim about the department choosing the schools and attempt to cover up for getting basic facts wrong by presenting an entirely different argument about what the choice parents do have actually amounts to. It seems that whenever you get a basic fact wrong, you just pretend you haven’t and talk about some other point.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 12 March 2011 2:30:16 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
You do the same things when you talk about grammar (4.54:59pm, 8/3). The untrue thing you said is, ‘The end result is you are now, in a very shady and backwards way, accepting my initial point was correct….’(2.14:06pm, 25/2). I have not backed away from anything I have said about grammar and I am not accepting and have not accepted that what you initially said is correct. This is separate from whether what I said is right or wrong. I made two statements. The second, ‘The short answer to your question is that classics and grammar classes have decreased in schools since 1975’ (1.33:04pm, 25/2), is not a backing away from the first, ‘The English courses of any school I taught in had grammar in them’ (5.15:55pm, 6/2). Nor does the second statement indicate agreement with your initial statement that ‘They've eliminated classics, grammar, etc, from most schools’ (7.16:17pm, 4/3).
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 12 March 2011 2:30:45 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
You say ‘You continue to defy the inflation calculator in a way that is frankly bizarre’ (4.55:48pm, 8/3). No, I use the inflation calculator correctly, whereas you leave out a whole year. You put in 1975 and 2010 when the period I first referred to was 1975 to 2011. It’s not about ‘ONE MONTH’, no matter how ‘slowly’ you put it; it’s about a whole year that you leave out.

I have not ‘regurgitated like a parrot’. I have used data that you have been unable to put a hole in. I have not ‘cherry picked the exact month’. You just can’t be that thick. Because I am making comparisons over a period of time, I use an exact period. Salaries have varied during each year at different times. To be consistent with average earnings and CPI figures, I have taken the salary as at the beginning of each year, not the one that may have been paid from May in one year and the one that may be have been paid from September in the next year. I have chosen January because it is the start of each year. Exactly one year later, it will be January of the following year.

What you do is leave out half the CPI increase in 1975 and half the CPI increase in 2010. I suggest you go and red the calculator carefully, including the part that tells you how many years your calculation actually covers. Most of us realise that there are 36 years between 1975 and 2011, not 35 years.

As I have already explained, the VSTA’s 1980 salary case did not rely on CPI increases. It also used changes in teacher pay relativities. It does not matter that you don’t think that is a good method, because the point I am making is about the union’s choice at the time, not what you think of it. Had the union wanted to ‘cherry pick’ on pay relativities, it would not have chosen 1975. It would have chosen 1963.
Posted by Chris C, Saturday, 12 March 2011 2:31:12 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
Ramble, ramble, ramble (ignore my more recent posts). *SIGH*
It’s tiring repeating stuff I’ve already covered (you’ll never catch up for one thing) so I’m going to limit my reply to stuff that is new or relevant.

1) You waste time quibbling with the definition of choice, but conveniently find time to ignore questions I ask you ten or more times which would render such quibbles moot; “DO YOU SUPPORT PARENTAL CHOICE OR NOT?”. This is not a difficult question to answer.
As far as the “choice” quibbling goes; if I hold a gun to your head and tell you to do what I say “or else” you still technically have a choice. You can fight back, you can die, etc. In practical terms though, you have no choice. When the department reserves you a place in your local region, then says “oh, but you can go to any (bad) school who has room” they are not providing you with a real choice, for the reasons already explained. A real choice would be permission to go to any school they liked, which could be greatly aided by school autonomy, which is your next point (why couldn’t you tell us which autonomy you do support right now? That would take a few sentences…)
2) Inflation is not indexed for employees on a per month basis when they enjoy indexation. When picking a different month in 1975 instead of the year as a whole yields a $7000 difference on a figure that small, you are cherry picking. It’s obviously dishonest for you to say a whole year has been left out, because you’re using a singular month from 2011 (January). There is no yearly inflation out for 2011, which is why I’ve rather sensibly used the whole calculation for 2010, rather than 1/12th of a calculation from 2011.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 12 March 2011 3:10:39 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
None of which changes the fact that the time period you have selected is extremely poor (ludicrous inflation), and that YOU HAVE SINCE SAID YOU DON’T ARGUE THERE HAS BEEN A REAL CUT! In which case it’d be nice if you explained why teacher’s should get a higher wage… I mean, they whole argument about cherry picking above was that your selection of figures was dishonest, because it suggested a cut, but in reality there hadn’t been one, and you’ve now CONCEDED THERE HASN’T BEEN A CUT, so this is a moot discussion.

You continually claim that “It does not matter that you don’t think that is a good method”, but it obviously does matter, because if you concede the wage of teacher’s hasn’t dropped in real terms, only dropped in relative terms, then you need to explain why relative salary is a good figure, or else why should teacher pay from [whatever period you use] matter? Why should it increase? If [varying period] doesn’t matter, then what was the point of you quoting all of those lame AEU studies? These are simple questions, I ask them a lot, but you never reply to them.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Saturday, 12 March 2011 3:11:03 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
Riddler,

You say ‘MAWOTE is not a useful stat…’ (4.56:25pm, 8/3). So you keep saying, just as I keep saying why it is relevant, but that is not actually an untrue thing for you to say, so I do not need to correct you, though I do not agree with you.

You quote me, correctly this time, as saying “my argument has not been that ‘there actually has been a decrease in salary’” (3.08:19pm, 10/3).

Then you say, “So this whole time you’ve rambled, dodged, recited misleading and inaccurate calculation after calculation, rambled some more, and you don’t even think there has been a decrease in salary. You would have saved everyone a lot of time if you had just said this 100 posts earlier.”

The first part is untrue. I have not “rambled”, “dodged” or “recited misleading and inaccurate calculation after calculation”. I have put a case, with evidence and reasoning. I have done it in accordance with the priorities I set when it became apparent that you would get basic facts wrong and invent things about me. My calculations are accurate, despite your continual leaving a whole year out of your alternative calculation.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 13 March 2011 4:51:03 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
You act as though I have suddenly discovered that there has not been a decrease in salaries.

As I said a fortnight ago, “Apart from principals who reach the top salary level, teachers have, at best, had small increases in the purchasing power of their salaries over the last 36 years.” (2.51:15pm, 19/2)

My initial point was about teacher’s relative pay. As I said more than a month ago,
“Male average weekly ordinary time earnings were $1343.90 ($70,123 pa) in August of last year, according to the ABS. In 1975, after seven years, a teacher reached the top of the unpromoted scale and was paid 166.6 per cent of MAWOTE - $116,825 now.

“The new top level, which now takes ten years to reach, now pays $81,806 – a relative cut of $35,019 or 30 per cent. To put it another way, an eleventh-year-out teacher needs a 42.8 per cent salary increase to restore his or her salary’s relative value to that of an eighth-year-out teacher 33 years ago.” (5.15:55pm, 6/2)
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 13 March 2011 4:51:23 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
You say, “So if you’ve conceded there was no actual drop, you’ve conceded the whole argument. “ (3.08:38pm, 10/3) No, I have not “conceded” it. Now I know that last time I said I had not “conceded” something, you missed the point and said I was saying something completely different. So, I will explain it for you. As I never argued that there had been a drop in the real value of teacher pay at most levels (one level did show a drop), there is nothing to “concede”.

You say that you “can’t believe it took this long to prise that information out of” me you. You did not “prise it out of” me and it did not take long because I said it myself a fortnight ago. (2.51:15pm, 19/2)

You say that you “can expect a vague, rambling reply to something irrelevant.” No, that would be an expectation not based on any previous reply. You will get a reply that corrects point by point anything you have said that is untrue.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 13 March 2011 4:51:48 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
You say that I “find time to ignore questions” (3.10:39pm, 12/3). It is not necessary to “find” time to ignore questions. Ignoring them takes no time at all. However, I will repeat what I am doing, as you either have not understood or have not believed me on any previous occasion. My first priority is “to correct the untrue things you have said in response to me.” Now, it may be that you are used to people caving in to your demands, folding under abuse, crying with frustration at your errors, quivering when called names, running away when faced with bluster and bombast, etc. There is no reason I would do any of that. You have no power over me, and while it is tedious correcting you again and again, I am just stubborn enough to do it. If you really want to know what I think and you are not prepared to just let longweekend make up my thoughts for me, you will have to stop saying untrue things.

You make a relevant argument on choice, but that does not change the fact that you were wrong when you said that the education department makes the parents’ choice of schools for them. Students can go to any school they like that will take them, which is quite different from saying that they must go to the school chosen by the department. The issue of the practicalities of that choice is one thing (and we may even get around to discussing it);total absence of choice is another.

That leaves only your 12/3 claims re teacher pay for me to correct. So, we are almost at the point of discussing the issues you keep saying you want to discuss. Of course, we reached this point before (9.35:15am, 4/3), and you came back with more untruthful statements (1.55:21pm, 4/3…), so I am not expecting we will actually get to any issues after my next response.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 13 March 2011 4:52:20 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
Actually, a remark like “teachers have, AT BEST, had small increases in the purchasing power of their salaries over the last 36 years” does little to suggest that you don’t think there has been a salary decrease… if you’d written “at worst” (eg, the opposite of what you wrote) then it would have suggested that. It’s such a laughable position to be honest, if you never thought there had been a salary decrease in real terms then you were wasting everyone’s time by posting all those (bad) stats on real wage drops. But I’m not going to encourage you to continue this, since you now concede there hasn’t been a salary decrease. Let’s move on to what you actually are willing to argue for, a “relative drop”. And in your 4 recent posts you say… nothing about why MAWOTE is relevant… nothing at all. Shocking of course.

I’ll ask again, as per my earlier example: why should Joe get more money because of what happened in an unrelated industry? What is the REASON a relative drop MATTERS AT ALL? If you’re not going to defend it, then you posted all those MAWOTE #’s for nothing.

Your continued quibbling that an impractical choice is still a choice is intentionally naïve, and I don’t say that lightly in your case. It’s like me saying that you have the choice to drive a gold Ferrari to work next week. A hopeless choice, or totally unrealistic choice, is not a choice, and for almost all parents the “choice” you attribute to them is non-existent, for the reasons explained.

“You say that I ‘find time to ignore questions’ (3.10:39pm, 12/3). It is not necessary to ‘find’ time to ignore questions. Ignoring them takes no time at all”
Would that I could believe the above, but it seems like it takes you an incredibly long time to say nothing at all, as your last 50 posts make clear. Somehow I’m well able to answer them using far less words though.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Sunday, 13 March 2011 6:20:25 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
Riddler,

You say, ‘When picking a different month in 1975 instead of the year as a whole yields a $7000 difference on a figure that small, you are cherry picking. It’s obviously dishonest for you to say a whole year has been left out, because you’re using a singular month from 2011 (January). There is no yearly inflation out for 2011, which is why I’ve rather sensibly used the whole calculation for 2010, rather than 1/12th of a calculation from 2011.’ (3.10:39pm, 12/3)

The difference is actually $6,457.83, not $7,000 and not normally rounded up to $7,000.

You have not used the ‘whole calculation for 2010’. You have used a calculation that uses half the CPI increase for 2010 and half the CPI increase for 1975, which is why you end up with a result for 35 years, not the 36 years that actually exist.

Nor have I used ‘1/12th of a calculation from 2011’. I have used nothing from 2011. I just include all of 1975 and all of 2010.

No cherry-picking! No dishonesty! Just a rational decision to keep the whole series consistent by using January figures for every year for teacher salaries, the preceding December figures for the CPI (because there are no January figures and the CPI increase from January 1 of one year to January 1 of the following is almost certainly almost exactly the same as the CPI increase from December 31 of the previous year to December 31 of the year immediately before January 1 of the following year).
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 3:08:47 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
Of course, there is no CPI increase for 2011 included. There does not have to be. The CPI increase is calculated until December, 2010 (as near as you can get to January 1, 2011). The calculations are on the CPI increase from January 1, 1975 to January 1, 2011; i.e., exactly 36 years. The calculations go from December 31, 1974 to December 31, 2010 because the CPI is calculated quarterly for March, June, September and December in each year, not for January – and evening the high inflation times of 1975, I do not think the CPI would have increased by even one tenth of one per cent on a single day.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 3:09:08 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
According to normal maths, 2011-1975 = 36.

According to you, 2011-1975 = 35, which result you achieve by putting in 2010 instead of 2011. You get the following result from the annual calculator (http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/):

‘A basket of goods and services valued at $11400 in year 1975, would in year 2010 cost $68,678.53

‘Total change in cost is 502.4 per cent, over 35 years, at an average annual inflation rate of 5.3 per cent’

I use the quarterly calculator so that I cover the whole period. I get:

‘A basket of goods and services valued at $11400 in Dec’1974, would in Dec 2010 cost $75,136.36

‘Total change in cost is 559.1 per cent, over 36 years 0 quarters, at an average annual inflation rate of 5.4 per cent’

Your method says ‘35 years’. The correct method says ‘36 years’. So, it is not dishonest of me to say that a ‘whole year has been left out’. It’s not just me saying it. It’s the RBA calculator.

The calculator gives the CPI increase during 1975 as 14.1 per cent and the CPI increase during 2010 as 2.7 per cent. The way you do it leaves out half of the 1975’s inflation (7.05 per cent) and half 2010’s inflation (1.35 per cent), c 8.5 per cent in total when compounded. 8.5 per cent of $75,136.36 is $6386.59, almost the same as the $6,457.83 difference between the correct figure of $75,136,36 and your incorrect figure of $68,678.45.

Thus, even though the annual compound inflation rate under your method (c5.3 per cent) is only 0.1 per cent less than under the correct method (c5.4 per cent), that annual 0.1 per cent makes a big difference after 36 years.

I can make mathematical errors, but you are the one leaving out a whole year to produce the lower figure.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 3:09:37 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
I see we have reached the CAPITALISATION stage.

You say that I ‘HAVE SINCE SAID [I] DON’T ARGUE THERE HAS BEEN A REAL CUT!’, that the ‘whole argument about cherry picking above was that [my] selection of figures was dishonest, because it suggested a cut’ and that I have ‘now CONCEDED THERE HASN’T BEEN A CUT’ (3.11:03pm, 12/3).

I have been through this already. I did not argue that there had been a real cut overall in teachers’ pay (though I discovered and reported that a teacher with seven years experience is actually paid less in real terms now than such a teacher was in 1975). I did not suggest a ‘cut’ in real terms. I argued from the beginning that there had been a cut in relative pay. I have explained umpteen times my choice of 1975 as being simply because I had that year’s data from a VSTA salary case that used that year, that had I wanted to cherry pick on relative pay, the whole point I started with, I would not have chosen 1975 but an earlier “much better” year” and that, while 1975 seems to be the best year to use for CPI comparisons, the CPI was not part of my original argument, but simply dealt with in response to longweekend’s raising the subject.

Now, if you want to argue that the VSTA cherry-picked 1975, you have to argue that it thought the CPI part of its case was the most important because, had it thought the relative pay part of its case the most important it too would have picked a different year. However, it is not necessary to express an opinion either way about the VSTA to discuss the topic.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 3:11:13 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
I skimmed your first 3 irrelevant posts, the substance of which is unimportant now that you’ve conceded there has not been a decrease. I’m not going to encourage you to drone on about something irrelevant further, the only reason those statistics were even being discussed was because you kept citing them in the context of a discussion about salaries dropping in real terms. You concede they haven’t dropped in real terms. Moving on to the issue you are (apparently) willing to argue for, that a relevant cut matters…. and in response to my many posts about it… you say nothing, nothing at all.

Observant readers will notice the above paragraph is so similar to my previous post (and probably the post before that) it could have just been pasted several times. That’s because your replies are rarely in any way related to what your critics have said. You have so many throwaway arguments at this stage, you should be prosecuted for littering. I tried several weeks ago to nail down the 6 key points you needed to cover, but you still haven’t responded to any of them, and this without the dozens of additional arguments you’ve abandoned. I pasted your 4 posts into Word, and was unsurprised to discover it amounted to less than 1000 words, which means despite your rambling on a now irrelevant subject, you could easily have answered some of the pertinent questions put to you, such as why MAWOTE matters (a question you’ve been asked over and over to the point it’s embarrassing at this stage). It’s impossible to take you seriously at this juncture. If you’re not going to reply to any of the points you’ve missed (I’m happy to list them for you if you like), then don’t bother to reply at all. I have no use for a geriatric parrot stumbling over a keyboard and clutching his AEU stats like a drowning man at sea, while ignoring everything else. Feel free to take this excuse to try and desperately grab the moral high ground and run from the argument.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Tuesday, 15 March 2011 4:10:07 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
Riddler,

You say, ‘if you never thought there had been a salary decrease in real terms then you were wasting everyone’s time by posting all those (bad) stats on real wage drops’. I have not posted ‘all those (bad) stats on real wage drops’. (6.20:25pm, 13/3)

First of all, my stats are good, as has been demonstrated again and again.

Secondly, they have not been about ‘real wage drops’. Here is my very first post, yet again:
‘Male average weekly ordinary time earnings were $1343.90 ($70,123 pa) in August of last year, according to the ABS. In 1975, after seven years, a teacher reached the top of the unpromoted scale and was paid 166.6 per cent of MAWOTE - $116,825 now.

‘The new top level, which now takes ten years to reach, now pays $81,806 – a relative cut of $35,019 or 30 per cent. To put it another way, an eleventh-year-out teacher needs a 42.8 per cent salary increase to restore his or her salary’s relative value to that of an eighth-year-out teacher 33 years ago.’ (6/2)

Note, yet again, the words I used, ‘salary’s relative value’

Then in answer to longweekend, who made the same false claim about what I had said, I said, ‘I did not say, “teacher salaries have dropped 30%.” I quoted figures re percentages and average earnings and said that teachers had a “relative” pay cut and that restoring the “relative” value of their salaries would require an increase. The wording makes it clear that I was never talking about purchasing power.’ (9/2)

When I looked at real pay, I said, ‘In other words, in a period in which the average employee received a 55.8 per cent increase in real ordinary time pay, the majority of teachers received a 13 per cent increase in real pay’. (12/2)

Note again ‘the majority of teachers received a 13 per cent increase in real pay’. Try to get this phrase to sink in, ‘increase in real pay’. It was more than a month ago.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 18 March 2011 1:44:31 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
You say, ‘Your continued quibbling that an impractical choice is still a choice is intentionally naïve, and I don’t say that lightly in your case. It’s like me saying that you have the choice to drive a gold Ferrari to work next week. A hopeless choice, or totally unrealistic choice, is not a choice, and for almost all parents the “choice” you attribute to them is non-existent, for the reasons explained.’

It is not quibbling. It’s not about gold Ferraris. It’s about legal requirements. The department does not choose schools for parents to send their children to.

You said, not that there were practical obstacles to choice, but that the parents did not have a choice at all: ‘The AEU opposes league tables, opposes myschools, etc. They clearly oppose more information for the public, and want to restrict it as much as possible, which is why they don’t even allow parents to choose where their kids go. The department does…’ (4.54:04pm, 26/2); i.e., the AEU does not allow parents to choose schools; the department does the choosing for them; in other words, the AEU is powerful enough to prevent parents choosing schools and the department is powerful enough to tell parents which schools their children must go to.

Yet, when we examine the details in six of the eight jurisdictions, we see that the department does not actually choose where parents must send their children. It guarantees a place in a local school and allows parents to choose any school with room or subject to other conditions. Now, those conditions may or may not be reasonable, but it is simply untrue to say that the department chooses the school to which parents must send their children.

The practical difficulties apply across the board. Unless you are suggesting that the government fully pay for any child’s education at any school, even if the fees are $30,000 a year, you are not supporting your own definition of choice, yet I suspect you would not support the government paying the full cost of any school for any child.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 18 March 2011 1:44:54 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
Yet again, you make a ridiculous extreme statement and then back away from it by pretending you meant something else, twisting words away from their plain English meaning.

It is commonly believed and reported that there is monolithic education department that totally controls schools (which was close to the truth 50 years ago), you fall for the myth, repeat it and then look for a get-out clause when the precise evidence shows that you are wrong.

You just don’t know enough abut education. You simply serve up the myths widely propagated in The Australian.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 18 March 2011 1:45:09 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
Riddler,

You say, that I’ve ‘conceded there has not been a decrease.’

You are really difficult to get through to.

Yet again, I have not ‘conceded’ there has not been a decrease. As I never said there had been a decrease in real pay, as from the very beginning I made an argument about the decline in relative pay, there can be no ‘conceding’. Now, I can tell you hate to be proved wrong and thus change what you have said and pretend I have said things I have not, but the priority remains. I will not allow you to go unchallenged when you say things that are untrue.

I did not keep ‘citing [statistics] in the context of a discussion about salaries dropping in real terms’. I cited statistics about the decline in relative pay first and them moved onto to statistics re real pay in response to longweekend who raised the subject of real pay by falsely claiming that I had said there had been a decline in real pay.

You say that I have said ‘nothing’ in response to your many posts about relative pay. That is also untrue. I said something in response to you about it 9/2, 10/2, 11/2, 20/2 and perhaps on other occasions, so ‘nothing’ is simply untrue.

You say that my four posts ‘amounted to less than 1000 words, which means’ that I ‘could easily have answered some of the pertinent questions put to’ me. Indeed, I could, but as I have explained, I am dealing with my first priority before I move onto my second. When I have finished correcting the untrue things that you say, I will discuss what you say you want to discuss. I’ll even pause and deal with grammar and classics if you like. However, if you persist with false claims, I will persist with correcting them.

I am not ‘run[ing] from the argument’. I am refusing to do what you tell me.

I don’t need to ‘grab the high moral ground’. I’m standing on it.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 18 March 2011 2:10:51 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
You just made another 4 posts, well under the word limit, and STILL have not explained why MAWOTE matters, something you've been asked to do for weeks now. Why bother to reply at all? Most of what you say is irrelevant, or has been answered (a long time ago).

In the hopes of actually getting some kind of engagement, I'm going to limit this post to a single issue, so that you don't have any excuses to ramble on irrelevant stuff when you next deign to reply. Here it is, make sure to read this part carefully:
*Why does MAWOTE matter? Why does a relative decrease matter at all? Please see above posts if you're confused why I'm asking this, particularly the example of Joe. If this still isn't simple enough for you to follow, I can try step by step drawings in crayon.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Friday, 18 March 2011 2:41:02 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
Riddler,

Yes, I have just made ‘another 4 posts, well under the word limit, and STILL have not explained why MAWOTE matters, something [I’ve] been asked to do for weeks now’.

I have explained this many times (first of all on 2/3 and again in my previous post, just before yours). As you have made comments along the lines of ‘I skimmed your post, but I didn't read it.’ (3.56:38pm, 24/2), I will explain again. I will deal with my first priority first. When I have finished dealing with my first priority, I will move onto my second. I did this once before but you gave me cause to return to my first, just as you have done this time, so I am not going to start on my second prematurely.

Most of what I say is not irrelevant and has not been answered; e.g., that there are 36 years from 1975 to 2011, not 35 years. I will save even you the task of skimming through a further account. But I will not glide over your claim as if it is true.

I don’t ‘ramble’. I give reasoned responses based on specific evidence, rather than just make claims that are not supported by evidence. Thus, I have quoted specific figures on teacher pay, the CPI, MAOTE, departmental school choice policies, trainee teacher ability, etc. What I say is ‘relevant’. What you call an ‘excuse’ is your posting of inaccurate information that I have said many times I will correct.

I have also explained why MAOTE matters (9/2, 10/2, 11/2, 12/2 and maybe in other posts). You are entitled to day that you disagree with my explanation, but you are not entitled to say that I have not given one.

Now, if you can restrain yourself from replying with more inaccurate information and untrue claims, I will deal with MAOTE in my next post.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 20 March 2011 11:24:42 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
When you suddenly announced that you didn't really believe there had been an increase, something that made you seem like an idiot for having wasted so much time on it, many of the sub-arguments within that became moot, because you had conceded the very argument that made them relevant. Understandably, given the speed with which you crawl along, I have elected not to focus on irrelevant issues, and tried to address points that you don't concede.

I looked at your post on the 8th of Feb, and there is nothing in it which explains why a relative cut matters (it also contains one of your many standing falsehoods, which I've waited to deal with one at a time since you've slow, namely your ridiculous claim that there is a link between entry scores and decreasing pay, which is an even more odd one, since you have since conceded there was no actual cut, only a relative cut). Nor can I find anything in your other posts that explains why a relative cut is in any way relevant, nor why MAWOTE matters.

I await an explanation of why relative cuts matter if the pay is the same in real terms, but I feel confident I won't get given it.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Sunday, 20 March 2011 5:50:55 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
That should obviously say decrease, not increase.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Sunday, 20 March 2011 6:57:10 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
Riddler,

‘If you can restrain yourself from replying with more inaccurate information and untrue claims… ( 20/3)

But you couldn’t.

I did not ‘suddenly announce that [1] didn't really believe there had been an increase*.’ (20/3) Read my first post again. I have always said there was a relative pay cut.

(*Corrected as per your correction.)

I have not ‘conceded’ that ‘there was no actual cut, only a relative cut’. That is why I said on 6/2, ‘a relative cut of $35,019 or 30 per cent’. From day one, I have said ‘relative’, so you really ought to stop pretending that I have ‘suddenly’ changed or that I have ‘conceded’ no real pay cut, given that I never claimed one in the first place.

It is not a ’falsehood’ that there is a connection between falling relative pay and falling teacher training entry scores.

You are right to feel confident that you won’t get another explanation of why relative pay matters. That tells me you understood my previous reply. After all, if you posted a number of falsehoods and expected a reply to the substantive point that you keep claiming you want to discuss, that would indicate that you did not understand what I had just said.

If you can restrain yourself from replying with more inaccurate information and untrue claims, I will deal with MAOTE in my next post.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 23 March 2011 11:26:27 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
Your newest post is the lamest excuse you've used this thread, and I don't say that lightly. Either you're the least funny joke account of all time, or you're trying desperately to stall, and/or invent an excuse to get out of the argument. I suppose you "beat" most people by wearing them down, talking loudly, and stalling, but by this stage I guess you've realised those tried and true tactics won't work.

Your latest post refuses to explain why relative pay matters, or even to quote the part where you supposedly explained it already. This represents a new low for you.

I am likewise confused why you couldn't have explained why MAWOTE mattered already, why you need to create some set of conditions for my new post in the future, as opposed to just explaining now. Of course there isn't going to be an explanation given, just like we never got one for relative pay, because you're a lying weasel who just exhausted the last dregs of their credibility.

Feel free to bluster in your reply, but unless you can direct me to where you explained the reason relative pay mattered it probably won't be worth replying to. I'm glad I got the chance to argue with you, you remind everyone here of the values, intelligence and cause of the teacher's union, and why they will have to hold their gorge each time they think of their advocates.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 23 March 2011 3:04:42 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
You never once showed how there was a link between falling standards of teachers and falling pay (now limited to relative pay), despite often being asked to. It is an argument that would evoke credulity in the most bovine peasant, that people on entering the profession would be offered the exact same real value they were previously offered (or higher), but would decline to take up the profession because someone somewhere else in an unrelated industry, say mining, is making more money than them. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the people involved in mining aren't more suited to teaching than the current people we have teaching. I'm going to go out on another limb and assume that when asked most teacher's couldn't even tell you what the average male wage is, or what the relative pay difference is, because this is not the sort of thing people research before they choose their field of study and employment. A young student pondering whether to take up teaching does not look up the relative pay difference between occupations in 1975 and say "my gosh, teaching has gone down, I'm not pursuing that profession anymore! I'm going to move to WA and take up mining!"
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Wednesday, 23 March 2011 3:14:30 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
Riddler,

I have explained to you again and again that I am posting in priority order. I have explained again and again that my first priority is ‘to correct the untrue things you have said in response to me’. It does not matter how rude you are, what names you call me, how much you invent about what I have or have not said. I will stick with the priority I have set.

When you say that I ‘trying desperately to stall, and/or invent an excuse to get out of the argument’, you are not telling the truth. You are just making something up. I have not stalled or invented any excuses. I am doing what I told you on 2/3 I would do. I am correcting the untrue things you say. When you stop saying untrue things and I have finished correcting them I will deal with teacher pay.

I do not’ "beat" most people by wearing them down, talking loudly, and stalling’. I don’t talk loudly at all, and, in so far as I wear people down it is by remaining calm and factual in the face of attacks.

Thus my latest post ‘refuses to explain why relative pay matters’ because it was to correct untrue comments form you, just as this post is not about teacher pay because it is to correct more untruthful comments from you.

I could have explained why MAWOTE maters but I chose not to because you replied to my earlier post with more untruthful comments. I am not going to waste my time on a new point only to find I have to return to my first priority.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 27 March 2011 12:10:15 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
I don’t think I ‘remind everyone here of the values, intelligence and cause of the teacher's union’. I am not speaking for the teachers union, and while I support the work they do for their members, I do not support some of their political stances, and I suspect almost no one is bothering to read this thread now.

Falling teacher pay is not ‘now’ limited to relative pay. Anyone can go back to my first post and see that I said, ‘The new top level, which now takes ten years to reach, now pays $81,806 – a relative cut of $35,019 or 30 per cent.’ The key word is ‘relative’. You just can’t get away with pretending it wasn’t there.

For you to say that I have ‘exhausted the last dregs of [my] credibility’ is just funny. You don’t have the moral authority to question my credibility. I’m the one who posts the facts and the figures. You’re the one that resorts to abuse and bullying – ‘stupid’, ‘rambling, irrelevant, unthinking posts’, ‘you intentionally ignore the stuff you can't respond to’, ‘you're a joke account’, ‘take yourself off’, ‘your rants’, etc .

For you to hide behind your anonymous screen name to resort to calling me a ‘lying weasel’ is not surprising, just as it is not surprising that I have to continually correct with specific facts the things that you say that are not true; e.g, the actual CPI increase between 1975 and 2011, the fact that education departments do not decide where parents send their children, the fact that I never said teachers had experienced a real salary drop but a relative one - and the list just goes on. Of course, it is easier to apply a label than deal with an argument.

If you can restrain yourself from replying with more inaccurate information and untrue claims, I will deal with MAOTE in my next post.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 27 March 2011 12:10:40 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
Here's how your post reads "I would have had an awesome reply for you, but then I got mad and didn't write it, even though I totally could have". It's pathetic.

Is there an explanation for why relative pay matters in your post? Of course not.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Sunday, 27 March 2011 4:07:17 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
Riddler,

No, that is not how my post reads.

It corrects untrue statements that you made in your previous posts and says that I will deal with teacher pay when you stop making untrue statements. It does not imply that my reply would be awesome, nor have I got mad. You just make it too easy for me.

There is no explanation for why relative pay matters in my post for the reason that I have given so often that I do not intend to repeat it yet again.

If you can restrain yourself from replying with more inaccurate information and untrue claims, I will deal with MAOTE in my next post.

You don’t even have to apologise for your abuse or your untruthfulness. You don’t even have to withdraw your false accusations. You don’t even have to actually admit you were wrong on any of the points you were wrong on. All you have to do is stop saying untrue things.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 31 March 2011 8:09:52 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
If you're not going to bother to answer a question like "why does relative pay matter" after quoting stats that use it repeatedly, you may as well not bother replying. We get it, your last reply was actually awesome, and you may deign to give an even better reply soon, even if actually reading your reply people were unimpressed. Either explain why relative pay matters, or quote the part where you explained it, or go away.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 31 March 2011 9:01:33 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
Riddler,

No, my last reply was not awesome. Nor was it meant to impress. It was just a restatement of the point I have made again and again without getting though to you.

However, even though your response resorts to the usual oh-so-superior directives (“go away”), it does not contain any actual lies, so I will do as I said and discuss teacher pay and average earnings. I will do so briefly as I expect your response to this will revert to untrue statements and I will be back to priority one, but you could always surprise me.

I have not responded earlier because I have not looked at this thread for a fortnight because I have had other more important things to do.

As I have said on several occasions, relative pay matters because it is one of the factors that determine the jobs that people take on.

A sub-division 14 teacher (the top unpromoted sub-division, automatically reached after seven years) was paid $11,400 ($75,136 in today’s dollars) in 1975. The top unpromoted teacher salary is now $81,806 (reached after ten years and performance reviews), giving a real increase of $6,670 (8.9 per cent). (Figures for other classifications were given on 24/2)

Male average weekly ordinary time earnings were $132.50 in December, 1974. The RBA quarterly calculator makes that $873.30 in today’s dollars.

Male average ordinary time earnings for November, 2010, were $1356.90, $483.60 (55.4 per cent) more in real terms than the December, 1974 equivalent.

Thus, a teacher’s real pay has gone up 8.9 per cent, while the overall average has gone up 55.4 percent.

An increase in the pay rate for one job will increase the overall average, as will a change in the proportion of more highly paid jobs used in calculating the average; e.g., if miners get more pay, the average will increase and if more people become miners at the higher pay, the average will increase.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 14 April 2011 9:58:57 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
Thus a person in one field seeing other fields provide increased pay will consider moving into one of the other fields. That is an automatic consequence of the increased pay and opportunities in the other field.

Over the long term, there must be an effect on the ability of those who enter and remain in teaching. If all that mattered was the real purchasing power, then there would be no problem in picking 1900 as the base year and paying teachers the same real pay as they got then. Of course, there would be no teachers left.

I can say more but I am disinclined to do so now as I expect your response will be standard one and I will have to revert to priority one, so, rather than waste my time, I will leave it for the moment.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 14 April 2011 9:59:21 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
"As I have said on several occasions, relative pay matters because it is one of the factors that determine the jobs that people take on"

You actually haven't said this (I asked you to quote where you had explained the importance of relative pay several times), but let's overlook that. I already provided a pretty concise summary of why this reasoning is false on the 23rd, when I pointed out that it is naive of you to believe people make the decision to enter a profession based on historical factors. People just do not go to the ABS before they choose their university degree, look up what teachers were paid in 1975, look up what other professions like miners were paid in 1975, and then conclude mining is being respected, while teaching has been treated unfairly (even though teaching pays the same or more in real terms). I doubt you'd find any teachers or miners who would even know the relevant figures on being asked. People decide careers based on several factors, of which real pay is a significant one
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:04:11 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
Now, the fact mining has a higher real pay today helps draw more people from the job market into mining, but I think it's pretty spurious that this supports your argument in any way. After all, you're claiming that top quality teaching candidates (for secondary schooling) are opting out of teaching and into professions like mining. This is silly because the people moving into mining are from the unskilled industries, people who only need to drive a car and can learn the rest when they get there. They're taking a higher salary, at the cost of moving to a remote community and being employed in a manual labour intensive industry, which has some dangers involved. I doubt most of the people opting into this career are being poached from the pool of potential teachers. But there is also a reason for mining to get an increase in salary, the facts on the ground have changed, the profession is more lucrative. The facts on the ground for teaching haven't changed, in fact the results by the employees in the field are now worse. That's an argument against a pay increase.

Mining became more profitable, but stuff like this happening in other industries doesn't merit an increase in teacher pay. Teacher pay is the same in real terms, and stacks up very well compared to most office jobs requiring similar qualifications.

You also quoted the average male wage, which was dishonest or lazy, because the job market was differently structured back then, especially for male/female workers.

After a respite of over 2 weeks I have to say I expected more. And please, it's a bit late to play the disinterested card, after 97 posts in this discussion.
Posted by Riddler Got Away, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:04:28 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 43
  7. 44
  8. 45
  9. All

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