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.

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.

Well spoken on that at least Vanna

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.

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.

Just as I predicted.

All moonbat bluster and no substance.

I bet they're not even reading the links, figures and so on properly.