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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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