Instead of writing a book "What makes a good school", you should have written "Why are government schools so bad". There is lots of excellence and innovation in schools in Australia but nearly all of it is in non government schools.

'Why are government schools so bad'

Because they have the worst students.

Everyone knows that.

They cant turn away disruptive kids, and they get the the worst teachers because most teachers just want to do a job and it's kind of hard with a class full of kids who don't want to be there and who have no fear of any consequences for not behaving.

There is a very small group of teachers who like the challenge, so the odd good teacher, even the odd brilliant one will be keeping the place afloat.

I am constantly bemused by debate over schools. The funniest thing is the assertion of the altruistic private school parents 'subsidising' the public schools out of the goodness of their heart and their egalitarian principles.

Some simple truths.

a) Parents who send their kids to private schools do so because they see some value in it. That's the sole reason they do so.

b) Parents who send their kids to public schools either cant afford private schooling, or think their kids are smart enough that it doesn't really matter what school they go to.

I am of the opinion that it doesn't really matter. I don't see the value in paying $20k a year per child for what I can get for free. I don't even see the point of paying $5k unless my children end up being really unhappy in a school.

I'm one of Gerards spongers off the tax system....

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/welloff-get-a-free-ride-on-taxpayer-for-childrens-education-20120319-1vfni.html

I love a free ride I do!

In the end, the government wants to save money via the people who want to buy the status of a private education. Such is life. I would be happier with more taxes, no private schools, and the rich hounding the government to improve the standard of the public education their kids are attending, and everyone being happy to fund the worthwhile aim of kids starting on a more even footing.

Call me crazy but I would love a country where the rich and poor had the same standard of education and health care.

Come on Wattle, we all know the problem is the union, & that's not the answer Chris wants at all.

Some of these people would have been an asset at the battle of Jutland, with their experience in generating smoke screens.

It's an interesting argument if you take away religion, status, and ideology, what you're left with in the public and private schools.

Now since the rich 'subsidise' the poor, and they are paying a much higher price in private school fees, they are actually worse off financially than if they just let the government pay via the progressive tax system.

So to understand their behaviour, you have to take into account what they are getting. What's the 'value added'. John Winston reckoned it was 'choice'. I reckon it's status but I love a bit of class envy.

Maybe I just don't value education as much, but how much private, 1 on 1 tutoring does $20k a year buy? Is one school $20k a year better, and worth sacrificing and drudging and working so hard your kids don't see you? Or is it worth losing the opportunity to have a stay at home parent, or a part-time working parent. I find it hard to reconcile what people are paying for.

For the super-rich I can see that the money is irrelevant. But for the struggling to pay, those proud 'I struggled to put my kids through private school' lot, how does a religion, or a feeling of status, or a perceived 'better' education weigh up in these people's minds against time with their children and an easier lifestyle for the whole family?

I reckon there are too many variables to be so sure that it's a better education. Teacher-student relationships, bullying and cliques in schools, travel time, parental expectations and pressure, there are so many variables. How can you be sure the $20k a year is worth it. I mean for 2 kids for 6 years invested well, that's getting close to half a million dollars. Is that worth it in the long run to these people added to the other personal sacrifices? Could they not supplement their kids education by being more involved themselves? What if the school puts its fees up and you cant afford it any more?

I reckon a lot are being duped!

Interesting perspective Houellebecq. But I think you may have answered the question yourself.

>>Teacher-student relationships, bullying and cliques in schools, travel time, parental expectations and pressure, there are so many variables. How can you be sure the $20k a year is worth it<<

You invest in exactly those variables. Whether through luck or judgement, my assessment of the overall school "product" proved to be accurate. Excellent student-teacher relationships, a total absence of bullying, the "cliques" were all focussed on commonalities, rather than externalities, and the feedback loop to parents was precise and non-judgmental. As a result, there was no need for "parental expectations and pressure", since the raw materials were all there. Return on investment didn't come into the equation, but a well-balanced and happy adolescent did.

Whether it was "worth it" is a question that can never be answered, given the lack of ability to compare. Was I happy to make the investment, given the outcome? Absolutely.

But individual circumstances and personal experiences can never prove or disprove a theory, can they.

Obviously it's a judgement call based on values Pericles. Perhaps as I said I just don't value education like others do. I certainly don't take it very seriously. $20k is a lot of serious.

Excellent student-teacher relationships - Has to be luck. Personalities differ, and you don't know 6 years down the track which teachers will be teeaching your kids. This is after you have bought in to an ever increasing fee.

a total absence of bullying - Well, luck again in my view. You could argue in a higher socio-economic environment in a school with the option of discarding the anti-social you have a better chance, but I see no guarantee. There is the issue that if the parents find it hard to afford the fees, their kids may well be 'socially excluded' due to the discrepancy in... class;-)

feedback loop to parents was precise - OK I'll give you that. I have seen the sentences public school teachers are to pick from to describe student performance.

There was no need for "parental expectations and pressure" - Well just the price tag I think brings with it a lot of expectation and pressure. If you add in the 'struggling to put my kids through private school' martyr attitude (Kids no doubt take this on and pick this up) it cant be good. 'You mean mummy is tired and grumpy because she is selling her coochie for my schooling?'

'But individual circumstances and personal experiences can never prove or disprove a theory, can they.'

No but the interesting part of the whole thing to me is how everyone justifies their choices and what are the real motivations at play. I suspect all this stuff about religion, class envy, status and 'education' is really all stereotypes and self-deception.

The concept of 'education' being as important as half a million dollars and a overbearing financial struggle doesn't fit in with my value system. It makes me curious.

Chris, I'm not sure that writing an article that is just hand-wringing cycnicism is of much use in working out a solution to a real problem - regardless of how much truth it may actually hold. Also, I've been to the Big Picture Education Australia site and I can't really find any specific info on what the framework actually is beyond 'treating all students as individuals' which is a bit of a mother statement. The whole site kind of comes across as just academic commercialisation of a 'system' thats main focus is to keep academics employed. This may be too harsh but the point is that if a concerned parent and citizen (and non-academic) takes the time to come to the site and look through it and can't really get to the heart of what your idea is and how it might actually be of any greater benefit than all the other systems out there then how much chance do you really have of influencing public policy?

Houellebecq, a well educated, confident & competent mate of mine, who had successfully held down some pretty serious jobs once told me the most important line on his CV was, "rowed No4 in the ##### school 8, 1957/58.

While I'm sure that opened some doors, my take was it was the confidence his school experience gave him that was his edge.

Education, old boy network, whatever, he was successful, & was regularly offered jobs that paid more, for less effort, than the ones I was being offered.

Sounds good to me...
"2013 The new Abbott government wasted no time in linking teacher salaries to measurable student outcomes. Teachers gradually stopped doing things that couldn't be measured. All public schools were made autonomous and private school fees made tax deductable..."

Yeah! I really want my kids teachers to teach them 'stuff', not to indoctrinate them in feminism, freenieism and socialism. I want them to teach MEASURABLE STUFF!

A third of prents spend serious money sending their kids to private schools while their taxes go to pay for the education of other-perents-kids. Not real fair is it?

Why do these parents spend big? To try to get schools that each, ratehr than indoctrinate. And good on them!

Sadly, these professional parents tend to have very few kids (because they know they will have to pay for their kids, instead of being paid to have kids (as those on welfare and low incomes have realised.) Consequently the poor and stupid have many genetically stupid kids, while educated working people have very few kids. Talk about 'dumbing-down'. We have a disgusting eugenics program, where people are bribed (or penalised) for having kids based on their IQ. The more stupid you are, the more kids you have.

Making kids reduce your tax is a good way to slow this problem... At least professionals will be able to have the kids they want, and welfare-dependant will no longer be bribed to have more kids than they can manage to look after.

Chris,

What those concerned about education ought to consider is why things are as they are rather than as they should be. I wonder if the advent of the internet has made it too easy for people to sit around typing on keyboards pretending that they are doing something instead of taking the action necessary to achieve results. I know that much of what has gone wrong in education is the fault of teachers who do not support their profession; e.g., those who mentor the pretend teachers of Teach for Australia and those who sign up for performance bonus trials, etc. In the wider society, hardly anyone joins a political party, which is necessary in order to influence policy-making or candidate selection.

Chris Curtis

Pericles,

<Whether it was "worth it" is a question that can never be answered, given the lack of ability to compare. Was I happy to make the investment, given the outcome? Absolutely.

But individual circumstances and personal experiences can never prove or disprove a theory, can they.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 20 March 2012 10:42:13 AM>

Was I also happy to make the investment? You bet your life I was! (Though it was more like $6-8k/yr plus uniforms, books and outings.)

Transferring from a 'representative' public school to a quality private school for 4&1/2 years of high school took a troubled, struggling young teen (who was only ever going to be an abject failure in the public system) to a mature, confident and successful adult, both socially and academically. Can I be reasonably certain of the disparate outcomes presented? You could bet your life on it, and the outcomes for peers from both 'systems' served to clearly 'prove' this was no random experience, but rather the 'rule'.

Further proof? This particular academy is expanding its campuses far and wide, with ever increasing demand for its services, and with ever increasing 'proof' of its success in providing a quality, balanced education. It may be cliche, but 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'. If our public system really wants to improve, it need only look to this academy for a prime working model - and I'm sure other successful 'private' working models could also serve to light the way.

As for the article: Why does government need to reinvent the wheel, when fine examples/models already exist? Everything points to a need for huge improvement in the public school system, and to the huge advances such a reformation could contribute to narrowing the gap in educational outcomes and to forging the ever touted 'clever country'. Surely this is where the Education Revolution should focus, rather than on pre-school and questionable 'early education'.