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'.