Phil makes a lot of sense.
God help public education if Pyne becomes minister for education.
Although Garrett and the labour party are nearly as ignorant.
The greens have the best education policy.
Cambo

There is an old truism: "you can only control what you measure"

While the Naplan tests are not perfect, one test every 2 years to measure children's progress lets the teachers and parents know how their children are progressing and at least allows intervention before too it is too late. If Naplan is to be abolished, then other regular standardized testing is required.

By the time little Johnny or Jane, enters year 7, if gaps have not been filled, there is a real danger that s/he will fall further and further behind and lose out on many of life's opportunities.

My personal opinion is that the opposition to Naplan is more about protecting incompetent teachers than the children.

Well expressed! It is common sense.

We need more clear-thinking, experienced educators like Phil Cullen running our education system.
Comments on here about standardised testing show incredible lack of knowledge. Finland, the most successful school system on this planet, does NOT use standardised testing. If you believe in standardised testing, you need to read the papers available at http://www.literacyeducators.com.au/information.htm

The clamour to implement the Gonski report is fascinating. Do those shouting for this to be done realise that the Gonski report recommends the continuation of the Howard government’s flawed SES funding system? Is there not an irony in the fact that the loudest pro-Gonski voices were also the loudest anti-SES voices? Do they even know that they have instantly switched sides?

Those who want to look behind the sloganeering can go to http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/576719.aspx for a discussion of the changes needed to make the Gonski report work.

There is no reason why NSW must be home to the largest educational institution in the free world, a.k.a. the Department of Education & Training. The sooner it is broken up into manageable chunks, the better for all concerned.

If the GONSKI dollars which the author seeks cannot be found via the elimination of NAPLAN testing, then there is another pot of gold waiting to be tapped.

Taking NSW as the example, there are huge numbers of refugees from the classroom, failed teachers, paper-shufflers, administrators, accountants, PR folk, HR and Employee Relations workers, Staff Welfare Officers, curriculum developers, professional committee attendees, internal consultants, tea-swillers, biscuit munchers and time servers. They are gathered in well defended secure silos around Sydney and the state's larger regional hubs.

Break it up! Chop the waste out!

The state's electricity generation industry two decades ago reduced from 12000 employees. The resulting four state owned businesses, run on corporate lines, deliver the same outcomes with about a third of the staff. This has been achieved invisibly.

Nobody will mourn the passing of the unnecessary thousands who will be seen to be primarily wasteful papershuffling "experts".

These principles, applied to the NSW Department of Education & Training via 8 or 10 autonomous regional departments will achieve a saving of thousands of staff and billions of dollars.

The greatest yet intangible advantage will be to bring the decision maker out of the tower buildings and into regular communication with those who make the business work.

What we have now is a failed and wasteful business model.

Instructive article. Nonetheless, we need to stop listening and or reacting to, this or that expert, and simply rely on common sense.
If the Finnish do it better or best, in less school hours, then let's adopt their model.
Lets also follow their lead with universal state funded education. And just like them, let the religions go back at doing what they were created for?
Church services, Sunday school and social events for believers and their guests.
No radicalising Madras here please, and arguably, that's where privatised or religious based education is taking us?
We with our limited and contracting taxpayers' dollars, need to start means testing all education assistance/outlays. Charity is for the needy not the greedy!
If that puts the more privileged or fundamental zealots offside?
Tough whatsits!
We need to refocus on outcomes and advancing all our students; and merit based funding models; that enhance ability/critical thinking, rather than further/mindlessly entrench completely undeserved privilege or advantage and or, empower pompous fools?
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty,

You raise a very valid point: let's stop listening to the 'experts' and start doing what works. It seems that education is one of the most reactionary branches of government. Perhaps this is because it is a very visible area of government and an opportunity for new leaders to show that they're 'making a change for the better'. Unfortunately, this means that education works in 3-4 year cycles, with new programs developed, rolled out and promptly abolished.

As for your use of Finland as an exemplar in your argument against religious schools, this might offer some further information on that matter:

http://www.suol.fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71&Itemid=75

If, like me, you tend not to open too many links, it simply states that religious education is compulsory in all Finnish schools, right up to senior level. Finnish Lutheranism is mainstreamed; there is even an evangelical program available to those who haven't yet 'seen the light'. There's hardly an exclusion of religion from Finnish schools.

As for the pecuniary arguments, MySchool offers an alternative viewpoint there. Consider the following schools, with their allocations of funding at the state/federal level (per student):

Macgregor State High School, Greater Brisbane: $9433; $1348 ($10,781)
Clairvaux-Mackillop College, 1.4km away: $2522; $6051 ($8573)

And, for the more affluent:

Brisbane Grammar School: $1751; $3080 ($4831)
Brisbane Girls Grammar School: $1820; $2878 ($4698)
Brisbane State High School: $7397; $1328 ($8725)

http://www.myschool.edu.au/MainPages/SchoolFinances.aspx?SDRSchoolId=47408&DEEWRId=0&CalendarYear=2011&RefId=xK0Q8oNiB2YSOgW0UVCPuQ%3d%3d

Obviously, the parents at the non-government schools 'top up' their school funds with fees and levies. And I'm not going to run the argument that schools should all be privatised, because that's unreasonable and would disadvantage those who can't afford it. What I will say, though, is that the parents who send their students to those non-government schools are easing a burden on public funds. Like private health cover, those who can afford to pay are not harming the state coffers by doing so.

Well cherry-picked by Otokonoko.

He has managed to highlight one of the failures of Myschool, in that its raw figures permit only raw comparisons. There's nothing about the real circumstances of either the school or its students and the families which they come from.

John Winston Howard was nothing if not cunning - his adoption of postcodes as a comparator for social disadvantage was mean and tricky because it says nothing whatever about social disadvantage or the actual needs of the schools, yet it lives on in education funding formulae. Did the kid travelling to the distant private school come from the cheapest house in the worst street of postcode 9999 or the converse? It matters not, because the model doesn't count it. The kid's needs are clearly irrelevant - what matters is the political "fix" which comfortably hides the truth and denies many the opportunities given to the few.

In Otokinoko's comparisons of public Vs private, there was no accounting of the thousands upon thousands of school buses and coaches which add to peak hour traffic as they wind across cities and along highways. Why not? They are also publicly funded.

For mine, if there is a school down your street, every metre past that school is private travel, but not to John Winston Howard, Otokinoko's and their supporters. If those who choose this lifestyule for their offspring paid their way, another very large pot of gold would be freed up for Gonski.

School funding formulae do not "work in 3-4 year cycles" as Otokinoto states. They are determined on the basis of opportunism, greed and politics and thereafter are cast in stone, no matter how unfair and socially divisive they may be.

What's Otokinoko's proposal for improvement? More of the status quo?

Thanks for your reply, John. Unfortunately, I'm just not sure what you're talking about.

I addressed two key concerns I had with Rhrosty's otherwise insightful post. I'll be looking forward to Rhrosty's reply, if one is forthcoming. Rhrosty gave an opinion, I gave a different opinion and the reasons for that opinion.

The first concern was the perceived absence of religion from Finnish schools because they have no religious schools. Alas, religion is still present.

The second was the argument that the government cannot afford to fund student places in non-government schools. I presented a different interpretation. I selected inner-city independent and state schools to compare (being within walking distance of each other); I also selected a suburban pairing. Apparently this is cherry-picking (which is the usual cry of someone who cannot otherwise refute an argument). In each case, it was found that the per-student funding from state and federal sources (the sources of funding of concern to Rhrosty) is less at each of the non-government schools than at the state schools. Thus I offer an alternative point of view (but won't go so far as saying that Rhrosty is categorically wrong) - that a parent who has the means to 'chip in' for his/her child's education and, as a consequence, sends him/her to a non-government school is not receiving 'handouts' or overburdening the public purse.

Rather than talking about John Howard (relevance?) and putting words into my mouth, perhaps you could explain how my reasoning is flawed - addressing my evidence and the point I have set out to prove.

Nice attempted put-down by O.

Unfortunately, O is tilting at windmills.

If the claim is that it can be shown, on the basis of a sample of a couple of schools drawn from a data set of thousands, public schooling is more expensive than private, then it is clear that the reason for ignoring more than 99.9% of the data is significant.

Yet, O has intentionally and determinedly stuck to a minute, carefully selected sample which, to put it kindly, lacks statistical relevance. Besides which and as I pointed out, the MySchools web site does not contain information which is adequate for informed comparisons.

Since O has made the claim that private is cheaper than public, is it not up to O to back that up with fact?

As for the religious stuff - religion is not my bag. I simply couldn't give a toss about imaginary friends in the sky, whether State-sanctioned or otherwise, Norwegian or otherwise.

That leaves us with the buses. Care to suggest that the daily additional millions of bus-kilometres are irrelevant, or that they aren't adding to peak hour traffic, or that they don't cost taxpayers anything? I raised them because of the huge waste of public resources that they represent which, if directed towards implementing Gonsky's recommendations, would be cost-neutral.

O has not brought any arguments for the additional resources which are involved in running parallel schooling systems within our communities, or for those to be provided, as at present, largely at public expense, nor has he argued against any of Gonski's recommendations. Why does he bother? Is the basis for his contributions private gain (greed) or is it personal prejudice? Are his kids really worthy of special treatment at public expense?

I am sorry if I have given the impression that I am attempting to put you down, John.

You do raise an important point and, indirectly, clarify your accusation of 'cherry-picking'. Yes, my sample is tiny. As you know, however, the words with which we are allowed to express our opinions in this forum are limited. I could exhaust my quota of words per post AND my quota of posts without covering a 'significant' sample. As a result, I DID carefully select my schools to ensure that I covered urban and suburban, state, Catholic and independent schools. I also ensured that the schools in both case studies were within walking distance of each other. If you are suggesting that I dug around in the data to find schools that supported my argument, ignoring those that didn't, then you are wrong. Those were the first five schools I looked up.

As for the buses, I cannot really speak for all states or regions. I can say, however, that it has been my experience in Hornsby, Brisbane and Townsville that buses do not serve schools exclusively: they serve several schools from an area. The drive from Macgregor to Clairvaux adds less than 3km a day - and that's assuming that the trip to Clairvaux was actually out of the bus's way in the first place.

All of this returns me to my point, which was limited in scope to questioning the suggestion that our government cannot afford to support places in non-government schools. All other factors being equal, which costs our government more: a student at Clairvaux-Mackillop College or a student at Macgregor SHS? And, were the government to cut funding to Clairvaux and consequently cause it to close its doors, what would be the cost of building facilities for and continuing to educate its 1147 students at the nearest state high school?

There are certainly many other reasons to argue against non-government schooling. I have questioned the financial argument, though I am sure that Rhrosty had good reasons for offering it. I'm happy to hear why I am wrong.

Thanks and understood.

Subsidised buses and coaches criss-cross our cities and highways for no good reason. Where I live, a significant percentage of families bus their kids to schools which are an hour distant and even get subsidy for using their car to get to the pick-up point. This is, pure and simple, a rip-off piled onto a rip-off. If that vehicle is a company car, there is a chance that there is a third public subsidy of this private expense.

Given that many of these students live within walking or cycling distance of the nearest school, they really don't need public funding for transport to any school, especially one which is 70+ km further down the valley.

I think you have a very valid point there, John. A friend of mine who did some work down at Bowen SHS was talking not that long ago about a large number of students from that town who catch a bus every day to Proserpine SHS, nearly 70km down the Bruce Highway. Proserpine has a very good reputation, while Bowen has a reputation for being a bit rough (the schools, that is - I'm not going to get into the reputations of towns as a whole).

In this case, I can only think that the people who snub their local high school are contributing to its bad reputation - hell, any school people are willing to travel 140km a day to AVOID must be terrible, right? The state government has provided adequate educational facilities within the town of Bowen. If Proserpine has the facilities to host students from Bowen, then I don't have a problem with parents sending their kids there instead. But they are choosing to reject one facility in favour of another, and I certainly don't think the taxpayer should wear the extra cost incurred because of that choice.

I guess that's where I'm coming from with private schools. I think that, if a symbiotic (rather than parasitic) relationship with the state system can be maintained, there's a place for these schools. Parents can choose to reject the public system and fork out some extra cash for their choice. While it is certainly not the intention of many (or any?) private school parents, this does ease the burden on many of our state schools. In return (and keeping in mind that these parents still help fund the education system with their taxes), I think it is reasonable for some public funding to go towards those schools. It would not be acceptable, though, for that funding to ever EXCEED the funding allocated to state schools.

We have the right to expect a high quality education to be provided by our government. If we want more - or something different - we should expect to tip in for it.

JohnBennetts,

We know that ‘postcodes’ is poetic licence, that the comparator for social disadvantage is actually census collector districts (smaller areas of about 100 households each), but the point you make is valid.

You say, ‘John Winston Howard was nothing if not cunning - his adoption of postcodes as a comparator for social disadvantage was mean and tricky because it says nothing whatever about social disadvantage or the actual needs of the schools, yet it lives on in education funding formulae. Did the kid travelling to the distant private school come from the cheapest house in the worst street of postcode 9999 or the converse? It matters not, because the model doesn't count it. The kid's needs are clearly irrelevant - what matters is the political "fix" which comfortably hides the truth and denies many the opportunities given to the few.’

Would you also say, ‘The Gonski panel was nothing if not cunning - its adoption of postcodes as a comparator for social disadvantage was mean and tricky because it says nothing whatever about social disadvantage or the actual needs of the schools, yet it lives on in education funding formulae. Did the kid travelling to the distant private school come from the cheapest house in the worst street of postcode 9999 or the converse? It matters not, because the model doesn't count it. The kid's needs are clearly irrelevant - what matters is the political "fix" which comfortably hides the truth and denies many the opportunities given to the few’?

If not, why not?