The author states;
"The evidence is that progressive fads are counter-productive and that the best way to raise standards is to have disciplined and focused classrooms - instead of open spaces - where teachers are in control, students are told when they have failed and the curriculum is academically based. Such characteristics explain why Asian countries perform so well."

That hardly explains the success in Finland and the other Northern European States where absence of religious influence appears to be a major beneficial factor. There, open discussion of ethical and philosophical questions (a progressive fad?) teaches you students to think more clearly, freer of indoctrination.

When such discussions are introduced bullying behaviour virtually disappears (as students learn to negotiate their differences) and the intellectually ability of the students improves; just the opposite effect to religious indoctrination. There are several studies now that show that, the less religious a society is, the better the social well-being of the citizens.

The author appears to neglect studies that show that Australian students from public schools do better at university for any specific level of university entry score.

Australia would produce a better society if all students from an area were educated together and learned to respect and learn from the opinions and cultural situations of the "others" in our society. Some adjustments would probably need to be made to minimize ghetto effects in some poorer areas.

Religious, separate, schools teach students that their group is different and supposedly better than those "others". That is hardly a benefit to the future of Australian society.

...Competition is the secret ingredient to successful and productive outcomes for children. Maybe now is the time to look towards the high achievers in the Paralympics in London, as example for educators. The Paralympians display the example of successful competitive outcomes from individuals who have honed that edge against the grind-stone of disadvantage, and display the necessary determination to overcome huge odds to succeed.
Self-discipline; clear personal objectives and aims; peer support, (which aims at not hindering self-motivation and competition), and a focus on the elimination of the “victim” mentality among children, are some of the essentials.

...Schools have become places of “insular” comfort for teachers and students alike, and must urgently re-align to a flexibility to current realities in the broader community, and work environment, into which children will be “fed” at the completion of their studies: For example, a building of “expectations” in children should be an advanced feature of educating children towards a reality that work may require an uncomfortable move away from home; or that increasing university “places”, is no longer the guarantee to a job; (University attendance may actually hinder the student in the long-term): Or that in fact, unemployment may be the “lot” of the many.

...Education has a place in the community, and is not simply an imperative contained in “self-interest”, as increasingly it is becoming!

Foyle
"The author appears to neglect studies that show that Australian students from public schools do better at university for any specific level of university entry score."
Funny that. It has been so for the past sixty years since I went to Swinburne Tech.

Gillard spoke of a more skilled work force. Trade skills are like language skills, they are better taught while kids are young, and yet today with no technical schools, they don't get that opportunity until they get to TAFE, much too late. Not all kids are potential university graduates. Many of those who enter university drop out before the end of their first year, particularly in maths and science.

VK3AUU
Some trades do not change very much over time but education for work is often education for jobs that will disappear. Education must be geared to thinking and understanding. Only math tables, a few formulas, and spelling require some rote learning.
I drew the attention of an electrical engineer friend working in China to this article.
He commented;
"The author has a very bad understanding of the situation of education in Asian countries.

There are vastly different systems in place with vastly different results. The model followed in (most of) mainland China resembles exactly what the author just described, and to be honest, everybody knows it is a farce. It does not produce thinking beings, it produces slaves.

The entire system is designed to weed out those who can and can't get into university. It teaches people to pass tests, not to solve problems. Never mind the fact that they have to go to school for 11 hours per day (and often have extra classes on Saturdays) all the way from kindergarten to year 12 in order to get through the system.

Their results may be better, but is that a true reflection of actual learning outcomes?

The author seems hell bent on making everyone else simpletons".

Foyle, much of what you say makes a lot of sense. There is a lot to be said for the open discussion of ethical and philosophical questions in schools, and I think it is one of the most overlooked parts of our system.

I would, however, be careful of touting the absence of religious influence as a factor in Finnish success. RE is compulsory in Finland.

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

Just a thought.

Otokonoko
Thanks for your comments.
I have read the Finnish site information. Indoctrination appears to play no part in the system. It is indoctrination and the "Give me a child to the age of seven...." type ideas that I object to in religious education and religious schools although I do believe that religion has no place in a secular, evidence based education.

The following is an extract from the Finnish site;
"Since RE is a compulsory subject, pupils who do not belong to any religious group are taught Ethics. Also some non-Lutheran pupils participate in the Evangelical Lutheran RE.

In a nutshell the purpose of RE is described as follows:
The main purpose of religious education is to offer stimuli for the construction and development of students´ own religious view on life by teaching them about their own religion, life and thinking of various religions, and by giving students the readiness to understand different world views. Therefore RE as a subject gives an opportunity to study and discuss main questions in religion and life. And students in all RE at school are respected as independent and truth-seeking individuals."

Kevin Donnelly is right about fads like the open classroom, but supporting the Coalition on education funding is untenable. After all, the Coalition wants to keep the SES funding model but opposes the Gonski report, which wants to keep the SES funding model, not that you’d know that from the press reporting of the issue. In fact there is a lot you would not know if you relied on the press:
1) that that the Howard SES model is so bad for private schools that half of them have to get compensation so as not to lose under it;
2) that this compensation puts them where they would have been if the SES model had never been introduced (i.e., on Labor’s education resources index model);
3) that the Labor model was thus more generous to private schools than the Coalition model;
4) that the SES model takes no account of school fees or other school income but is based on the income of the people who live near the students who go to the school;
5) that it thus gives more money to high-fee private schools that take well-off students from poor areas than it does to low-fee private schools that take poor students from well-off areas (the reason compensation is needed);
6) that Gonski report recommends keeping the Howard SES model (albeit using smaller areas)

7) that the main reason the Gonski report produces a list of losers (more than 3,000 schools) is that it follows the Howard SES model;
8) that other reasons for the long list of losers are the non-inclusion of loadings, which had not been calculated (obvious when you see that almost all the losing government school in this state are in rural or disadvantaged areas) and the fact that the Gonski system allocates money per student whereas the states have generally allocated teachers, meaning that salary differentials between a highly experienced staff and an inexperienced staff can be quite substantial;
9) that the Coalition is being hypocritical in opposing the Gonski report when that report endorses the Coalition’s SES model;
10) that the Coalition is shooting itself in the foot in opposing the Gonski model because the Gonksi model would change the proportions of state and federal funding in such a way that a future Coalition government could no longer be accused of putting 70 per cent of federal school funds into private schools;
11) that the public education lobby is being hypocritical in supporting the Gonski SES model when it opposed the Howard SES model;
12) that the public education lobby failed to make a submission setting out a precise funding system during the review process or even supporting the working conditions of teachers;
13) that the Baillieu government is being hypocritical in that it opposes the Gonski report but funds its own schools on the Gonski system, introduced by Labor in 2005.

There is a lot of information, including links, at http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/576719.aspx.

I have to wonder if we're flying blind with education funding. What exactly are we setting out to achieve? How much will it cost? Until we know, extra money thrown at education may be money wasted.

One thing I admire about the Finnish success story mentioned by Foyle is that they took a step back from numbers for a while and worked out what they wanted to do with education. They were aware that their system was failing, and took steps to fix that. As I understand it, they stopped testing for a few years and focused on putting in place those educational practices that had proven successful elsewhere. After they were established, they resumed testing and the rest is history.

Much of the funding we have is tied to results. We must make some sort of infinitesimal improvement in NAPLAN and other measures each year to justify the funds we receive. Sadly, this leads to a sort of 'short-termism' - we keep focusing on doing that tiny bit better than last year, whatever the cost. If that takes us away from the curriculum we should be teaching to practise for NAPLAN, then so be it. I see very little in the way of a long-term vision at the bureaucratic level, which disappoints me. Maybe if we knew what we wanted to do, we could do it. Fund professional development rather than halls; tie IT funding in with IT-related PD.

I dream of working in a world-class system. I want it to happen, and I'm sure it will take money for it to happen. But with money comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes planning. We need to know where the money is coming from, where it is going and what we will get out of it.