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.