How schooling is funded and organised and the quality of teachers and their teaching practices are important contributing factors to student performance. But these factors on their own do not determine how well students perform.

Minister for School Education, Peter Garrett, recently launched new Australian research that says what happens in schools contributes between 20 per cent and 40 per cent to a student’s schooling outcomes, while the attributes the student brings to school contribute 60 per cent to 80 per cent. The research was commissioned by the Family-School and Community Partnerships Bureau.

The research found that schools in which parents and the wider community are encouraged to be involved in students’ education have better results in overall student performance.

“Results include higher grades and tests scores, higher successful completion of classes, lower dropout rates, higher graduation rates and a greater likelihood of going onto tertiary education,” Mr Garrett said.

If Australia is really going to lift student performance we cannot afford to continue to look for solutions only within school gates.

Blame shifting and funding, up to 30% of which, can disappear in state management fees are the real stumbling blocks?
I don't believe it's a pipe dream, nor is Gonski unaffordable.
But only if the states and their often overly expensive and very top heavy management model are excluded.
My approach would be to make the Fed the sole funding source, for both health, education and urban rail, all of which could be fully and much more adequately funded, via a direct funding model; and, GST funds rerouted for that purpose!
The states have by and large, failed to fulfil the arrangement/agreement that gave them access to the GST anyway?
Stamp duties have not disappeared, but remain or have morphed into other fees and charges, most of which are increasing, well beyond the CPI!?
State admins and their duplicating bureaucracies, cost the Australian community 70 billions plus per year! And public transport, seems to be locked in a management model time warp, or the fifties?
There are cities in the world with larger populations, and arguably far better managed by a single, forward looking administration.
Many of the duties assigned to modern govts/centralising bureaucracies, used to be presided over by voluntary unpaid boards.
[Populated by very experienced professionals, who often had a far better idea of local needs and funding priorities!]
And schools with full autonomy can finally be free to compete on the basis of excellence! Which could result in some serious bonus outcomes for all the staff.
They would need to sign up for comparative benchmarking.
Which could be used, to lift outcomes across the sector, given apples for apples comparisons!
Finally, we need to add a mileage meter to all funding outcomes; meaning, the further away the student/patient is from a capital city, the higher the capital unit outlay per unit?
Say, an additional $150.00 per unit per year, for every 100 kilometres.
This would go a very long way to fixing some of the more obvious anomalies, in both health and education outcomes. To say nothing of public transport outcomes!
Rhrosty.

The unwritten premise behind this kind of scrutiny of global student ‘performance’ comparisons is that, if all students received the same quality of education in terms of teacher quality and school resources, then all school populations would perform equally. This seems a highly suspect premise to me.

If the premise is not correct, then what is needed is an analysis that is somehow adjusted according to the correct performance expectations. I don’t know how to do that but the experts who are telling us to improve education ought at least have some idea. Otherwise, go find some new experts.

Politicians are competing on how to spend the most money on improving our education standards and lifting our test rankings. If, as I suggest here, they don’t know what they are talking about then we must demand more accountability on their proposals. I for one reckon that any policy that hinges on the claim that Bulgaria is doing better than Australia (as the papers kept telling us) needs sceptical scrutiny. The result just doesn’t make sense.

The Gonski proposal is not “to fund schools according to their educational task rather than the sector to which they belong”. It is to fund schools, in the medium term, according to how well off the students’ neighbours are (i.e., to continue the Howard government’s SES funding model) and, in the long term, on the income of each parent. This abominable system punishes low-fee schools that take poor students from well-off areas.

The Gonski proposals would not “would slow this dynamic [i.e., “causing the educationally rich to cluster with their kind and the poor with theirs, to the advantage of the former and the disadvantage of the latter”] and reduce its worst effects, but not eliminate it.” They would exacerbate it because the funding principle is the “parents’ capacity to pay”, not the school’s own resources. This principle would have the effect of concentrating each income group in a particular school as the higher the parents’ income, the less the government support, thus the higher the fees that have to be charged, thus the more likely that students with low-income parents would be driven out of the school. There is no better method than this ever proposed to stratify our schools by class.

Both these points are dealt with at length at http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/576719.aspx?PageIndex=1 and, more recently and specifically, in my posts at http://theconversation.edu.au/test-shock-is-our-education-system-failing-students-11308.

The press reporting on the Gonski report has been abysmal

The comment, “staffing schools according to student-staff ratios rather than fixed class size maxima”, is meaningless. As I said in my unpublished letter to the editor when the author made this claim in The Australian:

‘15/12/2012

‘Dean Ashenden wants schools to be staffed “according to student-staff ratios rather than fixed class maximums” (“Hard lessons still not sinking in”, 15-16/12). As any student who scored well in PISA or TIMSS could tell him, student-staff ratios and class sizes are actually connected. The staffing ratio is determined by a combination of class sizes, teaching loads and non-classroom positions (e.g, principal, librarian).

‘Despite the vocal push by the forces of the right against spending money on public education, the Tennessee STAR study, the work of Professor John Hattie and the everyday experience of teachers tell us that smaller classes are better for learning – unless teaching is just giving lectures. This is because they give the teacher the time to interact with each student and to thoroughly correct each student’s work.

‘Large classes are not a burden to slack teacher, but they are to the committed teacher, who will strive to his or her best until burnt out or in a better-paid jib with less exploitative working conditions.

‘Victoria staffed its secondary schools on a pupil teacher ratio of 11.7:1 in 2011. Thirty years earlier, it had no trouble staffing them on a ratio of 10.9:1. The much wealthier state we have now could easily return to those days.’

Teachers are right to resist all attempts to worsen their working conditions by pushing up class sizes

I can't imagine anything more useless than pouring more money into education.

With our unionised workforce all we will get is the same bunch of no Hooper teachers, getting higher pay.

All ready primary school teachers are the most over educated, over paid, under worked section of the public service. Yes even worse than adoption administrators.

The only chance of improvement is complete outside testing, with a required 5% improvement in test results, year on year.

The reward for success the teacher keeps their job, two failures earns dismissal. The fun watching this would be worth quids.

Who really believes anything this party espouses?

Their new leader will be a choice of Bob Carr,Kevin Rudd or some B grade union hack.

I think the very worst thing that happened to teaching, was the teachers union!
While the connection between class sizes and outcomes is incontestable.
A unionised workforce, I believe, can and does protect drones and incompetents.
As a former business owner operator, I kept unions out of my business, by paying non-union staff 10% above the Unionised average.
This kept clock watchers and lazy layabouts, who wouldn't work in an iron lung, or those who habitually had a liquid lunch, off the premises.
Moreover, I never asked another to do what I couldn't do myself, and invariably led from the front and by example.
Attending a annual staff party, I met the spouse of one of the workers, who turned out to be a high school English teacher.
This man, well into his cups, proudly boosted that he only turned up for the money, never marked homework, recycled and or regurgitated class assignments and or lessons from previous years, which included student overload reading assingments.
Still in his mid thirties, knew nothing of keyboards or computers.
His Principle couldn't sack him, because his Principle had neither the power to hire or fire; but had his staff, good, bad or indifferent, imposed on him by a centralised bureaucracy.
Moreover this couldn't care less deadbeat, was protected by a militant union!
I'm all for good teachers getting what they're worth, and for ensuring they work in an environment, where good teachers excel!
This means we must focus on outcomes, and not whether we can get more bang for the education buck, with larger class sizes.
Predictably, a call coming from a privileged set, who simply want to entrench privilege rather than excellence?
Our kids are our future, and we should be doing what's possible to ensure that that future, is given the very best chance to be as bright as possible! Even if that means, means testing the education dollar, to maximise true equity outcomes, and the excellence we should be striving for!
Yesterday I coodent spell university student, now I are one.
Rhrosty.

Why don't we have Arjay and Hasbeen running the education system.
The Gonsky report was very comprehensive. Here it sounds as though he does not know what he is talking about.
We either patch up a system that has seen better days or take the option of recommendations.

Come on Rhrosty "While the connection between class sizes and outcomes is incontestable", what utter garbage.

I went through Qld system to age 9, in classes all over 40, & learnt heaps. We were set 10 words to learn to spell, pronounce & understand every night, were tested the next day, & copped it if we hadn't done the work. We then moved to NSW, class size 26, where nothing like this happened, & never learnt to spell another word.

Class size has nothing to do with it, given decent discipline. It is teaching technique, & constant testing that counts.

Most testing is actually testing the teacher, but a bit of pressure, even if not real is good for kids. Pressure is part of getting prepared for real life, not some feminist ideal, of what life should be.

You bet your boots we should 579. Gonski & his mates in the university system have a proven record of failure, & are in no way suitable to recommend how to improve education.

His elite background, & the fact he has made a very big quid actually show he is so far removed from the poor mug going through a government school system as to be the worst possible type to have advising how to run that system.

Having him suggest how to run a government school system is the equivalent of having Clive Palmer designing the union system.

Hasbeen,

"...& never learnt to spell another word."

Oh come now, if children are reading, they're learning to spell.

My son has never had a formal spelling lesson in his life, and he spells well. If he doesn't know how to spell something, he either asks me or looks it up in a dictionary.

Why do we think we have to ram every bit of information into young minds - give them some academic autonomy and they will do it themselves as a matter of course.

Yes Poirot, & I had a kid at school with me who, used to hide a Greek mythology book inside his math book, to read while we were doing math 2 honors for matriculation. Some kids are just smart.

But then, those of us who are little dyslexic can have trouble writing the letters in the right order, even when we can spell the word. That Queensland method sure helped many of us. I don't mind being rammed, when it is to my advantage.

Perhaps you think we can do away with all schools, if kids can learn it all for themselves with a bit of autonomy. That would let us make huge cuts in the education budget, rather than throw money at it.

You evidently agree that most testing is to test teachers, which is something.

Hasbeen,

I'm not silly enough to suggest that the industrial paradigm can do away with schools....although there are probably myriad ways we could do better. As you note, things are souring in that respect in the late capitalist era.

By "academic autonomy", I mean concentrating on instilling in children the ability to self-direct their learning. Most kids are curious and they learn without trying. If they are stimulated to see learning as something that is within their control and not just something that is foisted upon them, then even the recalcitrant kids would respond in a positive way.

I can imagine being a little dyslexic is frustrating, so I understand what you are saying about rote learning. I remember when I started primary school that I was frustrated that I couldn't read, and I learned to read at school. My son, on the other hand, began reading fluently while still in kindy before he turned five (he only began talking at three, so we were surprised) We can't take any credit (apart from providing a reading friendly environment at home), he just started reading.

So a little hypolexia, and bingo he's reading and spelling - he has trouble with maths though, unless he's dealing with dates. He's a whiz with arithmetic and dates.

My point being that all kids have different strengths, and a one-size-fits-all arrangement often stifles the will to learn and create.

Rhrosty,

You say, “The states have by and large, failed to fulfil the arrangement/agreement that gave them access to the GST anyway?
“Stamp duties have not disappeared, but remain or have morphed into other fees and charges…”

There was never any promise to remove stamp duties with the introduction of the GST. This is just another of the myths (John Howard changed the definition unemployment, the 1967 referendum gave Aborigines the vote, the states have collected rivers of gold in GST revenue, teachers have it easy) that infest the internet and the old media.

Here is the relevant part of the GST agreement, (Reform_of_comm-state_financial_relations.rtf):
‘The States and Territories will cease to apply the taxes referred to in Appendix A from the dates outlined below and will not reintroduce them or similar taxes in the future.
· Bed taxes, from 1 July 2000;
· Financial Institutions Duty, from 1 July 2001;
· Stamp duties on quoted marketable securities from 1 July 2001;
· Debits tax by 1 July 2005, subject to review by the Ministerial Council;
That’s the full list, and they have all gone. The only stamp duty on it is that on quotable market securities. Some of the taxes to be reviewed have also now been abolished.

I see this is one of those discussions in which evidence is irrelevant, but to those who say class size is irrelevant, I say look up the results of the Tennessee STAR study, the Glass and Glass’s meta-analysis and the work of John Hattie. To those who say that students were better educated in the past, I say look up the results of the ABS Life Skills Survey. To those who say principals cannot hire teachers, I say look up the Victorian DEECD website. To those who say principals cannot fire teachers, I say they can initiate the process – they just have to follow the rules.

The Gonksi report is about funding, not every educational issue under the sun. It has diagnosed the problem well, but its solutions would create a serious problem, which is concealed from the public by the poor reporting on the issue.

The words WE CANT SPEND MONEY WE DONT HAVE should be inserted on the top of every single memo, letterhead and direction sent out by labor, to any minister, or staffer,

In any case, it is quite obvious that labor considered education as less important than the environment.

I say this because they took a minister, Garret, who resided over what must be one of labor's worst cases of miss management (insulation of houses) and assigned him to education.

Whereas, in the real world, he would have been sacked, if not galled.

So in essense, what do they expect to achieve, with the wrong people and money they don't have to spend.

As the thread so rightly implies, Gillards education PIPE DREAM.

It's so simple. Increase class sizes. After all the author wants to create education factories. Free market strategies = free market outcomes. Just produce more widgets per hour.
It is obvious that the author has never taught. If he had he would realise that you can't run an education system like a factory.

The corollory of those who can't - teach; is that those who can't teach write incoherent treatises on how to run an education system.