The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Equity in education is worth fighting for > Comments

Equity in education is worth fighting for : Comments

By Jenny Miller and Joel Windle, published 17/4/2013

Imagine a race where the runners with the highest level of material, technical, physical, social and emotional advantages were given a huge head start, while those who were struggling with basic survival were placed way behind the starting gate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
A good article - the central theme of equality in education is one that no reasonable person can deny. Sadly, the well meant efforts of the Gillard government to redress the balance in this regard has, like so many Gillard government initiatives, stumbled on the implementation. The guarantee that no school - regardless of affluence - will lose money in the new financing arrangements will very likely be its undoing. An omelette necessitates broken eggs.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 7:10:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It has become apparent that education institutes, just like banks, sell products.
Posted by unblvabl, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 8:12:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the great article. Thanks for pointing out the sheer immorality of "public-private" schools that charge exorbitant fees, exclude many young Australians from entrance but still put their hands out for public funding. While the Government's belated and gradual implementation of Gonski is a step in the right direction, it is too small, too gradual and disappointingly late.

It was also great to see somebody call out the "money-doesn't-matter" crowd. Whenever this lot actually talks about improving schools it turns out their proposals require money. Exhibit A - Ben Jensen, whose incoherence would be funny if it wan't dangerous: http://grattan.edu.au/static/files/assets/38cebb8a/189_jensen_oped_weekendaustralian_schooled.pdf .

On the Latham 2004 proposals (mostly to redirect funding from high-fee to low-fee privates), it is always worth acknowledging that the available evidence suggests they were popular - http://inside.org.au/lathams-list-was-a-hit-in-the-polls .
Posted by TomGreenwell, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 8:28:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Every student deserves a decent education, and the government is obliged to ensure that each student has access to it. The government is also obliged to provide to do this in the most efficient manner for the tax dollar.

The comparison between Knox which gets government funding of about $3000 per student, but charges fees of about $25 000, with a public school that gets funding of $12 500 per student with no parent contribution, is idiotic. It is like comparing someone that has a Porsche to someone that uses a bus and suggesting that the government is obliged to give everyone a Porsche.

The parents that send their kids to top private schools are not just paying for education to the curriculum, but for music, sports and generally a far broader scope of experience for their kids.

Getting rid of government subsidies would close most independent schools and add a huge burden to the public purse. The net result would be reduction in money available per public student and a worsening of results.

Equality by bringing everyone down to a lower level is what happened in the old European eastern block, and is why it eventually collapsed.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 8:40:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article is preoccupied with so-called "rich" schools and how advantaged they are. More pertinent is that there are some parents who put their hands in their pockets to give their kids the best education they can afford, and others who demand free education from the State.

A fair way of providing more funding to government schools would be for the better off parents to pay fees. This of course will never happen because of the likely outcry from those affected.

We hear a lot about advantaged private schools and how much better off they are compared with government schools. What gets less attention is the contrast government schools in well heeled suburbs (where the Chardonnay socialists send their kids for free) and poor performing government schools in disadvantaged areas.
Posted by Bren, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 9:42:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister;
You state; "The comparison between Knox which gets government funding of about $3000 per student, but charges fees of about $25 000, with a public school that gets funding of $12 500 per student with no parent contribution, is idiotic".

No it wasn't. What was idiotic was your statement that removal the government subsidy to independent schools would cause them all to close. How would removal of $3000 of "cream" cause Knox to close? Or Kings or any of the other schools charging well above $12,500 pa?

One thing that really annoyed me about a TV program that included video of Knox students arriving at school was the students "dipping their lids" to some authoritarian figure on arrival.

Unearned respect for tradition and authority has no place in education. Teaching young students to be inquisitive and how to evaluate evidence is what education should be about. Considerate of the views of others in any discussion is important but respect for authority, simply because those in authority claim that they are entitled to exercise that authority, slows the development of the youthful individuals own capabilities.

Respect has to be earned and the better teachers earn that respect. The best teacher in my local comprehensive high school could not pause in his classroom at the end of a lesson if a meal break was due because, if he did, senior year students would waylay him just to talk and enjoy his company. I once asked him how he maintained such excellent discipline in class. He replied, "They quickly learn that I keep count."

This issue is not about equality; it is about equality of opportunity.
Posted by Foyle, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 9:43:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is simply no reason for subsidies to non-public schools. The eastern block is not a reasonable example. Public services in many areas - not just schools - were inadequate. Not to send a child to a public school is a choice. Parents have the right to make such a choice. However, there is no reason that other people should subsidise that choice through their taxes.

There is an advantage to Australia of children of different religious, income, ethnic and other backgrounds mixing together. It makes us a less fragmented society. The US Supreme Court in Brown vs. Kansas Board of Education has observed the education segregated by race is inherently unequal. I think the same thing applies to segregation by religion. For a less divided Australia children should learn together, grow up together and work together. Fund public schools adequately. I had an excellent education in the US public schools. School funding in the US is by school districts so some districts in the US are poorly funded. In Australia that is not the case so there is no reason that all public schools in Australia cannot be good schools.

If subsidies to non-public schools were cut off some parents with children in those schools would opt for the public schools. Good! We should welcome those children.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 9:47:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, there's a very good reason why all schools cannot be good and it has little to do with funding. There is a population of teachers and within that population there is a broad distribution of pedagogical skill, application and capability, as well as a large variation in commitment. Many women choose to be trained as teachers because it offers a secure job with convenient hours for mothers with school-age children and there are low barriers to entry. Many teachers were themselves indifferent students. Many wish to only teach part-time. Many do very little continuing professional development having obtained their qualification. The ones who are genuinely committed to excellence and have made a real effort to become highly skilled are snapped up by private schools which demand such standards. The rest end up, in the worst case, as place-holders and child-minders.

The bureaucratic managerialist culture within State education systems, being process-driven, is principally concerned with achieving a standardised, interchangeable workforce. That sort of approach is not conducive to excellence.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 10:21:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
State Premiers who are complaining about the cost of the Gonski Lite proposals could find a considerable proportion of the funds by simply refusing to pay for student transport further than to the front gate of the closest public school.

Spin-offs would include significantly reduced peaks in morning and afternoon road traffic and reduced congestion on public transport during peak commuter times. Reducing these peaks is an extraordinarily effective way to reduce the cost of transport for the whole community 24/7, because design of transport systems is primarily about providing for the peaks.

Step 1 towards making our cities, highways and towns more user friendly could well involve encouraging, by whatever means available, use of the closest public school or an even closer private one. Those who choose to travel further than the closest school should not receive free passes.

They should be charged a congestion tax.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 10:38:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Antiseptic,

All public schools can be good schools. Finland has succeeded in that. Finnish teachers get sufficient pay to compete with private sector jobs in other areas. Finland has non-public schools - faith based and Steiner. They get government grants but do not charge tuition. They are no fancier than the public schools. Finland ranks at the top in most measurable standards of education. The author of the article has pointed out the inequality of public vs. non-public schools in Australia. I would prefer no public funding to non-public schools. However, if there is to be such funding it should be on the Finnish model.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 10:40:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic has offered his opinion about the relative ability of public and private schools to employ the best of the available teaching talent.

Perhaps he is correct, that by paying more the private schools get better teachers. Perhaps not. He appears not to care about any factual basis to his belief in this regard.

Where Antiseptic and I could agree is that inequality in resourcing different schools leads to inequalities of opportunity and outcome.

Does Antiseptic have evidence that public schools have a monopoly on bureaucratic, managerial culture and that these attributes are miraculously absent from private and religious schools?

I welcome Antiseptic's contribution. It neatly supports the basic thrusts of the lead article.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 10:49:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking as someone who remembers, having to share textbooks, with a head in the book, myopic fellow student; and or, walking to school on many a cold and frosty morning, over three miles of gravel road, I can agree with the article, book, chapter and verse!
It is not only immoral to argue extremely privileged students receive the same federal funding as the poorest, but virtual theft, or stealing the very bread from the mouths of babes!
And indeed, further entrenching disadvantage, that causes generational poverty, or poverty trap post codes.
Perhaps, we could have a regular trimonthly student exchange?
No, not with foreign overseas students; but one that emptied out our most privileged schools, with the student body being forced to experience, what our poorest schools can supply; and, the living conditions of their poorest students?
Perhaps then, all the spoilt little prince and princesses, and their even more spoilt parents, would stop bellyaching about the removal of yet another form of welfare for the rich!
Some of them obscenely so, in any fair comparison to our own underprivileged underclass.
The huge death toll, during the first war war, was a direct consequence, of selecting the officer class from the ranks of the most privileged, rather than the most competent.
Similarly, our economic performance and our future, is critically hampered by similar examples, which even see us sourcing our corporate CEO's from offshore!
When, if the truth be known, we have more intelligent, more rational thinkers right here, save, they missed the education boat and were consequently mired in mediocrity, for a veritable lifetime?
When they could have easily contributed so much more, if we could have but listened to, and followed the advice this Author, many years ago!
Instead of, entrenching entirely undeserved privilege, followed closely, by virtually stealing the bread from the mouths of babes, in the consequent creation of poverty traps/poverty postcodes/generational disadvantage!
Equity in education is well worth fighting for, if only out of quite gross self interest, for the whole Australian nation!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 11:12:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree with this article in its assumption that all children should receive an equally funded education. The author continually claims that if you don't think all schools should have exactly equal funding then you must believe that disadvantaged children deserve to be disadvantaged.
Having or not having certain opportunities has nothing to do with whether or not you deserve it.
Some children have good parents and some have bad. It has nothing to do with what the children do or do not deserve.

I attended public schools and my daughter attends a public school. I could send her to a private school if I wanted to, knowing that my contribution of some thousands of extra dollars a year would mean that she gets the benefit of extra resources. However, I choose not to spend my money doing that. It has nothing to do with whether or not my daughter deserves better schooling resources. I believe the education she receives is adequate and if she works hard she will succeed.
Other parents are happy to put their hands in their pockets to provide extra opportunities. Good for them and lucky for their kids. I don't see it as a reason to strip their schools of the same funding that my own daughters school receives though.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 11:16:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is an ideologically based emotional rant and not factually based reasoning.

1. Comparing .01% extremes such as Knox Grammar vs a hypothetical child in an unnamed location who theoretically had been denied access to the internet does not really describe the state of the education system. Nor does it explain why children do or don't succeed.

2. Criticism of manicured lawns,attending eco resorts and nice buildings is simply evidence of jealousy politics as these things do little or nothing for one's learning and do not contribute to higher HSC marks. (Despite the authors fantasy that they do). These are adult envy topics. Children do not care about such things.

3. The statement that in prestige schools traumatised or learning disabled children are asked to leave is a scurrilous and untrue accusation.

4. Better performance in most children is due to factors such as genetic inheritance, more interested parents, motivation to study.
NOT manicured lawns. 99% of children have access to vast amounts of information through the internet negating the idea that lack of 'resources' are to blame.

5. If being an immigrant is a disadvantage, then ask yourselves why the Asian population does so well? (motivation, involved parents, hard work and choosing good schools)

No, despite the authors flimsy assertions, throwing masses of money to their designated "disadvantaged students" (who are assigned by political ideology not logic) will barely increase the outcomes.
This is because the factors that contribute to school performance are not manicured lawns but personal attributes some of which are genetic and some provided by their parents. School facilities should meet a certain standard but you don't need lawns and swimming pools to do well. Disadvantage is NOT the cause of poor school performance unless in those rare cases where it is extreme, and they are very few in number.

Face it, some children are more intelligent and more motivated. Gonski can't change that.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 11:19:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle,

Actually what is really idiotic is misreading someones post and then attacking them on something they didn't say.

I said "Getting rid of government subsidies would close MOST independent schools" meaning the majority of independent schools for whom the gov funding makes up a majority or a significant portion of their funding.

As for the high fee schools, the resulting increase in fees will only hurt those that scrimp and save to give their kids the best education.

Davidf,

Why should those with their kids in independent schools subsidize far more, parents who send their kids to public schools?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 11:38:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some people will always fail, regardless of the opportunities and or breaks they get!
Yes sure, but, we can all but ensure such outcomes, by denying some Australian kids, a fair start or education equality, or the best version of it we're able, given our limited tax dollars.
But particularly, if we start to means test all of our federal funded, health and education paradigms? [Our charity ought to be for the needy, not the greedy!]
Even so, we can still improve coal face funding outcomes even further, simply by granting more independent autonomy, and direct federal funding, that eliminates at least one tier of entirely unnecessary administration!
Namely the states!
You know, those administrations that made some of our school hall roll-outs, 30% more expensive, than those private schools, that received direct federal funding!
Simply put, we just don't need as many micro-managing, inordinately expensive, state based bureaucrats, all of them breast feeding at the teat of the nanny state?
As others have noted, we could do worse than largely emulate the excellent egalitarian Finnish example!
We may well be on the very doorstep of Asia!
But in our minds and our culture, we remain essentially European?
And therefore, without bias, or detracting in any way from Asia and or Asians, we should look to successful European examples to emulate?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 11:50:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't concern yourself with trying to imitate Scandinavian countries. Australians just don't possess that mentality. Scandinavians pay high personal taxes but low company taxes, have heavily restricted investment housing market and everybody is expected to work. Here, people want expensive houses, low taxes and work when they feel like it. Over there they don't compete with each other socially. Australians are forever trying to compete socially for better houses, higher social standing etc. Flat societies only work where people are not envious of the other and willing to work as required.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 12:54:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

We pay taxes for a public good. Bachelors and people with no children pay taxes which go to the public schools. The taxes of pacifists go to support the army and navy. The public schools exist for all children including those who go to private schools. The fact that the parents of those children choose not to send their children to public schools should not relieve them from supporting those schools through their taxes.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 1:08:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The politics of envy! What a disgusting article.

Funding has little to do with anything. The real problem is with usless incompetent teachers, who the union force governments to continue to employ.

I went to a small country high school. 300 kids, only 12 in 5Th [matriculation year], & pretty poor facilities. Winter in those prefabs was cold, but our teachers were great.

Our teachers were good, they actually knew their subjects, but more importantly gave us everything we could handle. Of those 12 kids in 5Th year, 6 of us achieved 2 As, & 3 honours, all achieved in external exams. Each of us could win any government or industry scholarship we applied for. This was back in the day of full fee university education, in the later 50s

No we weren't especially bright, but we had teachers, particularly math & science teachers, who would run classes at lunch time, & after school, any time we needed the extra help.

Compare that to today. My eldest attended a large well resourced high school, on the fringe of Brisbane. There was only one teacher in the school who could actually do the math C work, & some of the physics. As a union delegate, he was often away, & no one in the school could answer questions on the courses 100 kids were doing.

My daughter had to spend all Saturday traveling to QUT in Brisbane to get coaching in what was not available in the school. I could do most of the work, but evidently my way was was not acceptable in our feminised school system.

One poor biology teacher who was trying to muddle through teaching courses beyond his knowledge used to ask her, & a brilliant kid who just knew everything, how to teach what she had done on Saturday, & then take classes. At least he was trying. One lady from the subcontinent went through the motions, unable to even understand the questions, & a Chinese lady may have been competent, but no one could understand a word she said, so we will never know.

Continued
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 1:47:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

As a parent & the P&C treasurer I discussed this with the head master, one of the best actually, who admitted privately, he could do nothing about the lousy teachers. It was out of his hands, & he was stuck with what he was allocated.

So to fix education, get rid of the worst 30% of teachers.

Most are over paid for what they know & do, but we may have to get rid of this fool equality in teachers pay. We may have to pay more for teachers in real subjects like math & science, to get people who can do the job.

If no competent teachers available, drop the subjects in some schools, & stream kids with ability to schools that have suitable staff. It is not good enough to destroy reasonably good kids future by pretending to teach courses, & not doing it adequately.

So forget extra money. it's the teachers union stupid.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 1:48:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JohnBennetts, my point with respect to the self-selection of high quality teachers into the private sector was in relation to the cultural differences between that sector and its public counterpart. It was not about financial resources. As the old saying goes, it's hard to soar like an eagle if you're stuck in a cage full of turkeys.

On the other hand, the demands of the private sector are not attractive to those who just want a part-time job doing supply work, or who have chosen the course because they couldn't get entry to something else and they plan to quit as soon as they can transfer into some other public service position, or who like the fact they can be home with the kids in the afternoon.

Throwing more money at those people will simply make them slightly fatter turkeys, it won't turn them into eagles and it won't level any playing fields for the kids.

I closed my business late in 2011 and when I did I donated some of my industrial woodworking machinery and about $10,000 worth of good quality timber to my childrens' Qld high school, to do with as they wished. The machinery needed to be tested and tagged and a couple of minor repairs to make it compliant with Education Department requirements, although it had been in daily use before I retired it. It is still sitting there, unused, while the timber is stacked and also unused because it is not dressed (which is what the machinery is for), while the school continues to purchase dressed timber from Bunnings at retail prices. All because the turkey who is Principal won't authorise the expenditure of the couple of hundred dollars that would be needed for a private contractor to do it, but she insists on using a Qbuild electrician and Qbuild aren't interested. The shop teachers just want it working, but she has a "process" that she is determined to follow, willy nilly.

A classic case of managerialism in action.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 2:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think if you can get the parents to care more about educating their children it will make more of a difference than throwing more money at the schools. The school education should be secondary to the teaching and attitude that comes from the home. If the parents dont care about school or education or learning or growing then the kids wont. Fix the parents, fix the kids.
Posted by RandomGuy, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 2:19:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf,

"We pay taxes for a public good." Yes, and private schools are a privately supplied public good, the same way private hospitals are. The private schools exist for all children including those who go to public schools.

In both the cases of private hospitals and schools, the state offers a reduced subsidy to enable many more people to afford more choice of service than the one size fits all public service, and in turn makes a vast saving on the public purse.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 2:39:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article.
Spot on!
Have taught in both private and public schools.
Differences incredible!
Posted by Atlarak, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 2:56:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

I get a subsidy since I buy health insurance. I buy health insurance since the public hospitals are inadequate. I can afford private health insurance, and many people can't.

However, private schools and hospitals are not public goods. They are private institutions which are subsidised so the government will not have to pay the full costs of adequate public hospitals and public schools.

It really is not a matter of choice. All people whether people are poor or not should have access to adequate hospitalisation and schooling. Every child should have access to adequate schooling regardless of the income of their parents. Every person should have access to adequate hospitalisation and medical care regardless of their income.

Meanwhile government can support venues for advertising like the Olympics and professional sports which really are not vital to our well-being like health and education.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 3:23:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
antiseptic,

You are spot on with your assessment of public education. The people running it are completely process driven and have no desire to achieve results.

You are also spot on about women in education. There are some excellent female teachers who work very hard but there are also many more who do it for the convenience and hours. Driving men out of teaching has been a disaster for the profession. Even though we're not allowed to say it out loud, everyone knows men often define themselves much more in terms of their profession then women do. For many women their family and relationships are simply more important than work. Very few men willingly work part time, retire at 45-50 or take extended breaks from the workforce (willingly). The profession will not halt its decline until men are accepted back.

Unfortunately I can't see that happening soon. Feminists have captured the education system and use it great effect to emasculate boys and men. I remember the 7Up documentary where they quote the Jesuits "give me the boy until he is 7, and I will give you the man". Well, our radical feminists have captured our boys and society is paying the price.

The child abuse hysteria is another well worn weapon to keep men out of the profession and hence increase feminist influence. So long as it continues men will not enter the profession and the status of teaching will continue to decline.
Posted by dane, Wednesday, 17 April 2013 4:12:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a load of rubbish Dane.
It seems to me that blaming women for all of society's problems is a cop out. As long as you have women to blame, then the real problems don't have to be confronted.

There are many really effective teachers out there, male and female. From what I've heard, it is primarily the low teachers pay , in comparison to other jobs, that has caused many men to look at other professions instead.
So I say thank goodness that many female teachers also don't seem to be as driven by financial rewards in such a difficult profession!

I don't see any problem with the current system of public and private schools.
There are some very good public schools that many people, regardless of the family income, will even move suburbs, to ensure their kids are enrolled there.

The difference in a good or bad public school is not the funding, as all public schools receive the same basic Government funding, but the parent's involvement in their kid's learning, and in the school as a whole.

One doesn't need to come from a privileged or moneyed background to show and demonstrate an interest in their kid's education and schooling.
No amount of extra funding to public schools will change the outcomes unless the parental involvement improves.
Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 18 April 2013 1:17:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf,

You seem to have your own personal definition of public good.

"In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others." Education is a public good in that Australia as a whole benefits from the universality of education.

Delivery of the "public good" can be either by government or by private institutions, (generally with public funding)

The job of government is to deliver universal school education, and subsidizing private schools does this far cheaper per child than if independent schools were not subsidized.

This is why Labor is not stupid enough to remove funding for private schools.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 18 April 2013 10:07:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

The cheapest is not necessarily the best. That is one thing wrong with not having an adequate public school system. You are right. It is cheaper to subsidise private schools and have an inadequate public school system. When you buy on the cheap you often get what you pay for. To stop subsiding non-public schools and have an adequate public school system would cost more, but it would be worth it to ensure that all children would have the chance at a good education. Our children are our future. Labor and the Libs are penny-wise and pound foolish.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 18 April 2013 11:07:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf,

Your post seems to be suffering from extreme logical deficiency.

If independent schools lose their subsidies and the estimated 80% of independently educated students now move to public schools, excluding the huge capital cost of building schools etc to provide places for these students, but the simple running costs would far exceed the subsidy the government is presently providing.

To maintain the same level of funding per student for public schools, the education budget would have to increase significantly, or the existing public schools would get less.

As for the "cheapest is not necessarily the best" well sometimes it is. Predominately the results from independent schools outperform most public schools.

There is no scenario where reducing subsidies to independent schools improves education for public or private students.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 18 April 2013 2:50:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote: "There is no scenario where reducing subsidies to independent schools improves education for public or private students."

That is proof by assertion. As long as there are subsidies to non-public schools there will not be the pressure to provide adequate public education.

My wife went to a private school. At a class reunion a few years ago the headmaster told the assemblage to be sure and vote for Howard because "the school desperately needs a new performing arts centre."

As long as that sort of mentality prevails well-heeled private schools will continue to get subsidies and public schools will continue to be deprived. The article is spot on. The present system is unfair to the public schools.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 18 April 2013 4:47:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
you are spot on Dane.

'Driving men out of teaching has been a disaster for the profession. '

It would be hilarous if it was not so sad to see classrooms of boys being screamed at by female teachers. 'Teachers often baby sitters (albiet big kids). The feminist dogmas have resulted largely in the mess we have. Thankfully many of the private schools have not swallowed the dogmas and hence perform much better. Strange how the secularist then sprout their envy blaming funding when their zoos still receive much more. The old mantra more funding more funding yea yea yea.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 18 April 2013 5:05:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good idea - let's pretend all private schools are like Knox and then use that "fact" to compare them with public schools. A majority of independent schools are, in many ways, more or less indistinguishable from their public counterparts down the road. If we are going to have this argument, at least compare apples with apples.

The next person who mentions Finland as the example of what we are to do needs to do a lot more research before doing so. I have studied, in depth, the Finnish system and while it does produce excellent results, the changes required to bring Australian schools into line are absolutely impossible. It would involve a whole scale change to everything educational, from Preschool through to post university qualifications. Not to mention a whole lot more money. Ain't gonna happen...
Posted by rational-debate, Thursday, 18 April 2013 5:59:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear rational-debate,

You are right. It isn't going to happen. If Australians wanted it enough it would happen, but they don't.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 18 April 2013 7:50:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf,

" As long as there are subsidies to non-public schools there will not be the pressure to provide adequate public education."

Quite the contrary, I am sure the main reason the public schools want to get rid of the independent schools, especially the low fee ones, is because they consistently get better results with similar resources, and because the growth in this area is 7x that of public schools as parents vote with their feet.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 19 April 2013 5:59:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote: "There is no scenario where reducing subsidies to independent schools improves education for public or private students."

The statement is false since I conceive of such a scenario. As a nation we are increasing the division between Australians by having a subsidised private school system where the better off are aided to increase the gap between them and the unwashed. This is both stupid and immoral.

Parents vote with the feet because they are encouraged to do so to escape a deprived public school system. The solution is to stop depriving the public school system by keeping an unfair system.
Posted by david f, Friday, 19 April 2013 8:47:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, as I tried to discuss with you before, but was rebuffed with one of your glib assertions, the problem is that the quality of teachers is far from uniform across the field.

That means that in order to achieve parity in quality of education across all schools, either we have to randomly distribute teachers to all schools, including remote and otherwise unattractive ones, or we have to come up with some way of raising the quality of the least capable to close to parity with the best ones. At the same time we have to come up with some funding model that achieves complete equity of access to educational resources, also including to those locations where such access is expensive to facilitate.

Which do you advocate and how do you propose your preferred model would be implemented?

We have a public teaching workforce which is highly collectivised and resistant to attempts to create any form of ranking based on educational outcomes. NAPLAN is a bastardised hodgepodge that is subverted routinely by schools that are given advance information on exactly what the narrow scope of assessment will be and then drill students on that for weeks on end instead of giving a properly broad education and allowing a genuinely meaningful empirical data set to emerge. That's without even considering the silliness of polluting the data with a limited and carefully selected set of social measures, which provide a ready-made excuse for under-performing teachers.

More deeply, the field is saturated, especially at the senior and policy level by second-wave feminists who reflexively treat any effort at reform of their profession, including raising training standards, as an attempt to reduce opportunities for women and they will have none of it. Their adherence to ideology is a lifelong passion, while teaching is just a job.

How do you suggest any of that might be changed to produce your utopian dream of all schools being equally wonderful palaces of learning? How do you suggest we reverse a generational attitudinal malaise toward education that exists within some socio-economic groups?
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 19 April 2013 9:41:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

The two points that I made previously that you have not challenged are:

1 Removing subsidies to the independent sector would result in students moving back to the public sector, which would require more public money just to maintain the present standards. (or in the case where there is no additional government spend the public schools get less)

2 Independent schools with similar funding to public schools on average achieve better academic results.

The only possible conclusion is that removing the subsidies would result in:

a) For high fee schools, the fees increasing and the schools moving further out of reach for middle income parents,

b) For low fee independent schools, most having to close, with the students moving to now over crowded public schools

c) For public school students, larger classes, more crowded schools, and less money available for pupils.

Other than meeting your socialist "moral" imperative of making everyone equally miserable, what would this achieve?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 19 April 2013 9:53:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

I guess that ends it. Wanting to see adequate public schools makes me a socialist. When you advocate a system of privilege it comes down to that sort of name calling. Other countries have public school systems with better outcomes than Australia. There is no reason that Australia could not equal them except for the fact that the polity is unwilling to put adequate resources in the public school system and will continue to do so as long the system of privilege continues. The article was spot on.
Posted by david f, Friday, 19 April 2013 3:53:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was struck by the authors' comment that

"the point is, that if you are born into a middle-class family, with well-educated parents, you have already won the educational lottery. The idea that you would then claim the same resources as the disadvantaged students mentioned above is not just socially divisive, but immoral."

Yes, indeed, but when Andrew Bolt applied a version of this to Indigenous academics, he was fined and labelled a right-wing racist.

The authors are right, of course. But by the same criteria, wasn't Andrew Bolt ?

Just wondering.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 19 April 2013 4:19:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, you're not actually doing anything more than name-calling. I expected better, for some reason.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 19 April 2013 4:28:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Parents vote with the feet because they are encouraged to do so to escape a deprived public school system'

Actually david f a school that is godless is actually depraved not deprived. You almost hot it right.
Posted by runner, Friday, 19 April 2013 4:37:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

You want God in the schools. How about Allah, Vishnu or Zeus? They are gods and people either have believed in them or believe in them now. If you want god in the schools what excuse would you have for keeping them out?
Posted by david f, Friday, 19 April 2013 8:02:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it really too hard to aspire to the Finnish model?

http://www.weareteachers.com/hot-topics/special-reports/teaching-around-the-world/finlands-a-plus-schools
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 19 April 2013 8:22:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, there's nothing wrong with aspiration. I asked David earlier how he thinks this aspiration might be achieved and he squibbed it, preferring to take refuge in faux umbrage at something said by SM and then reiterating his belief in a utopia that apparently we're all simply too mean to accept. This sort of response, sadly, is all too typical of the sort of thinking that has lead to the enormous problems that beset the teaching profession.

Care to have a go? How do we create this utopia without first creating a genuinely committed workforce? How do we create that workforce? How do we overcome the reflexive resistance within the existing workforce to an imposition of higher standards? How do we stop people from wanting their children to have the best educational opportunities they can afford and get them to support a more egalitarian model? How do you make schools in Woop Woop North provide equivalent educational opportunities to those in The Big Smoke, or even different SES parts of the Big Smoke equivalent?

I know these are tiresomely practical questions, but do you have an answer to even one of them that doesn't involve spending lots of money to make people do what they don't want to do?
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 19 April 2013 8:55:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clearly this subject raises strong emotions and opinions. Thanks for a sharp and intelligent article. A few points only:

1. Where in the media are the sensible voices of intelligent people who were educated in the State schools? It is so disappointing to hear only the voices of the teacher unions in the public debate (especially in the news on TV)

2. Why can't the media show people commenting tartly on the laughable simplicities of Christopher Pyne and others who pretend that all independent schools are deserving more money and are one "independent system", whatever that means?

3. Surely we need more attention to the ethnic and social groups using the selective schools. And let's look hard at those from Asian countries who are beginning to use them very heavily.

4. Labor has not helped the State schools. Its efforts have been tragic. After all the hoo ha from Whitlam, they were given moderate help. Latham's attempts to highlight unjustly over-funded wealthy schools were too easily ridiculed. And Rudd-Gillard wasted time and money mucking around with some silly Education Revolution which mainly helped the wealthy schools.

Anyone who cares about helping disadvantaged kids can only get depressed. What a huge disappointment Labor Governments have been. Lots of noise and no progress. And we have to look forward to years of Abbott and (presumably) Pyne. More funds for wealthy schools coming up!
Posted by Bronte, Saturday, 20 April 2013 2:03:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf

Either you want money to improve public schools or you want to remove the subsidy to independent schools, as I have shown conclusively you cannot have both.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 20 April 2013 5:36:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

You have proven nothing conclusively except in your own mind. You are defending a system which the article has pointed out is unfair.

Assertion of nonsense does not qualify as proof. The article remains spot on.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 20 April 2013 7:34:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note that you still decline to engage with the questions around practicability of implementation David. Reiterating your belief system is no more convincing than runner is when he bangs on about his.

Given your background, this lack of engagement presumably reflects your understanding that homogenising a highly heterogeneous mixture of groups which is also resistant to such homogenisation is not simply a matter of applying force, or demonising those who don't agree that your belief system should be adopted universally.

Failure to explicitly acknowledge that is just as petulant as a schoolchild's refusal to acknowledge that his failure to do the work is the reason for his low marks, preferring to believe that the teacher must hate him, as my own son has tried in the past.

I'm sure you would never have accepted such an excuse from your children.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 20 April 2013 8:21:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Life is inherently unfair. The government job is not to make everything equal, but address the worst cases of inequality. The closest anyone came to total equality was the communist system which provided a shoddy quality for everyone.

My objective should be to provide the best education possible for all for the lowest tax dollar. And spending less on independently educated pupils frees money for disadvantaged students. This is a win win for all except those blinded by political dogma.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 20 April 2013 9:14:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

I agree. Life is inherently unfair. However, our government policies can add to the unfairness or they can try to make things less unfair. We are never going to have complete fairness.

The Soviet which you have referred to was an unfair society. By suppressing dissent it made it impossible to redress unfairness. You call names like socialist and bring up the Soviet. That, unfortunately, seems your mode of argument. It is rather barren. Grow up!
Posted by david f, Saturday, 20 April 2013 11:03:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf,

The Soviet union is the prime example of when "equality for all" ends up as misery for all. Your particular blend of envy politics is common amongst those economically challenged who think

Accusing me of being childish when you are advocating magic pudding economics is a joke. Just where is the extra money going to come from to educate all the pupils that will leave the independent schools?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 20 April 2013 3:49:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if it would be useful if teaching students were taught - taught themselves - to teach their classes with minimal equipment, the barest of gear.

A bit like some of us oldies were raised on, a black-board and a bit of chalk, and that was it.

Just a thought.

And like Peter van Onselen wrote today, good schools need good universities, good TEACHING universities. After all, our teachers need the best education and training to be of use to ALL the kids they are going to teach. Not one kid should be left behind, and it's a tragedy that you can't say that these days without somebody calling you a Bushite. But it's true: not one kid should be left behind.

The research side of unis can largely take care of itself.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 20 April 2013 4:25:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

I am for getting rid of the subsidy to private schools - not equality for all. I did not advocate getting rid of private schools. The United States has private schools but no government subsidy for them. The United States is not a socialist country. The US is relevant to what I advocate not the USSR. Why did you bring in socialism and the USSR? Because that's the way you choose to argue, I guess.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 20 April 2013 5:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Neither the US or UK subsidize independent schools. This means that about 10% of pupils are privately educated, and only the rich can afford it. Here about 40% are privately educated, 30% in low fee schools which will close without subsidies which you advocate, which in spite of insignificant difference in funds from public schools out perform them.

Removing the subsidy puts hundreds of thousands of pupils back in to the public system at a massive cost to the state with zero improvement to the disadvantaged schools.

This is an economically idiotic policy that is so far left of reality that not even labor is stupid enough to implement it, and remains in the Greens fluffy bunny realm.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 20 April 2013 5:30:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What has rung truest for me is RandomGuy's statement "I think if you can get the parents to care more about educating their children it will make more of a difference than throwing more money at the schools. The school education should be secondary to the teaching and attitude that comes from the home. If the parents dont care about school or education or learning or growing then the kids wont. Fix the parents, fix the kids."

The largest reason, I believe, for the drift to private schooling is public school culture as it is perceived by the parents who do care. They are at loggerheads with families that don't care, whose children create the greatest headaches in school classrooms and affect the learning and attitude of all.

Public schools are powerless to eliminate disruptive behaviour because of their revolving door policy on discipline, which emanates from the top and leaves teachers to fend for themselves. Teachers already preparing quality lessons which are trampled over by unruly students are then charged with insufficiently engaging them. Private schools often move their most problematic children on, protecting their teachers and making them appear superior to their public school counterparts. There are poor teachers in public (and private) schools but this is not the root problem.

Parents that don't care enough about their children's academic progress or their behaviour to strongly intercede are the problem and no amount of money will fix this. Good things happen in good schools through parental care, regardless of monetary investment. Listening to Noel Pearson recently reminded me of that fact when he said "What does matter is that if you have parents, who will look after you, who will give you whatever Vegemite there is and whatever Vita Brits there might be in the cupboard and send you off to school and teach you to have respect for your elders and your teachers and so on and never countenance you spending a day away from school, then magic happens." http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3737632.htm
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 21 April 2013 9:47:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LF,

I'm stunned. I am put in the position where I have to agree with you. This will not do!!
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 21 April 2013 4:09:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LF,

I agree with you. Parents who care sacrifice to send their children to private schools thereby removing them from public schools. Therefore there is not the pressure to bring public schools up to snuff since those parents who care are not involved in the public schools. So the children in public schools get a second-hand education. Those children are shortchanged but few care. Children are entitled to a good education whether or not their parents care about it. That makes a case for stopping the funding of the private schools. If funding for private schools stops that makes the situation better in two ways. Parents who care are more liable to put pressure to make the public schools better, and children of parents who don't care will mix with children of parents who do care. That can inspire them to care themselves and to improve.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 21 April 2013 4:32:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f.,

"....Children are entitled to a good education whether or not their parents care about it..."

I put it to you that it is nigh on impossible for a child to receive a good education (meaning "well rounded, relevant and comprehensive") if their parents "don't care about it"...regardless of the quality of school or its facilities.

"Education, as we know, is not something that "just" happens in school. It's born of myriad experiences, attitudes and exposures, of which school is but one important facet.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 21 April 2013 5:14:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Poirot,

As usual, I agree with you completely on this point.

So that's the problem:

* how to get - what's the word ? - useless parents to care enough about their kids to care about their education ?

In the olden days, we used to have truant officers, who could force children to school, and fine their parents. That might be a start.

Is this sort of parental irresponsibility a form of child neglect ? Of child abuse ?

Are children the property of parents, to do as they wish ? Or is the satisfaction of their health and educational needs an obligation on parents ?

Hey, thanks, Poirot, i think we may be getting somewhere :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 21 April 2013 5:26:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

The attitude of parents is a large part of education but not all of it. Our parents are an important influence in our lives but only part of it. My parents, although intelligent, did not really care about either the arts or literature and regarded science and technology as tools with which one could make a living. As a child I read a lot. My father called me a 'reading fool'. my mother regarded it as a worthwhile career goal to get a lifelong job in a big corporation. A friend of the family who was a chemist at Solvay Process, a company in Syracuse, NY, was pointed out as a role model. I think the only book my father ever read was "Gone with the Wind." He was prompted to do so by my mother as it was a bestseller at the time.

I don't think I am more intelligent than they were, but I have much wider intellectual interests. I owe it to school. I went to a terrific public high school in Syracuse, NY. I remember Miss McBurney, our Latin teacher, with whom we studied Caesar's writing about the Gallic Wars, 'Doc' Poland, our chemistry teacher, and the lecture he gave about Kekule's dream where he got the insight on the Benzene ring and the erudite Jesse Ross, our history teacher. Those people had a tremendous influence on me, and without that influence I probably would not be too different from my parents.

My oldest son is a Professor of Anthropology at William and Mary and quite a scholar. He graduated summa cum laud from university. I think he got far more in the way of attitude toward learning from his public school than he got from either his mother or me. My education in school has broadened my mind so I am still trying to learn and inquire at the age of 87. Not all children will be inspired, but all of them should be given the chance to develop what abilities they have.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 21 April 2013 5:40:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think parents have all that much effect on their lids attitudes to education. Mine sent me to school, expected I would do well, but left it to me & my teachers how well.

My 3 kids are an example of how it is up to the kids themselves. They are equally bright, but very differently motivated.

The eldest wanted to be the best. Nothing less than an OP 1 or 2 would do for her, not because she needed it, but because she would not accept less. We supported her, never pushed her.

The youngest only wanted a bit of paper. She found math easy, so did A & B, but apart from that did the easiest stuff she could find. Media studies, dance, anything with no homework suited her. Pushing her would have been counter productive & a waste of time.

The boy needed good results to achieve his plans, but liked being a leader of the sporting group, being a smart ass & playing to the gallery. It took some time to get him to see that the education system didn't give a damn what he did, he could fail if he liked, a not effect them in any way.

I had to sort of set him against the system, with the idea that he beat it if he did well, to start him trying. Until then he was heading for very poor results, & no chance of achieving his objectives.

Being brought up in the same house hold did not result in similar characters, quite the contrary. Each required quite different handling to achieve results.

A few more teachers as good as the ones I had, would sure help with a lot of kids.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 21 April 2013 6:18:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

Yeah, but that's the whole point - your parents EXPECTED you to try and to do okay. If kids have nobody around them who expects anything but sh!t from them, only people who are drop-kicks who implicitly expect their kids to be drop-kicks - these poor little buggers are EXPECTED to get nowhere. And what's the bet that they will get nowhere ?

I've been doing a lot of work on the correspondence of the S.A. Protector of Aborigines, and I'm amazed how little power he and the government had to remove children, except for orphans for whom, of course, in any jurisdiction, the state should have obligations of care.

Many years ago, I got hold of a copy of the School Roll from one Aboriginal mission, all the details from 1880 to 1966, and drew up maps of the to and fro from that school, decade by decade. Almost no new kids were every 'taken' there, perhaps twenty or thirty out of the eight hundred in eighty years, usually with their single mothers. And similarly, over eighty years, only forty five kids out of the eight hundred were ever 'taken away', and all but one came back within a year or so. In fact, in that time, forty mothers died leaving 140 school-age children. Some fathers died and the mothers re-married, so guess what happened to the teenage daughters ?

But back in those days, people looked after their kids a lot better it seemed, even though families lived in genuine poverty and hardship.

So are kids the property of their parents, or their obligation ?

Just wondering,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 21 April 2013 6:32:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not quite sure what you're getting at, Loudmouth.

(In case it's a dig at my homeschooling - knowing your penchant for sarcastic engagement - I am registered with my state education authority as a home educator)

Regarding the gist of my reply to David f, what I was getting at was the "attitude" of parents regarding education - as even amongst children who are regular and punctual school attendees, there may be very little back-up or general reinforcement of the fundamentals by their parents, and hence a lack of engagement by the child.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 21 April 2013 7:10:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f, I usually find myself in agreement with you, however, "That makes a case for stopping the funding of the private schools. If funding for private schools stops that makes the situation better in two ways. Parents who care are more liable to put pressure to make the public schools better, and children of parents who don't care will mix with children of parents who do care. That can inspire them to care themselves and to improve."

You advocate forcing parents who care to do the impossible, i.e. change the culture of public schools burdened by unruly students whose parents don't care, going to battle with the education minister and the director general/CEO over lax discipline standards, in some sort of concerted group action.

Public school teachers with unruly students are simply left to stew in their own juice by top-brass turning the issue back on them with the charge of insufficiently engaging such students. I believe the vast majority of teachers are doing their utmost to engage students but their efforts are trampled over without proper consequence. There is no process that can permanently relieve their burden, with students going through a revolving door only to land back barely and/or temporarily changed. They (and their parents) are giving the pastoral care and documentation systems of schools a complete work-over. They know their rights, the limitations on teachers and schools, and how to weather any storm. They know that ultimately there is no real consequence for failure to change, abrogating their responsiblity.

Unruly kids have special disciplinary needs and should not be foisted on schools under "inclusivity" requirements that negatively affect average, good-natured kids. What was once a subliminal problem has grown to be of great significance with societal decay and now needs to be directly addressed at a government level.

If needed change occurs and is annunciated clearly there will be a drift back to public schools that were once great.
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 22 April 2013 10:33:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oops..enunciate
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 22 April 2013 10:34:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear luciferase,

Of course you are right in condemning the school system in forcing teachers to deal with difficult behaviour problems. To force parents to send children to such schools is wrong. However, the fact is that some parents at present have no alternative but to send their children to such schools. We are already forcing parents without the money to send children to those schools. We need to improve our public schools by relieving teachers of problem children and seeing that those children are in places where qualified professional help can deal with them. This costs money. It comes down to that. The government prefers to shortchange children and parents in public schools.
Posted by david f, Monday, 22 April 2013 11:14:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rubbish David, it has nothing to do with money. What it has to do with is discipline.

Bet you if we brought in the Singapore cane method of discipline here, troublesome students would be a thing of the past damn quick.

Teachers with no discipline resources have no chance. I had a girlfriend who was deputy head of a Sydney inner city primary school. New teachers were warned to stay away from the 3 story buildings, when in the playground, unless they liked the idea of having something dropped on their head.

No suitable discipline could be applied, particularly to one group of students of a certain ethnicity, so she got out.

From what I heard, things only got worse.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 22 April 2013 6:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lifting kids out of the mainstream system to meet their special needs costs money, so david f is right. The cane, like a sword, is double edged and leads to as much good as bad, IMO (having been a recipient myself at times).

In an early post on this thread Foyle said,

1. "Unearned respect for tradition and authority has no place in education." and
2. "Respect has to be earned and the better teachers earn that respect."

My comments on what I perceive to be the root of problems are based on
the above being true, with qualifications.

1. is incorrect as a starting position for students to adopt. Respect from them and towards them should be expected at the outset. If respect is to be lost it should be for very, very good reasons. Unruly kids most often have no basis for their disrespect as displayed through their behaviour towards teachers and fellow students.

2. is correct. Teachers earn respect by respecting their students, which the vast majority do. All else stems from this. This respect extends to the provision of quality learning experiences for which teachers fairly expect to be respected.

Many students have either no wish or no idea how to behave appropriately enough in group situations (classrooms)to allow the group to progress. They are resistant to being trained and, as a last resort, segregation and individualized interaction is needed. This is what david f talking about.
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 22 April 2013 7:22:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most expensive school to run in NSW is the Glenfield Special schools - a public school. This is due to the schools having a very high teacher/staff to student ratio as the students have high special needs (often a combination of behavioural issues and disability eg. Autistic students with additional behavioral issues due to dysfunctional family background). I visited these schools once: the teachers are extremely dedicated (despite having a locked staff room to prevent staff belongings being stolen); and there are lovely grounds, with a chook-yard and veggie garden. This school transforms kids to make them future productive members of society. It's expensive, but not as expensive as paying for disability support pensions or, worse, prison accommodation, for these children in the future.
Posted by Johnj, Friday, 3 May 2013 12:21:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy