The CIS says real government spending on primary and secondary education more than doubled between 1987-88 and 2011-12. One could ask why 1987-88 was chosen as the starting year, but we are not told. One way of looking at the meaning of the figures is to reverse the doubling. If that increase really was a mistake, we can cut teacher salaries by more than 50 per cent (i.e., to less than $43,734 for the top classroom level in Victoria), increase the maximum class size by more than 100 per cent (i.e., to over 50 students in a secondary school), increase teaching loads by more than 100 per cent (i.e., to over 45 hours a week in a primary school) or do some diabolical combination of all three backward steps, with a consequent exodus of almost every teacher in the state.

It is a very simple point but seemingly beyond the comprehension of those who go on abut increased education spending: education spending has to keep up with economic growth as the living standards of teachers have to keep up with those of the population at large if we want to keep able people in teaching. If we want to drive even more abkle people out of teaching, our achievement levels will fall further.

I agree the entry level bar for teachers ought to be higher, particularly, given the number of seeming illiterates apparently qualifying?
And yes, if we but had the guts to finally introduce means testing, with the cutoff point for totally free education for the student, set at $100,000.00 PA.
However, spending indexed for inflation is not the actual problem? Revenue is!
if the govt jettisoned our current tax act in its entirety; then replaced all that, with a single stand alone unavoidable expenditure tax, those currently avoiding a fair share, wouldn't be able to!
The govt could collect as much as 100 billion more PA, just by adopting this sane advice.
If they not sure how much revenue would be collected, they could apply a much less substantial trial version version first, but call it a levy?
The problem for the govt, as I see it; is they receive virtually all their tax advice from the ATO, or Treasury?
And given the proposed reform would make many of them redundant, they are never ever going to tender that advice, but rabbit on about how we already have a broad based tax (GST) and so on, all while ignoring the squillions being stashed in tax havens or protected by foreign subsidiaries and their alleged fees and charges?
The sharpest practice of all; sending the same sum of money, perhaps millions, around through a dozen or more subsidiaries, that then allows the books of all, to reveal tax avoiding costs!
[The ATO sees each one as a separate entity!]
Even then, tax compliance costs for all those engaged in such sharp practice, averages around 7% of the average bottom line.
Given a stand alone expenditure tax, if set around 5%, is actually lower in % terms, than the current avoidance expenditure; one would hope a few rational minds would see the obvious inherent cost reduction merits?
However unhappy or not, that made eternally obfuscating tax lawyers and or accountants, or the ATO? And if the cap fits?
Rhrosty.

Hi Rhosty, I'm not sure I can agree with you when you say that the Government is getting its economic/ taxing advice from the ATO and Treasury.
It seems, rather, to be coming from the IPA and its American Head Office, the Tea Party.

Jennifer, one of the major flaws in our education funding model, is that many kids don't want to be there, therefore don't care and fail to learn. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

My opinion is that we should look at providing much more affordable tutoring for those who really want to learn, or for thiose who's parents want them to learn. Of cause, if they refuse to learn just because their parents want them too, then tough luck, they should be cut off because after all, it was not the school's fault that discipline was removed from the class room.

By doing this I believe of the kids that actually want to achieve well in life, will have the best opportunity, without the distractions from the duds that either interfere or waste valuable teacher time.

This is why I am so opposed to the Gonski model, as it's simply throwing more money at a broken system.

As our population grows, and our revenues shrink, we have to be smarter about where we spend our dollars.

'This is why I am so opposed to the Gonski model, as it's simply throwing more money at a broken system. '

well said Rechtub

the mantra that more money means better results has proven costly and wrong in so many areas. Education is not valued by many kids because they come from broken homes. Fix the homes and many of the problems would not exist. Won't happen though because to many other 'sacred cows ' would then need to be addressed. It is not that just about all kids don't have opportunities today it is that very few value it.