...Mass education actually “destroys” economies, and is counter-productive: The rise of the Asian economies is the proof. Cheap labour is the “driver” of industry. Australia actually lost the industrial base it once had because of education…Less education is now the imperative to encourage the return of the "lost" industrial base.

Well thank you Dean Ashenden, so nice of you to point out so clearly that the Gonski report had nothing to do with education & everything to do with socialist ideology.

As in all things socialist it pretends to do one thing in the front, but meanwhile does something different out of sight behind the back. While pretending to help that oh so useful "underprivileged" it throws just enough at them to keep them in their place, while throwing heaps at their real target, the union & academia.

Like all things socialist, to achieve their level playing field it does nothing to really lift the bottom, it merely tries to chop off the top. Their way of leveling the field is to take a bulldozer to the best & brightest, & the wealthy of course, to cut off the top, & squash it down to the rest in their mediocrity. The socialists & the feminists have been doing this for years, & the results are obvious in our falling education standards.

Dean you should stop your efforts to promote Gonski, they are counter productive. Like a plate glass window, anyone who cares to look can see straight through you. Your desire to eliminate the best is obvious, & disgusting

We simply cannot compete with emerging economies, and a dollar a day wages, or 7, in really fair pay societies!
Perhaps Hasbeen's kids would queue for jobs with that kind of unimaginable generosity?
No?
Why not?
If its good enough for the goose? Hmm?
On a more serious note, low wages is a horse that has already bolted, thanks to the mining industry!
We have no other choice but to grow a high tech economy, and with it, virtually all the jobs off the future!
Why even highly technical surgical operations, are now being assisted by robotics, which results in much more precise surgery, and far less time in recovery!
A win/win for both the hospital and future patients, particularly old dinosaurs, locked in the past and the days of riding on the sheep's back, or cheap labor!
The jobs of tomorrow, will be high tech energy dependent ones, and the sooner we realize that and just crack on accommodating that outcome, with decent education based on merit, not the more affable post codes, will be a good start.
And if you then include the lowest in real terms, tax impost, just shrugged free of all parasitical practice, plus the worlds cheapest industrial energy, coupled to very rapid rail,[self funding{ and a new national nuclear power very fast roll on roll off ferries; the world will queue to relocate here, or buy our production!
There is really no other choice, except a virtual return to the dark ages, and even right wing ideologues like the aforementioned; surely wouldn't want that?
Or would they? Hmm? Perhaps the more meritorious, could all just get (FREE) scholarships with GMH!?
Rhrosty.

The major problem for Gonski was that he was working for the Federal Government and the majority of under performing schools are run by the states. Perhaps he would have been more effective if he worked for an individual state government.

The author talks of elitism in private schools, but in reality many parents choose private because they are not happy with the local government school. He also talks of cherry picking by elite private schools but in NSW, the government selective schools are the greatest cherry pickers of all.

I do agree that there is massive inequality in education. You only lave to look at the HSC(NSW) merit list of schools to see that there are literally hundreds of under performing schools. Schools where nobody ever gets a Band 6 in any subject, ever. I find it hard to believe that a school doesn't have at least one student capable of performing well in one subject.

People that had a decent merit based education, would have at least realized, that selling any part of our manufacturing base; to complete foreign control or domination; is both a recipe for disaster, and eventual shut down.
No large American concern or Japanese one for that matter, is going to compete with themselves for international markets.
There is no other choice in a truly global market, than for automation and economies of scale, to more than compete with the emerging economies.
The critical key, is firstly the actual cost of energy, transport, tax and water!
The wages component of Australian production is still only 16%, and that includes mining jobs!
Reducing the cost of transport is as simple as firstly unlocking our own vast and untapped resources; and or, rolling out self funding rapid rail or both!
Reducing all other aforementioned costs, is as simple as removing all the middlemen profit takers, and or, parasitical practice, or both!
No one is owed a living or a free lunch, but particularly, robber barons, who essentially add nothing except their often exorbitant, fees and charges? Why?
Because they can and or, we the people, aided and abetted by the "tea party" simply stupidly, allow it!?
Now if we just took the blinkers off, and all just decided to put the, [unwilling to reform these self defeating practices,] incumbent last on the ballot paper, we would eventually wind up with parliaments, that put the national interest first, in the knowledge and understanding, that just doing that much, benefits us all!
Rhrosty.

For Wattle: You are right about selective government schools. The problem is even larger than that - schools in all three sectors that are not nominally 'selective' but find ways to select, and schools that include selective components, covert selection, etc. The article is explicit in saying that it's a problem across the board, and also makes specific mention of selective government schools.

It is irrefutable that more money at education does NOT improve results, it just makes the practitioners even more lazy. Education is used as a sinecure for the parasite class.

Raise Tertiary requirements so that trainees start being able to spell and count, decimate the existing staff, (that is sack the 10% who are incompetent), get the Departments out of local decisions, truly involve the community.

All very easy and they save money.

Part One:
David Gonski may say, “Some may disagree with aspects and conclusions but I'm not aware of any major holes that have been found”, but I have identified several major holes. I quote from my submission to the Senate inquiry into school funding (No. 42 at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Submissions):
‘1. The serious flaw in the Gonski school funding model (as legislated in Clause 54 of the Australian Education Act 2013) is its continuation of the socio-economic status funding model. In fact, the new funding model as legislated is in one respect worse than the model that it replaces in that it gradually removes the compensation paid to schools that would have been penalised by the SES funding model, thus exposing them to its full perverse effects.

‘2. The reporting and commentary on the previous school funding model, on the compensation some schools received because of its injustice, on the Gonski report and on the subsequent legislation have been highly misleading and inaccurate, with the consequence that the general line pushed to the public is that the SES funding model has been replaced when in fact it has been entrenched.

‘3. One problem in Australia education is the social segregation of our schools. This social segregation lowers overall education achievement. The SES funding model is the main reason that we have social segregation. Any potential increase in social segregation in education has been thus far been held back by the compensation paid to those schools that would be punished by the application of the SES funding model. The removal of this compensation is likely to increase social segregation and thus work against an improvement in levels of achievement….

Part Two:
‘4. In addition, the relabelling of the SES funding model as “capacity to contribute”, while sufficient to fool just about every journalist and commentator in the country, changes the conceptual basis on which education is funded and thus increases the pressure for means-tested fees in government schools.

‘5. The method of determining the schooling resource standard is completely illogical as it ignores the prime cost driver in education – teacher employment – and includes varying costs in different jurisdictions that have nothing to do with educational achievement in order to produce an artificial national figure.

‘6. A funding model that would lower social segregation in education must take account of the school’s actual resources, not a theoretical capacity to contribute based on census collector districts. The funding model must also recognise the key role of teachers in educating children and be based on an explicit staffing formula that allows a long-term settlement of teaching conditions in the country. Finally, the funding model must allow for variations in costs and policies in each jurisdiction.’

Had the public education lobby grasped the opportunity, the review would have produced a better set of recommendations, with stronger political support. It missed even the clue in the title, a review of funding for ‘schooling’, not ‘schools’. Its submissions, while containing plenty of information, did not even propose a funding system, even though everyone who paid attention knew what the Gonski panel would recommend, and I am on record before the report was released saying that it would recommend the system introduced by the Victorian Labor government in 2005 (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13226&page=0), which is what it did. What a pity the AEU and the rest of the public education lobby did not move out of the 1950s and form a united front with the IEU and the systemic school authorities on anew educational compact!

Chris C: Only the most perverse would argue/twist/spin against a needs based funding model!
However, if that's too expensive, it could include some equalizing means testing!
To be sure we are not all equal, and a merit based system would more than adequately identify that!
However, those currently enjoying advantage just don't that.
They would prefer the false belief that being advantaged, somehow makes one superior, even where that advantage is neither earned nor deserved?
The current system just does not let the cream rise to the top, it just homogenizes it?
And then inculcates the tall poppy syndrome, to further suppress it, and the best we can be!
When the best and brightest are encouraged to be all they can be, the whole nation/team Australia wins, rather than a few privileged dinosaurs?
Rhrosty.

"Like all things socialist, to achieve their level playing field it does nothing to really lift the bottom, it merely tries to chop off the top. Their way of leveling the field is to take a bulldozer to the best & brightest, & the wealthy of course, to cut off the top, & squash it down to the rest in their mediocrity. The socialists & the feminists have been doing this for years, & the results are obvious in our falling education standards.

Hasbeen....are we up set?...............The all seeing eye....not seeing to much lately..........no rich and no poor...you do know how to count:).....I did say for men to get smaller and smarter...and I guess you can.

Kat

Gonski under different Governments? (Part One)
Both the Liberal and Labor Government discovered that school-funding issues needed to solved when in charge of the Australian Federal Government. For instance, unfair funding distribution between public and private education sectors leaves many schools and students in a vulnerable situation (Kenway, 2013). Therefore, because of the issues, schools and students cannot receive appropriate assistance for their level of education (Kenway, 2013). Regarding the school funding issues, the then Labor Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, claimed Gonski Report will be a useful strategy for school funding issues in 2010. Thus, in 2013, when Julia Gillard became Australian Prier Minister, the Labor Government promoted a national movement named “Better Schools for all Australians” which aimed to reach the goals of the Gonski Report (Lewis, 2013). Nevertheless, the Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman stated, if he signed the agreement of Gonski funding plan, at that point, it would increase bureaucracy and some Queensland schools may receive less funding than under the current funding model (ABC news, 2013). Although, the Labor Government was trying to drive the Gonski model more efficiently, it was difficult to keep funding levels intact. At the end of 2013, Labor's higher education spokesperson Kim Carr announced, the Labor party is going to shorten the Gonski plan without notifying the tertiary sector (Griffiths, 2013). On the other hand, the current Education Minister, Christopher Pyne, said during the 2013 Federal election the Liberals would honour Gonski until the end of 2014, putting an extra 230 million dollars in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia (Ministers’ Media Centre, 2013a; 2013b). Beyond 2014, a new funding model would be implemented, and Christopher Pyne claimed that the current model has too many “command and control” features (Ministers’ Media Centre, 2013(a)). The new model will aim to be less descriptive, leaving operations of schools up to the states and to “reduce our footprint in schools” (Ministers’ Media Centre, 2013b). Both of the governments seem to be trying to contribute their best to facilitate the benefit for schools and students across Australia by continuing to implement the Gonski model.

Gonski under different Governments? (Part Two)
The party in power influences the funding distribution and the amount of funding supply from the Federal Government and the changing funding policies. The argument between two parties, makes the Gonski model not reliable and is possibly confuses people over what are current funding policies and are they still eligible to apply the funding at all. In some people’s views, it does not matter which party governs the Federal Government, as long as they make the commitment to come true and clarify for schools and students so they can understand how they can receive their right from the government.
References:

ABC news. (2013). Newman still refusing to give a Gonski. Retrieved from, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-26/newman-still-refusing-to-give-a-gonski/4782956
Griffiths, E. (2013). Labor refuses to back own legislation to cut university funding by $2.3 billion amid Gonski debate. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-03/labor-university-education-funding-gillard-gonski/5132218
Kenway, J. (2013). Challenging inequality in Australian schools: Gonski and beyond, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Taylor & Francis Group, 34(2), 286-308. DOI:10.1080/01596306.2013.770254
Lewis, S. (2013). Gillard Government to spend $50 million on Gonski advertising campaign. Retrieved from http://www.news.com.au/national/gillard-government-to-spend-50million-on-gonski-advertising-campaign/story-fnho52ip-1226632600044
Ministers' Media Centre. (2013a). Coalition to put more funding into schools. Retrieved April 25, 2014 from http://ministers.education.gov.au/pyne/coalition-put-more-funding-schools
Ministers' Media Centre. (2013b). Interview with Marius Benson, ABC NewsRadio breakfast program. Retrieved April 25, 2014 from http://ministers.education.gov.au/pyne/interview-marius-benson-abc-newsradio-breakfast-program

...Too much schooling...Not enough work = The problem!

Diver.
My parents, both of them worked very hard.
They were raised by single parents doing the depression era, a consequence of lost breadwinners in both wars or aftermaths.
These privations took their toll, with both forced to work, before they became teenagers, and at the most menial jobs!
My father, came home from the army at the end of his war, a very different man.
The marriage only lasted two more years, and at a time when there was little or no safety net for deserted mothers!
I earned my first days pay, at an adult rate, aged just nine; money that was promptly confiscated by my mother, who was stretched to the absolute limit, putting the bare necessities on the table and our backs!
I recall walking around three miles to school on gravel roads on cold and frosty mornings!
I remember many nights going to bed, my empty belly grumbling and trying to digest itself.
I left school the day I turned fifteen, and worked at extremely hard dirty jobs, because the pay was better.
So if all we needed was hard work and application, I and many millions like me, would be billionaires! Not cripples!
As almost always, those who have trod a far easier path and had many more real breaks or opportunity, are busy busy with their blame shifting or blaming the victim, Diver!
Perhaps if you were capable of walking the proverbial mile in another's shoes, or just had enough intelligence to have a halfway decent imagination, you could shelve the victim blaming, that neither is useful or helpful anything, except compounding or growing the current raft of often intractable problems!
People who grow up in post code poverty traps, often go on to raise hugely disadvantaged families, in post code poverty traps!
Disadvantage is so self sustaining!
Perhaps if we replaced the Jack boot arrogance, with a modicum of compassion, we might find a way to work together cooperatively, for the betterment of us all?
And there is a place in that mix for tough love! Jawol?
Rhrosty.

...Well Rhrosty, nice to hear from you. As I have often claimed on these illustrious pages, you mostly “get it” pretty right, (however, there are some glaring exceptions).

...With a compass bearing directed towards the “Old days”, is pretty much where Abbott is steering the ship at the moment; and with good reason!

...You describe in your post, a world where endeavor was the expectation; not the exception as in the current age of welfare feather bedding.

...As for post code poverty traps you decry, no dole for six months is a fantastic idea which may provide the impetus to slackers to actually “tread the boot on the road” looking towards a better future, with work as a necessity, not work as a “shirk” as currently it is, when the comforts of home prevent exodus!

...You describe also a life where work commenced as a nine YO. Today that is classified as child abuse! Children are not permitted to work. What a farce; it is not a wonder that the work ethic died in Australia with the rise of the welfare dollar.

...It is “Honorable” to work Rhrosy, it is dishonorable not to try! Too many "Bludgers" in this country who, to this point in time, were succeeding in hiding it

Until we address the debt and once again move back to Govt banks that can create at least our inflationary money debt free, it will be known as Gone ski.

It took the Howard Govt 10 yrs to pay off $90 billion Labor debt under good trade conditions with China. How log to pay off $667 billion or 7 times this debt in not so good terms of trade?

Get the picture?

Rhrosty yes it was tough, for many of us. Fortunately my barefoot school going was in Townsville. It was pretty cold in Bathurst at 6.00 AM however, when at 10 I had a bike & a morning paper round.

One advantage was that parents had no worry about pedophiles back then. I don't think many survived being found out in those days of swift justice. I wouldn't want a 10 year old riding around most towns in the early morning today.

The advantage of country living with plenty of rabbits before myxomatosis, you only needed a good dog to sniff them, & a mattock to dig them out of their warrens, & you didn't go hungry. Mum had a dozen ways of cooking rabbit, & I got just under 2 shillings a pound for skins.

Once you had earned enough from those rabbit skins for a 22 there were plenty of Quail in the corn fields too. Yep, no reason to go hungry out in the sticks.

Dad told me I'd need a bursary if I wanted to go on to 4Th year, so I won one. It mustn't have been too hard, 4 of the 16 who went on had one.

Then dad got a better job in Young, & a war service very low interest loan to build a house. It got a bit easier after that. My only problem was the horse someone had given me. I had to ride him across the 135 miles. Mum didn't like it too much & only agreed when someone loaned me a saddle. Dad had been in the light horse, & reckoned any 13 year old could do it, & shouldn't need a saddle.

I had to make it to Cowra the first day, where travelers could still use a yard at the showgrounds for your horse & doss down in a stable.

Yes it could be tough but it was also exhilarating, & taught self reliance. For me it taught me I could have anything I wanted if I wanted it enough to go grab it.

As expected, Ashenden's prolific analyses of Gonski (accessible on the Jesuit policy/arts e-journal, 'Eureka Street') demonstrates the highest level policy commentary on Gonski that I have read.

One question arises whenever I read him, which I would dearly like to have answered. Ashenden was Ministerial Consultant to the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan. He must have been aware then of some of the policy shortfalls inherent in the tripartite systemic school-funding model that Peter Karmel proposed and the Whitlam government enacted.

En route to that enactment, there was some discussion about introducing a New Zealand-style fully-funded public sector-integrated school model for those Australian school systems, principally Catholic, that would mitigate against the negative social-inequality effects of the tripartite school-funding model that is at the heart of the problem he now identifies.

Put simply, such a model would have put paid to an ever-burgeoning publicly-subsidised private sector, which would have logically remained unfunded.

Where was Dean Ashenden's persuasive policy voice when Minister Ryan was deliberating on this question, which, if properly considered, would surely have resulted in a much less inequitable set of funding-policy outcomes than we currently confront?

Rhrosty,

No one openly argues against needs based funding, but people disagree about how needs should be determined.

As we already have a progressive tax system, there is no reason to charge for government-funded services on a means-tested basis, either in education or in health.