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.