"Critics like the Australian Education Union and Trevor Cobbold, from Save Our Schools, argue against funding non-government schools on the basis that such schools, supposedly, are elitist and exacerbate social disadvantage."

Thus proving only that the Australian Education Union think school funding is about class war, social engineering, and wealth redistribution, not about education. Perhaps they should change their name?

All conceivable arguments for state schooling are refuted in "Archipelagos of Educational Chaos" by Benjamin Marks: http://mises.org/journals/jls/19_2/19_2_5.pdf

Compulsory reading for the dull-boys of the union. Any presumption in favour of government "causing success" at school is laughable self-interestedness.

Imagine if our food was supplied from government-dictated recipe books, state funding on political considerations, government-monopoly cook qualifications, and compulsory attendance to consume the product, . How do you think the result might compare with what a free society can offer in terms of food? This discussion should have been redundant many decades ago.

Government-dictated curriculum, attendance, funding and teacher qualifications are a recipe for bad outcomes, not just in terms of education, but in terms of rampant state-worship, rampant state symbiosis with the intellectual class, rampant state take-over of all aspects of society.

Or imagine if a particular religion were given the power to compel the population to send their children for compulsory education/indoctrination/progaganda - the content being entirely in the discretion of the church. And the power to compel everyone to pay for it, whether or not they agreed, or even strongly disagreed on principle.

What do you think the union might say to that arrangement?

Education would be better in quality, diversity, fitness for purpose, and value for money if state involvement were abolished; and the established religion of the state sect monopolists had to compete for the public's patronage like everyone else.

Well I didn't expect to ever agree with this Author, but I suppose there's a first time for everything Kevin.

In essence the argument supports the case for the Gonski reforms; in total, and means tested student assistance. As well as, I believe, a return to phonetics, and learning some foundational maths by rote.

It also supports the case for funding the student, not the school! And with that change, parents will be finally free to send their kids where they believe they'll do best, rather than be governed by their financial circumstances, or lack thereof.

And far greater school autonomy supports that very outcome! The day of unions protecting blatantly incompetent teachers has to end! I mean, when it comes to instilling information by whatever means, rubbish in rubbish out remains a truism!

Even so, the emphasis must be on the best and the brightest; and excellence, rather than those with the deepest pockets!

When the nations best and brightest succeed beyond their usual expectations/financial means, so do we all!
Rhrosty.

Sorry Kevin, this is only partly true.

I had 3 kids go through the same large near city high school. They had, I think, the same parents, & mostly the same teachers.

The eldest did all the tough subjects, 3 math, physics etc. Demanded & had outside coaching where the teachers were inadequate, got her OP2, & her choice of universities.

The youngest took all the soft options, & floated through with things like dance, media studies, got a surprisingly high OP score for such non subjects, with little effort.

The boy however got in with the football team crowd, who thought it smart to not work & resist all efforts by anyone, & was doing poorly.

He expressed interest in becoming a fighter pilot, so going into year 11 I sat him down & explained the facts of life. It took a while to get through, but finally he could understand that his performance or success was a matter of total indifference to the teachers. They would still get paid & probably promoted regardless of his results.

He on the other hand had just one chance. Taxpayers had provided the educational opportunity, & he could use it to his advantage, or not, no one really gave a damn.

He liked the idea of grabbing his school by the neck & wringing what he wanted out of it, worked a lot harder, & did just enough. I believe it was the idea of making the school do his bidding that appealed to him, & got him working.

Three totally different outcomes from the same schools. I don't think parents have quite that much effect, except for the attitude they instill into the student.

Rhrosty, the flaw in the proposed Gonski reform is that the system as it stands is broken, and to simply pour more money (we don't have) into the broken system is not the solution.

I have said this time and time again as of the total kids at school, some either don't want to be there, or their parents don't care, either way, they won't be educated regardless of how much we spend.

The solution in my view is affordable tutoring.

A sound education starts at home, as the teachers can only do so much, but without parents reinforcing their teachings, they are often pissing into a fan.

Yes Has, couldn't agree more! And not only that, we also with our attitude and input, actually give our children permission or not, to succeed!

From a very early age children need to be programmed for success, or told what they can achieve, as opposed to what they can't; negative attitudes always rub off!

Success is never ever built on the negative imperative, which in golfing terms, means you focus on where you want your ball to end up, rather than the traps or the water hazard in between!

We parents need to convey these all important messages to our kids, and when they're still young enough to inculcate with your ideas. Raising Children was and remains the greatest privilege I was ever accorded!

Children, whether we like it or not, learn by example and inherit our attitudes.

Children learn what they live; and that's why your kids went as far and as fast as they did! No two ways about that!

My advice to mine went. Focus solely on what you would achieve; and overcoming any and all obstacles in between!

Even a thousand mile journey always begins with the first step; and completed just by placing one foot after another, and just not quitting!

You'll never ever know if you never ever try! Quitters never win, losers never try!

Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative and never be Mr in between.

Simply put, what you focus on is where you wind up.

Not for nothing is it writ large, what the mind of man can conceive and believe, the mind of man can achieve.

Or put another way, can't died in a cornfield over a century ago!

It's not the strongest fastest man that wins the race, but the one who believes he can! [I used to be a couch?]

I know you know all this stuff Has old mate, but there are guys out there, who need to learn it and pass it on to the next generation!

I like to think they'll get some of it from, hopefully, occasionally, positive guys like us?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

The Gonski system as I read it focuses, solely on comparative funding needs.

So in what way is that then broken?

And as I understand it, it places the available funding and the control in the parents hands, enabling them to chose their school on merit, rather than their particular means/limitations/district.

And given the best schools will inevitably produce the best results, invariably attract the bulk of the available funding, and by a process of natural selection.

Not everyone will agree with this, as did so many when the hugely resisted NDIS was first proposed then promised.

Yes there are those who will always disagree!

And usually because they're somehow adversely affected?

However, more local school autonomy, and the hugely resisted direct funding model, will add around 30% at the coal face where the funding is needed; rather than go as wasted finite resources, pumping up expensive salaries, of essentially double handling, state based management fee demanding, Bureaucrats/control freaks?
Rhrosty.

Good schools, or more importantly good teachers can do heaps.

For 2 out of 3 years a while back, little Clifton High school, on the Darling downs had the greatest number of OP 1s of all Queensland schools, private or public. I would have loved my kids to go to the school where those teachers were working.

A mate of mine owned a plantation on an atoll about 150 nautical miles north of Bougainville Island. It had a population of about 300 people of mostly Polynesian heritage. It had a school provided by Graham, with a single teacher provided by the PNG government. The parents were barely literate, & the school was only primary.

Graham put 6 of the boys through Kings Sydney, with 4 of those graduating from Sydney university. I reckon the Kings school teachers must have put a lot of effort into those boys.

5 girls also went through Sceggs Moss Vale, & 2 of them graduated Port Moresby university.

Schools & good teachers can be as important as parents in some situations

Out of all of the guvment departments that I have dealings with, the most ignorant and obstinate by far is the department of education.

They and their employees (generally speaking) are the ones least capable of evidence based reasoning, and the ones least likely to give "due consideration" with the most incompetent of admin procedures.

In WA, we are well down the path of funding the student as I have previously said. My daughter is recipient of a great swathe of additional support services including an Education Assistant, a specialist teacher for the hard of hearing and the list goes on.

My wife holds a Cert IV in EA Special Needs and I had opportunity to have a close look at the course. It was, as a course, evidence based

(ie the students had to collect, chart and analyse data and then answer questions designed to test their understanding)

and goes far beyond the requirements of the job. And as it happens, only a very small (less than 25%) of the class passed the course, with the locals dropping out like flies.

My Mrs, by way of contrast, had initially only a primary school education from Indonesia, and then upon arrival in Oz went AMEP, Cert II spoken and written english, Cert III, Cert IV, Cert III EA and finally Cert IV EA Special Needs.

Of course, in the Spirit of Vygotsky's:

Zone of Proximal Developement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky

she had me to back her up.

The biggest problem with some of the teachers I would suggest is these fat arsed, lazy, unfit, technically incompetent pigs who are first to say that they have been a teacher for 20+ years when challenged (20 years too long in my book)

It is not the new grads, though they also are in desperate need of being taught to reason akin to something of the best of training that the lawyers get.

Now, I would tend to think that the Minister needs to be retargeted in a very particular way. The basis for me saying this turns on my thoughts on how it is to best achieve better academic outcomes and in that regard we ought consider turning to the best of what modern science has to offer.

And that is, not merely doing more maths and english to improve maths and english, but rather, or additionally, striving to improved the physical and mental health of the students themselves.

To this end, a read of the studies into cogitation enhancers (of which there are very few - say as detailed in New Scientist) would be of invaluable assistance in my opinion.

The short version would be something like this:

1. The students must be taught why it is that bothering to study is important, first and foremostly.

2. Sport everyday first up in bright light (ideally blue but protect the eyes (sunnies as required))

3. Music for all daily

4. Another language, for all students

5. Blueberries in abundance and a healthy (albeit limited) amount of dark chocolate.

These are some of the child appropriate things which have been evidenced to enhance the very heath and vitality of the brain and the kids subsequent improved ability to process and retain information will rapidly improve their results.

Thereafter, school only without homework has never been enough. With digital delivery, kids can come home, finish off what they didn't get through during the day with parental support, and then go on to do some extra this or that

Maybe the bottom line is that there are many variables, and few givens: teachers, schools, parents and the children themselves each contribute or not to the education of the children:

* Teachers can be slack or brilliant regardless of funding;

* schools (i.e. principals) can be incompetent and chaotic or they can fervently try to provide the best environment for learning;

* parents can give a damn or not, read to their kids or not, and/or take no real interest in their kids' education and career paths;

* children can drive themselves or take the easy options.

I went to poorly-funded schools in Bankstown etc. in the fifties, with very dedicated teachers and classes of 45-48 kids, with parents on a shoestring income but a desperate faith in education, and with a personal sense of terror, most of the time, that I had to do the best I could or I would be doomed. So I was extraordinarily lucky compared to many of the kids of today.

So it's not primarily a matter of funding, or some manufactured difference between public and private schooling. I still have a deep affection for those teachers of sixty years ago, Mr Laffey at Chester Hill, Mr Johnson at Penrith, real heroes. But there aren't any magic bullets, everybody in the system has to pull their weight.

Joe

Hard to argue with any of that Joe.

But if the funding is placed in the hands of parents, who then chose which school to forward it on to, then the process of natural selection will begin to eliminate under-performing schools, regardless of the reason?

I suspect we need do no more than just that and or bypassing the usual controls imposed by the state, to quite massively improve performance outcomes.

Along with published apples for apples benchmarking/best practice comparisons!

In which case, the children that still do badly, will have to be investigated, to see where their particular problem lies; i.e., parents that just don't give a fig?

And no I'm not talking about placing extra money in the hands of parents, rather a degree of control as to where their means tested allocation is directed.

I would also remove the handcuffs from Public school Principal's hands, allowing them to hire and fire, so as to eliminate what stands between them and access to improved outcomes/funding!

I mean too many aspiring teachers are just not classroom ready; and in some cases illiterate or lack numeracy skills?

All of which can be exposed and remediated by pre classroom examinations? I mean how can you teach what you just don't know or understand?

And there's a case for removing responsibility for outcomes from parents, who just don't give a dam!? But particularly those who snort, smoke, inject or hiss/rob their child's endowment/education money!

In which case the school day should start far earlier, and include breakfast, lunch/fruit and veggies: and rewarding after school activities!

Kids sifting through garbage cans for food scraps is usually a sign of extreme neglect! Ditto some transferable eye conditions!
Rhrosty
Rhrosty.

Hi Rhosty,

That's right, it's a large and complicated package of factors. I taught for a year fifty years ago, 49 kids in IV and V, with weekly tests in mental arithmetic, arithmetic, spelling and dictation every Friday morning - all marked over the recess and marks recorded. That way, you knew from the very first week which kids were having trouble (and so needed the bulk of your attention) and which kids were going to sail through. They all passed onto the next grades the next year.

I was very lucky - in such a small country town, there seemed to be few parents who were neglectful, many were poor and poorly-educated but all were trying to do the best for their kids. No drunks, no obvious child abuse, in a town with little or no unemployment back then. So, on the whole, the fortunes of the kids depended largely on the school and teachers, quite a clear-cut situation.

Mostly farm kids, at least three of those kids have passed away now, but some others went on to university and eventually high positions. I loved every one of them, as a teacher should.

Joe

" ... I mean too many aspiring teachers are just not classroom ready; and in some cases illiterate or lack numeracy skills? ... "

I have never come across an illiterate teacher, quite the contrary, though perhaps some of the bi/multi-lingual support staff are only proficient in Australian english as a 2nd language. If anything, reading and writing is what they do well.

No, what they lack is the ability to reason in many cases.

As for numeracy, well, there's bound to be some variance there especially as their job descriptions often don't require it above a simple level. It depends on what sort of teacher that we are talking about.

Again, what they need is something of the best of what the lawyers get. And so do the kids incidentally. It is a terrible neglect in my mind to hone the skills of high school kids, where they become highly capable in a number of areas, only to let them loose without having any real concept of what the guvment and legal system is all about.

We don't want to produce, "Duh! Just sign in the box" morons. What we want is to churn out people who understand what it is to give due consideration, what informed legal consent is all about, and all with an ability to quickly read through the "terms and conditions" of contracts so they are able to make informed choices.

Dreamon, I tend to disagree with much of what you say.

I don't believe we need to focus on the guvment and the legal system in any proficient high school, which should be tasked rather with producing critical thinkers, with a ability to find and use the information they need at the time they need it!

I mean, take sex education.

If children have a specific question, then only the actual question need to be addressed, and no more or too much information.

High schools should not be places that turn out political activists; inculcated with the extremely narrow political views/misinformation of some political advocates.

All they need to know is how the political system works, and which parties traditionally support which sector of society.

And the fact that voting is and remain compulsory; and a treasured privilege many peoples around the world, are denied!

And that privileges (that hundreds of thousands died, and or sacrificed to protect) are always accompanied by responsibility!

Plenty of time for more in-depth information, when their brains have finished developing, along with the critical evaluation that then confers, along with the more (hopefully, occasionally) mature judgement!?

All they need to know beyond the curriculum; is where they can find the alluded to extracurricular information, when they need it!

Teachers remain trusted custodians of very vulnerable children, and need to focus on numeracy, literacy and those other subjects that will serve their needs for the rest of their lives; rather than a soapbox opportunity to air their personal political views.

If teachers have no numeracy or literacy problems as you claim, then you can't have a problem with a pre classroom examination of same!
Rhrosty.