Parental input into curriculum development is a good idea, so is diversity within schools. The flaw in the solution put forward by this article is the reality of compulsory schooling. The author acknowledges schooling should remain compulsory, thank goodness, but does not explain how this would work in a competitive marketplace. Would all schools have to accept any kid who turned up with their voucher? Or would we still only expect government schools to accept responsibility for compulsory schooling? If we have vouchers, they must be of equal value for all students, otherwise, if some parents can add their own funds to the voucher and get their kids into "better" schools, such a system would only lead to a further ghettoisation (if there is such a word) of our school system. Government schools for disadvantaged kids, because they cannot pick and choose their students, and private schools for the more advantaged, because they can. If we are going to have marketforces running education (and I'm not sure we should), then we should apply them as they are applied in the real marketplace, without asking one lot of competitors (govt schools) to shoulder all the social responsibilities of education, and then tell them to compete with their metaphorical hands tied behind their backs. Either we pay govt schools more because they shoulder more responsibility, or we relieve them of that responsibility, deregulate completely and forget compulsory schooling. Now that's a frightening thought.

As a general rule parents may know their children best equally they may not. I have no idea whether my son will make a good handball player or my daugher a good fencer. I leave that to their coaches. Most parents could not teach their kids chemistry or even know what a good science curruculum should cover. I have not a better understanding of my children's medical state than our family doctor.

The free market of the economist knows no restriction but choice is always limited by imperfect knowledge or a imperfect market. Also I expect parents risk too much by overzealous shopping around as stability may out weigh any gain from frequent swappping. Also perhaps the Law of second best applies if a free market is unobtainable. Curiously the best statistical predictor of "failure" at school is family background which may tend to undermine the argument. I believe that it is a distinct advantage if parents are involved in their childrens' education but I am not at all convinced I can decide the curriculum to the degree the writer wants me to do

“Schools are accredited if they meet the following two standards: first the school is obliged to make its curriculum available to parents and to explain in plain language what it intends to teach students; second the school must demonstrate that it is in fact teaching its curriculum to its students.”

Can’t see too many problems with that. I think there would be many parents who would like to know what their children are being taught, and probably many students also.

But of relevance is not just what students are taught, but “how” the students are taught to learn and to study. This is relevant as learning becomes lifelong and does not stop at the end of secondary or tertiary education. Training courses are quite frequent within employment, and if a person can learn something quickly they become a great asset to any business.

So teaching a student how to learn (eg teaching techniques in speed reading, note taking, memorisation, assignment skills, revision etc) becomes highly important in the longer term for that individual, but unfortunately I think that such skills and techniques are not being taught well enough in some schools at least, and this then disadvantages many students.

This comment is probably a bit pedantic but 'Christian’s' in the article is actually does not require a possessive apostrophe. It should read 'Christians' - back to pedantry school ;-)

"Should the free market decide school curricula?"

To an extent this is happening through the range of schools on offer.

Within the Christian community, parents assess public, church, so called christian schools and even home schooling.

Whilst it may be said that private schooling discriminates against poorer families the level of Government support can keep fees to between $3,000 and $4,000 per child and even less (on a per child basis) when discounts for additional children are taken into account and further means testing to reduce fees even further.

Free market schools and home schooling are simply code for small groups who wish to teach their children fairy tales as fact.
If parents wish to teach their kids particular values then spend some time with them after school. We only have to look to the US to find what happens why parents are able to set school policy. The parents groups get over run by special interest groups and are by no means demographical diverse. If you want to reform schools in Australia start by closing all non government schools.

Kenny,

You are ill informed.

Faith based schools, including their curriculum, are subject to review by Government school inspectors and their students must pass through the VCE gate to go further in education.

Many of the faith based schools are far from small with numbers of children ranging from 500 to 1,000 students.

I know a number of children who have been home schooled, are in their twenties, normal, balanced young people, succeeding in tertiary education, gaining employment, getting married, having children, people this nation can be proud of.

No political party of any persuasion is going to propose closing non government schools, not least because of a) the cost to Government on a per pupil basis is less for private school education vis a vis public school education and b) voter backlash.

True, there is nothing wrong with home schooling, especially for those students whose needs are not adequately addressed by the public system.

On another matter, how can you base teachers wages on their performance? Just how do you measure a teachers performance? Will it be based on the results of the students?

“teachers may be paid based on their performance, rather than the union award”

Just an opinion asks
"how can you base teachers wages on their performance? Just how do you measure a teachers performance? Will it be based on the results of the students?"

There is a method of measuring how much children learn in a year. In a nutshell, you test their numeracy, literacy and IQ at the beginning of the year, and then retest their numeracy and literacy at the end of the year.

By comparing the child's improvement with the average, and possibly adjusting for socio-economic status, you can get an idea of how effective the teacher has been,

The curriculum should be expanded to include;"Making your marriage last",and "How to invest wisely" since we can no longer rely on hard work to secure our futures.

The ignorance of these two objectives have created a lot of poverty.

Good point Arjay, I have always believed that schools could provide more teaching in 'life skills', such as driving, negotiation, communication and humanities. I realise that many schools do offer courses like this I would just like to see them become universal.

How to measure teachers' performance is difficult. My son is dyslexic something that wasn't discovered immediately, while we have long since addressed that problem, his performance back then was not due to any failure on the part of the teacher. She was the one to bring my attention to the possibility of dyslexia. A system just based on student scores isn't necessarily a reflection of the teachers' skills.

An indication would be whether kids are happy, motivated and interested - all subjective I know. But high grades really aren't everything.

''PARENT POWER''

Aboriginal students should have no study plans that are diferrent to any other or ''white students''.They should be assimulated into our education system totally,and under the same rules as white students with racial laws obolished,in other words ''no special treatment'',with parents having no more of a say then white or other

parents of other cultures in the curriculum of our government schools or the management of such schools.

Open educational markets-This is not a business,how stupid and pathetic an idea,THIS IS GOVERNMENT FUNDED EDUCATION FOR OUR CHILDREN,THE FUTURE OF THIS GREAT NATION.

ITS NOT THE STOCKMARKET