Yes great the more money your parents make the better ed you get.... Now that is progress.

Economic Rationalism applied to the education system! Well it's the way Australia is currently heading, and the present government takes every opportunity to denigrate public schools, and scare parents into moving their children to private schools.

If we continue down this path we will end up with a 2 tier system, as Kenny has pointed out, based on parental wealth or lack of.

This will further lead to even greater disparity between the richest and the poorest, greater divisiveness in society, less sense of community, less mixing of people from different suburbs and more of the "mean" society (refer recent poll on Australian attitudes) which we have got in the last 10 years.

As a current consumer of public education (I have a 10 year olds son in a state school) my experience is very positive. Public education is a great contributor to the type of society we have.

The market has failed in many areas e.g. privatised electricity in SA, major company failures and scandals (HIH, One-Tel etc.). It is not a magic solution. Education is too important to leave to market forces.

How many students would have dreadful education results before the "market" worked out that a particular school was a dud?
How can new immigrants without friends and long term contacts work out which school has a good reputation without test results?
We need proper testing so that people can make judgements based on hard evidence, and damage caused by failing schools can be minimised.
Waiting ten or twenty years for hundreds of students to fail in their tertiary courses and first jobs so that we can then say "That school was really bad ten years ago." strikes me as a rather silly approach.
If it's all too hard to write modern tests, why don't we just use the perfectly good ones from 20 years ago? That might give us a really good idea of comparative standards.

Ross makes his analysis with such a broad brush that it is impossible to analyse anything at all. Any analysis must happen at the level of the particular. For example, Keven Donnelly has argued that a subjectivism has crept into the science curriculum. This means that students are may be taught that the periodic table of the elements is only one way of describing the relationship between elements. Scientific knowledge does not refer to an actual reality in the world but is conditioned by gender and culture, i.e subjectivism. This must undermine the teaching of science and would definitely indicate a decline in standards.

Perhaps one of the biggest acts of faith I have seen for quite some time; to hard to measure the adequacy of the system so throw it open to the market.

I am a bit surprised at the authors last sentence when he tells us market forces will sort things out as standarads slip, enrolments fall and schools dissapear from the face of the earth.

What happens to those hundreds if not thousands of kids who may be trapped in the system as things sprial down in their particular school?

One assumes Ross considers them to be some sort of collateral damage and victims of the economic circumstances that their paretns find themselves in - But I guess the poor will always be with us eh Ross?

And this solution goes some way in making sure that the the current class of the poor stay right where the not so poor want them. Book learnin' can be a dangerous commodity in the hands of the wrong people.

Another possible way standards could be seen to be slipping is to compare chalk with cheese. For instance those 10 - 15 percent of students who completed grade 12 back in my time [40 years ago] when the other 90 - 85 percent got jobs demanding lower educational and literacy standards, thus matching the education system of the day, with the approx 80 percent who finish grade 12 these days, again matching the current workforce requirments for much fewer semi-literate labourers etc. Of course they don't compare - we DEMAND higher standards these days and we don't always get them, just on the odds.

As for solutions, keeping kids in school longer is not always best for all kids. But just letting the market determine to whom education is available goes against everything we hold dear in this country - a fair go for all.

Let's remember that universally, access to education is the greatest way of helping people get on in life. Whether we are talking gender, race, poverty-stricken countries or regions, number one priority is to improve educational opportunities. Restricting them on the basis of wealth [markets allocate in proportion to market power - wealth - and the devil take the hindmost] will always hurt the less powerfull and help the more powerful.

I thought that the negativity of Kevin Donnelly was bad enough, but he at least argues logically. Ross Farelly did seem to begin logically with examining a few of the difficulties in defining standards, but then moved into cloud cuckoo land, by just giving up and saying market forces - which by definition exclude any sense of social good - can "decide". What a sad, amoral, position for a Deputy Principal to hold

Yet another article advocating market forces on the education system. We have heard it all before and this article goes absolutely nowhere towards supporting that position because it's utterly unconvincing. At least you didn't use the word "voucher".

Hi y'all,
Like many of you, I am disappointed by the article. From a strictly semantic point of view, the author failed to establish what he means by 'standards' and what he means by 'slipping'. To hide behind the notion that:

"... they might mean a great many things and often it is not easy to scrape away the surface rhetoric and gain an understanding of exactly what they are getting at ..."

is a cop-out. Just because there is hard work involved in scraping away the surface rhetoric, does not absolve the writers of articles like this of the responsibility to attempt such.

I think he tried to get at the notions of whose standards, for what, when, with the list of points. But they too are imprecise and poorly formulated. If he had clarified what is meant by 'standards' and 'slipping' in a more precise way, then he would have been able to talk about how the higher level metrics he identified related to 'standard' and to 'slipping'.

No, this is not simple. But this debate deserves more than simple and simplistic argument.

And the editing wasn't crash hot either.

odsoc

It is pleasing to read an article based upon sense and reason appearing on this forum.

Especially pertinent is the observation that a centralised education system is sure to reflect the values of those who draft it and ignore the values of many people it claims to serve.

The very livelihood of those who draft it depends on making sure that the curriculum indoctrinates our young with its theology that the state is more important than the individual; that it is okay to steal from the rich and give to the poor; and that protection of individual freedom and private property are outdated concepts which don’t belong in egalitarian Australia.

Thus indoctrinated, the young grow up, and many of them repeat that mantra right here.

What advocates of the present education system overlook is that there is no money tree. Parents of a 10-year-old may feel very comfortable with a system that requires others to pay for their child’s education, but that does not make it any more right than if I were to enter their house and take a TV set.

Beyond that, there is overwhelming evidence that free markets are more efficient than any government monopoly. That an entirely private education system would not deliver the same value to everyone is just about as silly as demanding that all cars be the same price.

This debate goes right to the heart of the gulf between liberty and omnipotent government. Supporters of freedom do not wish to place any demands on others, and believe that society functions best without coercion.

In contrast, supporters of our interventionist state believe that they do in fact have the right to make demands of others; to levy them to fund those demands; and to generally plan out other people’s lives. Even though this position is inherently inconsistent (because it only supports intervention to achieve socialist aims, not individual freedom), supporters attempt to justify it by appealing to the mythical concept of the common good, when what really drives them is the same self-interest that they criticise in supporters of freedom.

What a load of rot Winston Smith what sort of freedom do you really want are you a anarchist? Most of us care about the general welfare of other it's humanity at it's heart. I have got no kids and at this stage don't plan to have but I'm happy to contribute to other peoples children ed. Kids are our future and all kids deserve to have the same opportunities, to be the best they can be. Hear the word selfish much?

Here's an idea.....

1. Underfund public education giving State school less resources
2. Pinch money from the State schools and give it to the Private Schools
3. Allow private schools to expel problem kids and put them into the State system
4. Don't give back up support to State School teachers who have medically diagnosed learning disability children in their classes
5. With no training or support expect State School teachers to deal with the added burden of allowing more disbled kids into the State system ... lessening the use of special purpose schools.
6. Undermine the teachers further by blaming them for everything that is wrong with education.
7. Never acknowledge the marking and preperation that teachers do after hours and on the weekend and definitely don't pay them for it.
8. Finally announce that there is a big move to private schools and that State schools don't give a good eductaion.

Now let the market forces work as they will...

Gee I thought that these were original ideas and then I realised that the State and Federal Govts had already thought of them and had already implemented them.

I must be State School educated I'm a bit slow to cotton on.

Opinionated2

I should just add:
9: Allow children who do not speak even a single word of English into classes with only 40 minutes of ESL help each week.
10. Place inexperienced teachers into the most difficult schools then wonder why they leave and the children fail.

Yep Sajo,

They are two good additions to the list... Has anyone else got any to add? I have added another below

Just so noone suspects I'm a teacher... I'm not a teacher!

Here is the list of 10 so far....

1. Underfund public education giving State Schools less resources
2. Pinch money from the State schools and give it to the Private Schools
3. Allow private schools to expel problem kids and put them into the State system
4. Don't give back up support to State School teachers who have medically diagnosed learning disability children in their classes
5. With no training or support expect State School teachers to deal with the added burden of allowing more disbled kids into the State system ... lessening the use of special purpose schools.
6. Undermine the teachers further by blaming them for everything that is wrong with education.
7. Never acknowledge the marking and preperation that teachers do after hours and on the weekend and definitely don't pay them for it.
8: Allow children who do not speak even a single word of English into classes with only 40 minutes of ESL help each week.
9. Place inexperienced teachers into the most difficult schools then wonder why they leave and the children fail.
10. Underfunding remedial services ... so the kids with difficulties get an hour a week when they should get 5 or more...

Finally announce that there is a big move to private schools and that State schools don't give a good eductaion and let market forces do the rest

I could be wrong but is it true that independent and Catholic schools educate children far more cheaply than State schools? If this is true then it saves the taxpayer alot of money.(I think this takes into account school fees too)

If these schools have a way of doing it well and cheaply and attract parents then government support to educate even more Australians cheaply and well ought to be encouraged, no?

I’m not one for treating the market as an idol, but it can and does reward excellence.

I couldn't leave without including Malcolm Muggeridge

"On radio and television panels, on which I have spent more time than
I care to remember, to questions such as: What does the panel think
should be done about the rising rate of juvenile delinquency? The
answer invariably offered is: more education. I can hear the voices
ringing out now, as I write these words; the males ones throaty and
earnest, with a tinge of indignation, the female ones particularly
resonant as they insist that, not only should there be more education,
but more and better education. It gives us all a glow of righteousness
and high purpose. More and better education – that's the way to get
rid of juvenile delinquency, and adult delinquency, for that matter,
all other delinquencies. If we try hard enough, and are prepared to
pay enough, we can surely educate ourselves out of all our miseries
and troubles, and into the happiness we seek and deserve. If some
panel member – as it might be me – ventures to point out that we have
been having more, and what purports to be better, education for years
past, and that nonetheless juvenile delinquency is still year by year
rising, and shows every sign of going on so doing, he gets cold
hostile looks. If he then adds that, in his opinion, education is a
stupendous fraud perpetrated by the liberal mind on a bemused public,
and calculated, not just to reduce juvenile delinquency, but
positively to increase it, being itself a source of this very thing;
that if it goes on following its present course, it will infallibly
end by destroying the possibility of anyone having any education at
all, the end product of the long expensive course from kindergarten to
post graduate studies being neo-Stone Age men – why, then, a
perceptible shudder goes through the other panelists, and even the
studio audience. It is blasphemy."

Hi y'all
If I might be so bold, the problem with the multiple education debates is that they degenerate into generalities. Positions and propositions are asserted, authorities and counter-authorities are cited, and allegations of bias and ideology are thrown around.

What 'standards' are we talking about? To take one alluded to in the article and contained in some of Donelly's writing:

"Should someone entering a science course in Australia have a sound grasp of rudimentary differential and integral calculus?"

This is part of the third dot point in the article. The traditional answer in most of Australia was yes. Consequently, University science courses assumed this rudimentary knowledge and sought to build from that point. In the USA, the answer was no. Consequently, the US produces many Calculus text books that assume only algebra and geometry for their college level courses. If our 'standards' in this area "slip" to the level of the USA, were they too high to start with, then becomes one question. Another is, if we want to, how do we maintain the 'standard' we had.

Unfortunately, this level of specificity is lost in the politicisation of the debate. I believe that until we can answer the specific questions, the general debate is mostly bovine faeces (if the usual Australian translation of this is profanity, this forum is un-Australian! [sorry, couldn't resist]).

Sometimes, arguing semantics is fundamental to problem definition, which logically precedes problem solving.

odsoc

Winston Smith, the argument re privatisation of public commodities has actually been proven in favour of the negative: read for yourself here -

http://petaldavid.blogspot.com/2005/11/dont-believe-age-age-in-its-regular.html

And thanks odsoc, you summarised it beautifully. Take heart from the latest findings from the UK, in that school fees are so expensive now that people are starting to move away from them. The same will happen here (particularly with the increasing HECS fees at the end of secondary education) and there will be a lot of loud articulate parents demanding improved state education services. The government will have no choice but to deliver on these demands, and the likes of Kevin Donnelly and Ross Farrelly will not be able to publish their articles anywhere, because they are full of old, outdated ideas.

Winston Smith, yes another communist plot......

What a huge surprise, The Federal Government does not fund Public Education properly, and the standards slip, who would have thought that could happen. The Federal Education budget is roughly split as follows 70% of the students [public] recieve 30% of the funding, the remaining 30% of students [private] recieve 70% of the funding. That's fair is it not Winston...

By all means have "market forces" drive competition within the education sector however within business we have a body called the ACCC which oversees the market to ensure an equitable environment (see points made in previous blogs) and you can add the ridiculous situation in which state schools are forced to use state departments for school maintenance which more often than not charge 200-300% over market rates. Secondly, the states have to agree on what the educational standards are and then stick to them although this will be difficult with politicians & departmental cronies continually wishing to implement a “new” topic into the system to address a social/political/business need.

Hmm some interesting points but maybe missing the point. What is a good education and how do we obtain it. There is one real expert I have found, he is now quite elderly. Three times teacher of the year in New York City, teacher of the year in New York State.You cannot get better credentials than that. His name is John Taylor Gatto and he is much in demand as a speaker. Despite claims to the contary there are not many experts. Some of his stuff can be found on the internet. He is a rare one whom I have found who makes real sense in the midst of of nonsense. He has done a monumental work on the history of education and schooling that makes the greatest skeptics sit up and take notice. His statistic from the past shame our modernity. If schools were turned over to the local communities to run things might get better but while the state has control there is no hope, they are little better than social engineering factories at present.

Rogo,

I am always impressed with people who tell everyone that they have missed the point.

Your last sentence needs expanding because I'm not sure what you mean by it. The English language is such an imprecise tool especially when people don't expand their ideas properly. What do you really mean by social engineering factories... when I was at school I was not socially engineered... I was educated unbiasedly in general.

To suggest that local communities may do a better job is an hypothesis which is worth investigating. However to decry the whole of State Education with only an hypothesis as a solution is not really much help. Anyone can do that!

So please expand your last sentence to truly let us know how you have the point that in your opinion most of us have missed.

Overflow : you make a point that should be added to our list... 11. The overcharging of Educational facilities by other departments for services rendered.

Yep that one certainly drains the education budgets.

Have any other people got ideas for our list?

Turning responsibility to local communities does not automatically lead to improvements- that assumes that each local community has enough people who are able to and willing to contribute to the management and development of the school. But many schools struggle to get enough parents on school councils, yet alone involved in more hands-on ways.

In the US, local districts manage schools, and this (from my outsider perspective at least) seems to be a disaster- poor districts have less money to spend on teachers, equipment, etc. Teachers can be offered as little as $20k at some schools. But in wealthy areas, the same level of qualification can be worth $70k. This hardly encourages anyone to work in the poorer areas, entrenching disadvantage. (figures anecdotal, from a US-based discussion board I participate in).

At least in Australia, with the larger State-based wage setting. Sure, schools in disadvantaged areas may struggle to find teachers more than middle-class areas, but at least the teachers who accept those jobs know they are not being doubly screwed over (i.e. tougher work for less pay).

Petal claimed that the argument re privatisation of public commodities has actually been proven in favour of the negative. He referred to this article: http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/AE/Win05pp8-11.pdf

However the arguments presented there rely on at least 2 assumptions:

1. Socialism is good (each according to his need, everyone should be made equal, etc);
2. An education system is a public commodity.

Both of these assumptions are highly debatable (I agree with neither), so the points made are somewhat irrelevant. Further, the author of that article clearly has a very poor grasp of fundamental economic truths, particularly when she tries to dispute that private enterprise is less efficient than the public sector.

Because the public sector simply takes the funds it needs for its operation, and does not need to respond to competitive pressure, it must rely on a bureaucracy to make decisions about the most efficient use and allocation of the resources it needs for its operation. But without the vital feedback supplied by competition, and in particular prices, it is impossible for the bureaucrats to determine how to do this. This is known as the “economic calculation” problem of socialism, and is a point which has been proven beyond all doubt in the literature and in practice.

What that means is that the total sum required to fund a public education system will be at least as large as the total sum required to fund a private system which delivers the same educational result.

Given that, it is hard to understand why anyone would be opposed to a fully privatised education system, unless of course they personally benefited from the present system (at the expense of others), or they had some other sort of agenda, such as wanting to impose a uniform education on everyone.

Comments on this forum provide some evidence that both factors are at play.

"Socialism is good" - what the hell? I did a search for "socialism" and "socialist" and neither term appeared. Please stop making things up.

And you disagree that "education is a public commodity"? So what IS it? If EVERYONE has to go to school, then what is it? Or are you advocating making school non-compulsory?

Incidentally, I have read John Taylor Gatto very closely and his philosophy goes much deeper than just handing back schooling to parents and the free market (in fact, it's not that at all). In the series of lectures contained in "Dumbing us Down", he speaks about the nature of communities themselves and their capacity to self-heal and self-improve and move and develop together as a group. The proposals made by Farrelly, Donnelly, and all others advocating the total privatisation of education do not have this philosophy in mind at all. The voucher system will open it up to big business and multinationals only, as the community and non-profit groups won't stand a chance. It's happening in childcare (thanks to the Howard government) and it will happen here. If you want to read the opinions of another prominent New York educator, there's none better than Jonathan Kozol.

But why are we worrying about it? Even Nelson admitted that the government wouldn't consider a voucher system, and Bush has bowed down to opposing pressure in the US. Anyway, those states that run charter schools and voucher systems are showing a downturn in the usage of those services.

Common sense will prevail.

"... it is hard to understand why anyone would be opposed to a fully privatised education system, unless ... they had some other sort of agenda."

Yes, I do have an agenda. It's the desire for a fairer society and an end to poverty. Read my blog if you want to know my agenda - there's plenty of information for people like Winston Smith.

Not so long ago wheat processing was done in major country centres. They had silos, a mill that employed people, perhaps a couple of bakeries that employed people and they delivered their products around local communities.

A clever little economist said this was inefficient - we should send all the grain to be processed to the city where they can set up bigger factories for the processing. It seemed like a good idea although it wasn't fully tested. Farmers were told they'd get more for their grain.

So grain was shipped of to the mills in the city and the poor little local mill closed down. The economists said it was inefficient anyway and people lost jobs. But to get the flour the bakers had to now get it from the city. Along with the flour came city brands of bread at cheaper rates than the locals could make. So the economists said the bakeries were inefficient and so they closed too - more job losses. But more importantly the value adding component of local industry was also lost. The economies of scale were working against country folk.

A new vibrant industry arose making lots of dollars for some people... the trucking magnates. So people eagre to get involved borrowed heavily and bought big rigs and spent their lives driving all over the country. Families broke down, road fatalities increased, uppers sold by the carton - but the wealth was once again driven to the Cities. So banks started to close because we can handle things better in the cities – more job losses.

Country Australia was dudded. But what mistake did the economists forget to mention... they placed all the bargaining power in the hands of a few. So the poor old truckies in debt to their eyeballs were forced to accept less money each time for the same work. Then fuel prices rose and the poor truckies are now in a negative cash flow position. Drive longer hours or starve were the options.

I reckon we should corporatise education it seems like a pretty good plan overall.

Educational standards may have (and I don’t necessary agree this is the case) slipped in relation to the standards of 15 years ago but current educational standards are much better than those of 100 years ago.

Winston Smith,

If the educational system was privatised then only those who could afford it would get an education. With corporate monopolies on the rise and competition dwindling (and hence higher prices) we would eventually revert back to the days where the streets were filled with beggars. Clearly this is your ideal society.

You complain about tax dollars going in to valuable investments such as education and completely ignore the tax dollars blown on “corporate welfare”. That TOO is theft (to use the word “theft” in the same context as one of your previous posts), the theft of my tax dollars given to corporations that don’t need it. This is an example of how radicals like yourself end up contradicting themselves. After all, aren’t capitalists against welfare? Oh no, only when it’s given to those who need it for food and shelter.

Society needs a balance of Left and Right. Both capitalism and socialism, in their extremes, have the same devastating results – greed, selfishness and poverty. Each needs the other to remain moderate and survive. Societies who are purely one way or the other end up collapsing eventually.

But being rich and selfish, a 100% capitalist society wouldn't phase you would it? Na, you'd be fine. Forget the majority of the population who would suffer immensely, 'cos you're more important than the majority of this country's population combined aren't you? You lack a basic sense of what us Humans refer to as humanity.

Judging from the advocating of pure 100% capitalism in your posts, you seem quite happy to see a large portion of our population homeless, starving and dying in the streets - clear signs of a brutal sadist. If you don’t want to see people suffer, or deny that this scenario would ever eventuate, then you obviously have no idea of the end result of your radical, one-eyed ideology. Money is not everything in this world and this is a basic lesson that most of us learned as children.

You my friend are an extremist in every sense of the word.

I thought it would be a good idea to get back to the list we had started on what is causing the education systems to fail.

1. Underfund public education giving State Schools less resources
2. Pinch money from the State schools and give it to the Private Schools
3. Allow private schools to expel problem kids and put them into the State system
4. Don't give back up support to State School teachers who have medically diagnosed learning disability children in their classes
5. With no training or support expect State School teachers to deal with the added burden of allowing more disbled kids into the State system ... lessening the use of special purpose schools.
6. Undermine the teachers further by blaming them for everything that is wrong with education.
7. Never acknowledge the marking and preperation that teachers do after hours and on the weekend and definitely don't pay them for it.
8: Allow children who do not speak even a single word of English into classes with only 40 minutes of ESL help each week.
9. Place inexperienced teachers into the most difficult schools then wonder why they leave and the children fail.
10. Underfunding remedial services ... so the kids with difficulties get an hour a week when they should get 5 or more...
11. The overcharging of Educational facilities by other departments for services rendered bleeding funds from the system.

If we continue to allow the system to be run down by stealth... the politicians way .... a severely damaged system will become unfixable...

I would like to personally thank all the teachers who work hard striving for the best results they can achieve even with the constraints placed upon them by gooses we call politicians.

Hi y'all,
Just a little red-rag.

I know several kindergarten and through into upper-primary teachers who are kicked, spat upon, have to clean up urine and faeces, supervise toilet visits, and do all the stuff parents were once responsible for teaching their kids. Upper-primary teachers are involved in teaching remedial reading or maths for kids who could once read or do arithmentic, but whose parents value education so much that the kid doesn't use the skills and, hence, loses them. On top of all this, many otherwise competent kids are disrespectful, surly, argumentative, and plain horrible.

What about testing kids for readiness for school? Not a one-off test, a one week test. If the kid fails readiness, back to the parents. And then more of the same each year. Violent disruption of the class, back to the parents. Insufficient medication, back to the parents. Forgot how to read, back to the parents, etc.

What do you reckon?
Would our standards be slipping if this was the case?

odsoc

Just thought I'd throw in a comment or two.

Educational standards are usually those things we expect students (or "clients" in the optional schools) to be competent in when they reach a determined level, i.e, from children being able to read and write when they finish primary school, to the complex outcomes required by the HSC.

Children are smart. They know how to create disorder and distraction in class so that nothing gets done. They like to evade work, or just down right refuse. Teachers can do little or nothing that the children need fear, especially considering the negative publicity and litigation that would follow any effective response.

Badgering schools and teachers to test more or get more qualifications does nothing if the children obstruct all those efforts in the classroom. I'm sorry if this deflates all the reports, recommendations, commissions and white papers, but YOU CAN NOT TEACH THOSE WHO REFUSE TO LEARN.

IMHO the "problem" is with the children. Some probably see no real value in (public?)education. Others feel left out, so everyone must suffer. Suspended students return after their "holiday" with no fear of getting suspended again. They learn strategies to avoid work (such as eating the pages out of their book, so they can't write, and it has the bonus of entertaining the class, annoying the teacher and hopefully getting sent to the deputy. Voila! No work for that lesson).

Teachers can't (shouldn't) bully their students. Parents shouldn't either. To learn (and they can remarkably well when they want to) children will have to learn to want to learn. When they accept that they will never get to uni and will thus be a low wage earner, school is where you go during the day so that adults don't have to deal with you walking the streets or sitting at home playing the Playstation.

stonecoldsober - good post. You got me thinking about how important it is that children and parents can place a value on education. Parents who are educated themselves usually appreciate the importance of a good education and this mostly rubs off on their children. Those who make financial sacrifices for private schooling or even for school excursions etc. also demonstrate their values. However there must be an awful lot of children whose parents see public schooling as 'free' and have not benefited from a good education themselves. This is especially so as a large number of families pay very little in the way of taxes and therefore pay nothing towards their children's education.

I am not advocating private schooling but maybe there is a need to demonstrate the value of education to these children and parents - ie. show that it really is a hand up the ladder. While University education is becoming more and more expensive these children are unlikely to see it as a goal to work towards. So reducing higher education fees and more scholarships would be a good start. A mentoring system could also be helpful where children can see the benefits that education can bring by way of a career and improved lifestyle.

Claiming, “If the educational system was privatised then only those who could afford it would get an education”, depends on several (un-stated) assumptions:

1. That there is a standard “education” which everyone is “entitled” to;

2. That the reduction in taxation made possible if the government stepped out of the market would be insufficient to offset the cost of “an education”;

3. That there is inherently nothing wrong with relieving some (productive) members of society of their earnings and giving it to others, as long as the ends are justified.

I have problems with all of these. I too want to see a fair society, but I don’t believe that will come about when interest groups use the law to compel others to provide their wants. If there was competition and choice in education, even the poorest would be able to afford “an education”, although it would not be the same type of education that someone with more wealthy parents could afford.

To me, a fair society is one which respects self-ownership, not one in which an all-powerful government may take from one group, without their consent, and give to another to make things “fairer”.

It is the free markets and division of labour of capitalism that have brought about the massive improvements in our material standard of living apparent over the last 200 years. Going back to an agrarian lifestyle, as apparently advocated by one poster, was tried by Mao – it failed, just as it is failing in North Korea.

Right now we are experiencing high housing prices, deteriorating “public” infrastructure, and high and increasing costs of many basic services, because we have gone too far down the road to socialism.

The reality is that everyone benefits from capitalism, consumers and capitalists alike. That's why I advocate it, not because I lack any sense of humanity. A relevant example is the IT industry and the Internet, which together have made it possible for anyone to educate themselves about anything at very low cost, with a breadth and depth that could only be dreamed of a few years ago.

Winston... I may have found a slight flaw in your argument.

In our market based education system ... some people who can afford it or who borrow to do it send their kids to the private schools of their choice. The less affluent families or those who so choose send their kids to State schools. Ain't competition grand?

So how has this been achieved?

1. Underfund public education giving State Schools less resources
2. Pinch money from the State schools and give it to the Private Schools
3. Allow private schools to expel problem kids and put them into the State system
4. Don't give back up support to State School teachers who have medically diagnosed learning disability children in their classes
5. With no training or support expect State School teachers to deal with the added burden of allowing more disbled kids into the State system ... lessening the use of special purpose schools.
6. Undermine the teachers further by blaming them for everything that is wrong with education.
7. Never acknowledge the marking and preperation that teachers do after hours and on the weekend and definitely don't pay them for it.
8: Allow children who do not speak even a single word of English into classes with only 40 minutes of ESL help each week.
9. Place inexperienced teachers into the most difficult schools then wonder why they leave and the children fail.
10. Underfunding remedial services ... so the kids with difficulties get an hour a week when they should get 5 or more...
11. The overcharging of Educational facilities by other departments for services rendered bleeding funds from the system.

Govts both federal and State have allowed education to be run down by stealth. Stealth keeps eating, eating, eating like rust until the system is nearing or has collapsed ...then market forces balladeers say "see that system didn't work"! Amazing!

What do you think the Federal Govt did when it re-jigged school funding... They "use the law to compel others to provide their wants."

Winston your points were:
1. That there is a standard “education” which everyone is “entitled” to;

-Yes, I think there is. I believe that a civilised society is one that sets basic minimums for all its citizens.

2. That the reduction in taxation made possible if the government stepped out of the market would be insufficient to offset the cost of “an education”;

-No, many people who pay little tax due to low incomes already struggle. The reduction in what little tax they pay is unlikely to cover a 'decent' education.

3. That there is inherently nothing wrong with relieving some (productive) members of society of their earnings and giving it to others, as long as the ends are justified.

-There is nothing wrong with this- I pay a substantial level of tax, but I see it going towards providing me with roads to drive on, hospitals to attend if needed, and schools for any kids I may end up with. The power I would have to pay for my own roads and hospitals would be highly limited, even if I had a massive tax reduction.

-Taxing individuals to provide public services is what ensures that people in our society, in theory at least, have an 'equality of opportunity', hopefully a decent chance to make the most out of their natural abilities and talents, whether their Mum and Dad were able to do this for themselves or not.

-Finally, I attended a State school, and I found the quality to be absolutely fine. As did around 80% of my friends from University. And we all achieved entrance scores in the mid to high 90s, and got into one of the top Universities with HECS places. Clearly its not 'state schools' per se that are intrinsically bad.(For the record, my friends have studied everything from Medicine to Science to Humanities to Education to Economics)

Sorry Winston, but I think you're mistaken if you think there is anything worthwhile in capitalism for society in general. It only benefits the few at the expense of many. Exploitation is bad, and that is what capitalism is all about. At the risk of sounding like an old fashioned Marxist, the benefits of capitalism so loudly touted by its supporters are no benefit at all. Most opponents of capitalism are not advocating the extremes of Mao or Pol Pot, so stop trying to use them as examples.

Any way, that's an arguement for another thread. Don't get me wrong, Winston, I'm not "dissing" your opinion.

I have no problem with those who can pay exercising their options in educating their children, but as Laurie points out, "We" as a society need a certain level of "education" (knowledge, competence, awareness?) in our young uns' if they're going to participate in society (be it capitalist, socialist, theocratic or whatever) when they leave school. That is what standards are supposed to be about.

Excellence, either of teaching or student acheivement, is the hope of parents, rarely of the students themselves. That attitude is mostly fostered in the home. It can be fostered in the community but is only effective when the child actually participates in community life. Many don't. That is a benefit of sports.

Let's not focus so much on who pays, but rather on how we convince children that all that work is worthwhile. Relevance and usefulness of learning is the first step to encouraging the real value of education. The kicker is when they realise that they can teach themselves as Winston points out.

Unemployed ignoramuses in society benefit no one, but do provide a large proportion of the load on social services. Unemployment, crime, institutionalisation and eventual health problems are often the lot of those who get nothing from school. For those of a financial mindset, that means a poor return on the educational investment (this can happen to private students as well). That is a problem we need to find solutions for.

I don't know about standards in general... but with 8-out-of-ten kids with ADHD being boys, and girls getting an average mark that is 7% higher than boys...

The feminist educators have certainly made sure that boys standards are suffering at school.

PartTimeParent

What has your allegation regarding feminist educators got to do with the rates of ADHD in schools?

Surely you can't be suggesting that feminism is the cause why boys don't appear to be doing as well as females if your statistics are correct.

Gee I've heard feminism blamed for lots of things but never ADHD... which medical journal do you subscribe to?

Go to the list I posted and read points 4 & 10. Neither of those have been caused by feminism...

I hope I misunderstood your post... because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever

I don't know whether part time parent was making an allegation as such but my older son, when he was younger, and now my younger son (age 8) have always said that the majority of female teachers they have had tend to obviously not to like the boys, they pick on them and they prefer the girls and are much nicer and kinder to the girls. I also have two girls who confirm what my boys are saying. Now my children have changed schools a few times and the same complaint has been made at the majority of schools.

Maybe the teachers cannot cope because many of the boys are louder and more active but my kids say that the boys are not favoured and the girls are and the boys get picked on and that makes them angry and aggressive. They also say that everybody usually gets blamed for the actions of a few so it really isn't worth anybody's while being good because they are going to be punished anyway. Discipline is not consistant and/or fair and it causes confusion, resentment and aggression.

It shouldn't be surprising that teachers lash out given that teachers are having trouble coping with what is expected of them and the fact that the public system is so run down, underfunded, underesourced and morale is so low. Teachers are humans and they get frustrated and the students are the ones that often pay the price. I think teachers should start standing up for their students rights as well as for their own!

I might say that my son was a quiet and reserved boy who became withdrawn and depressed and very unwell because of the way he was being treated at school and he now fears school so much that it makes him physically unwell and he has had to be put on distance education on psychological and medial grounds as a results.

Things affect different children differently - some react inwardly, some outwardly - but usually there is a reaction.

Jolanda,

Thankyou for that insightful and reasonable comments.

The education system is like a processing factory... they herd kids through in an underfunded and regimented system. In many ways this is another way of stifling creativity and individuality.

I am sure that some female teachers out there do exactly as you say... and it is a shame but I am pretty sure most don't. Boys can be a handful (I know I was one) and we got up to all types of mischief. But I think I remember I was tougher on the female teachers than I was on male teachers also. It's a male thing! I also remember (oh oh a confession) telling my mother that I was picked on because I was a male. Looking back it had nothing to do with my gender I was a brat!

Therefore in some ways it is what came first the chicken or the egg.

Please don't think I am saying your kids were like me... that isn't what I am suggesting whatsoever.

Generally speaking girls are more easy to teach than boys. Boys have that poison called testosterone in their systems...ha! Plus many parents are in denial about how naughty their children can actually be... especially when in group mentality mode which a classroom often creates.

There are so many kids disadvantaged by the one size fits all that the education system seems to have become. The eleven points made earlier often contribute to this.

Teachers have a very tough role and the group punishment scenario is always a bad concept. Noone is entitled to punish the innocent.

I wish I had a solution to the education problems but a first step would be to fund it properley so that individuals needs are catered for more easily.

Your last line is accurate. Many kids respond and improve through doing drama after school hours. If your budget runs to that (it isn't usually too expensive) why not give that a try. It aids creatiity, socialisation and gives the kids a chance to cut loose and have some educational fun.

Hi Opinionated2. Yes schools should be funded and resourced properly and teachers and students should have the support and encouragement that they need and deserve. What they need to do is re-direct some of the money that is going to Private schools to Public schools for a few years so as to bring up the standards of the Public schools so as to make it fairer - the Private schools can just level for a while. It’s just wrong to have such a huge gap in education.

I agree with you that there are boys out there who are difficult to control and it isn't easy for teachers. My son says that the girls are also starting to do the same......I do feel for teachers, it really is impossible for them to do what is expected of them. What concerns me is that because teachers are so busy protecting their reputation, they don’t admit that they cannot cope and that the kids are suffering as a result and that the system needs to do something about it.

You know my husband decided to Coach my sons under 7 soccer team last year in order to see what was happening and to look after our son. He got the shock of his life! He couldn't cope with the 13 boys, he said they were rude and wild, they didn't listen and the majority of parents didn’t' seem to notice or care. He had to get help and he found it so stressful and frustrating. It seemed like the parents wanted my husband to discipline their kids, he had to tell them that he was there to teach them soccer, it was their job to discipline their kids. My husband then understood why my son was so scared and what the teachers have to deal with. He is coaching again this year as my son needs him.

Instead of my son being on distance education, those boys that can’t behave should be on Distance Education and be educated at home! Maybe the parents would take some more responsibility if there were consequences.

I must say I do not agree with what was said in the article where it said:

“An alternative may be that, as Brendan Nelson put it, “every young Australian … should be able to find and achieve his or her own potential”. That is to say that every student learns as much as they possibly can. Again, impossible to achieve and impossible to measure”

I don’t agree that this is impossible to achieve and impossible to measure. Its quite simple actually, all you have to do is run the education system like centers of learning and excellence, instead of age based child minding centers.

Schools should design their classes to suit their student’s needs, not try to squash students into a set mould that doesn’t fit.

There should be no ‘competition’ for entry into school based classes or courses, students should just apply for whatever class, year and level that they believe would be best suited for them in the different subject areas and would have to show that they will be motivated and capable. It would give students a say in their education and something to strive for and focus on and it would take away the advantages that tutored and coached students have in that many are winning the places in the advanced classes and schools simply because they have had and can afford more exposure and practice in academics. It’s not fair.

Students should progress through education at a speed and level that it beneficial and appropriate for them. They could then find and achieve their own potential. It would make it more okay to be different. At the moment they are always trying to make everybody of a similar age the same and it is causing hostility because it is blatantly obvious that we are not all the same. Why is it okay to be 2 years older/younger only if your date of birth fits in to what the Department of Education says and not any manner else?

To measure the success, you just have to ask the students if they are happy and learning.