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is okay to steal from the rich and give to the poor; and that protection of individual freedom and private property are outdated concepts which don’t belong in egalitarian Australia.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.