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.