By its own statistical definition, half of the schools and half of the teachers WILL be BELOW average.

Jennifer Aberhart is clearly a sincere person. However, on reading her article one can easily conclude that she believes that teachers do their job diligently with care and in the best interests of children and that should be the end of the matter. Under no circumstances should one "run the ruler" over them.

Unfortunately the real world does not work that way. Constantly judgements are being made about performance. Some who just cannot come up to speed, for whatever reason, need to move on and make room for others. It is just part of the territory of the real world.

The work of schools is often difficult and challenging. Forty years in state schools has taught me that. Yet I have always believed that it is fair enough that some mechanism exists to judge whether your work is having the desired impact on your students. There is always argument about the validity of the measuring tools. That is fair enough, but in principle I support any move to measure the effectiveness of schools and report it to the community.

Interestingly enough my experience was that the least effective and most difficult to work with teachers in schools were often the "leading lights" in the local branch of the teachers union.

How you can equate a 'child publicly ranked against his peers' with measuring performance of schools is beyond me. Parents and governments need information about schools to make informed decisions. Currently this information is just not available. The best way I know of to determine whether a school is any good is to find out how many teachers have their own children at any particular school. Not the easiest information to find out unless you have the right contacts. It seems that teachers know which are the best schools but would like to keep it a secret from the rest of us. The system at the moment relies on word of mouth which is hardly reliable and is completely useless if you are new to an area.

There are some problems with ranking as outlined in the article but at least parents will be able to identify schools in a locality that stand out as either exceptionally good or bad and make the appropriate choices. Schools are able to provide explanations if they so wish. Parents do not make decisions based on statistics alone but will take account of a childs individual needs. There will likely be a few surprises where I believe many public schools outperform private ones. It will also make it possible to track changes in any particular school over time, for example when a new Principal arrives.

We also need to identify poor teachers who exist in most schools and at present are almost impossible to remove in the state system. The teacher's federation seems determined that these teachers will not be either removed from teaching our children or even identified and retrained.

School is presented our children as a competition! It’s not even designed to teach our children to think or to help them develop. Because it is age and outcome based it is designed to just measure what some think our children should already know at certain ages and stages and to judge them on their mistakes. They have to keep the standards low as the system is under-funded and under-resourced and falling apart. Those that crave a higher level of achievement and want higher standards are always seeking out more appropriate learning environments. That’s why so many parents look for schools that are achieving highly so that their children can fit as they want to enjoy their schooling and to compete.

Opportunities for higher level educational opportunities and career opportunities are provided on the basis of highest test marks get in first, and there isn’t a lot to go around. Students need to know exactly where they are in the school and the state so that they can have a clear picture of their performance and so that they know what they need to do to be competitive. It is also a fact that in some instances students marks are scaled and moderated to the marks that the students from the school gained in the test. So if you are in a school that doesn’t have a lot of high achieving students, it is not going to be in your kids best interest.

The Department of Education believes that coaching or tutoring doesn’t really make much of a difference to a child’s ability. They also say that the teachers and schools don’t really make a difference to a child achievements. They tell us that it is the child’s home environment and social standing that is the defining factor. Therefore it seems that schools are functioning only as child minding centres, and too many are failing even at that.

What our children need are high quality, well funded and resourced schools that are open and transparant so that everybody knows where they stand.

There are two points that I think are relevant to this question:

1. Many older people are convinced that their literacy and numeracy skills are far superior that those of many of today's HSC graduates. I found this in my profession, where toward the end of my career I spent a lot of time correcting the spelling and grammar of submissions from my younger superiors.

2. I think it is not only the government that has a secret agenda to encourage students to move to private schools. The Teachers Federation must have the same agenda. I know that there is no profession that I can think of that will not protect its incompetent and lazy members, but the Federation must realise that the public require these performance comparisons, and that failure to provide them can have only one result in the long run. As parents can afford it, they will either move to an affluent area with a good public school or move their child to a private one.

Anyone with any foresight can see that the obsession with equality of outcome held by the Federation can only result eventually in the collapse of the public system. Equality of opportunity, not equality, is the only possible basis for public education.

plerdsus. The other problem with the level of secrecy that the Department of Education and schools function at is, what is to stop them from manipulating and/or tampering with scores to give advantage to their own and/or to disadvantage those that they dont want to see prosper.

My family have had reason to make and alarming amount of formal allegations of systemic bias, victimisation, tampering and manipulation of test scores. Allegations that are being ignored and covered up. When everything is a big secret and nobody can compare, question or challenge - who or what keeps them honest?

There is alot of bias and rasism out there and those in the Education Department are humans and humans are capable of all sorts of things.

I think everyone who posted comments totally missed the point. The author is clearly stating that comparison between schools is not possible because the students, their backgrounds, the level of family involvement, the range and depth of resources are not comparible, regardless of the data produced from tests, however well scrutinised.

Apples and oranges are clearly comparable on certain criterium, they are both round, they both grow on trees, they both belong to the citrus family, they may even be made similar colours. Regardless, an apple remains and apple and will never become an orange, genetic engineering aside. Schools can be compared as to size, building material, teaching staff size, amenities, including computer terminals ad infinitum, but students are humans and each one is an individual. Test scores will vary from day to day depending on a whole range of variables, so how can test scores become the only criterium to determine which school ranks better than another?

Jayare - it is called statistics. As long as the population is large enough (which may preclude some smaller schools from a representative sample) then it is possible to draw comparisons between schools so long as confounding factors are taken into account. This is why there is an attempt to group the schools according to demographics etc. It is never going to be perfect but it is accepted practice in just about every other situation. Obviously the quality of the data is going to affect the outcome and for this reason an estimate of the degree of error is important. Teachers may have a point if the confounding factors are not being correctly accounted for but I believe the main reason is that they are just trying to isolate themselves from prying eyes.

Sajo, just on your previous point re teacher's children - my mother was/is a teacher in the public primary school system. She deliberately refused to have her children at the school she was teaching at (despite the handiness of pickup/dropoff!), as she felt this was unfair to both her and to us (my brother and I) - teacher's kids are often picked on/or left out as they are seen as 'too close' to authority. And teachers often feel they have to be extra firm with their child so as not to be accused of favouratism. My mother even made sure she was not teaching the same grade as myself or my brother were in, so that she could relate to our teachers as a parent, rather than as someone directly 'competing'.

In many ways I think this was the best possible choice for all of us - so don't just look for schools where teachers have their kids there. There are often very good reasons why they do not, rather than a lack of faith in what they are doing.

Jayare

Not quite sure what to make of your post, but I do know a thing or two about botany.

Apples: from the genus: Malus, Family: Rosaceae (includes pears, roses and blackberries)

Oranges: from the genus: Citrus, Family: Citrus (includes cumquats, grapefruit and lemons)

Hence the expression 'comparing apples and oranges' - both fruit grow on trees but there the similarities end.

I know this sounds pedantic but I didn't spend 3 years at Uni just to see someone call an apple an orange - which is what you did.

Back on topic

Is it fair to pit schools against one another?

If private - yes.

If public - no; should be providing top quality education to all.

The thing is that school data should be comparable because all public schools should provide students with equal access to opportunity and high level education.

Students should be tested on what they are taught at school, not what they learn from home or at tutoring colleges. To do otherwise is grossly unfair to those that are from disadvantaged environments.

Everybody knows that in Selective Schools students are going to function higher, parents are not stupid. Parents also know that there are smart kids living in the west, south, north and east and intellectual potential isn’t just something that just those with money have. What those with money have is the ability to place their children in better learning environments so as to develop their abilities.

It shouldn’t make a difference. In every school there should be a percentage functioning at the highest levels, the majority of students usually come in around average to above average and there are always those that struggle. Nobody expects everybody to be achieving at the highest of levels but there should be a percentage at each level, otherwise the balance is out and questions need to be asked!

The Department of Education is segregating as it provides ‘Disadvantaged schools’ for some and then judges and provides our children with educational and even career opportunities based on test marks! It is grossly unfair.

The first thing the DET needs to do is dismantle Selective Schools. Every school should be able to cater for all their students educational needs and that includes those that struggle, those that are average, those that are above average, high achievers and those that are gifted. To do otherwise is grossly unfair to those that are being brought up in a disadvantaged environments as they have no hope of winning academic competitions against those that are in optimal learning environments. Equal access to opportunities for all in local schools allocated on the basis of motivation, interest and need will make things fairer and better for all.

We need to stop making our children compete for access to education and hold schools accountable..

Laurie – good point. It would have to be a fairly large school to get round the problem. I meant to say that the schools where teachers do send their children are likely to be the better ones – not necessarily the same schools they teach at. Teachers often have little choice where they are posted anyhow.

I like the idea of having some concrete data to identify good schools although lots more information would be required to make a proper assessment. I do admit some skepticism as to whether the government is capable of doing this properly however. I would prefer an accreditation system rather than ranking as someone will always be at the bottom even if all meet required standards. Either way schools will put in a lot more effort promoting their strengths which will be a good thing for everyone. It will force schools to face up to problems and do something about it rather than just making excuses eg. introduce vocational subjects or gifted and talented programs, remove ineffective teachers or increase ESL assistance.

My local high school once had a bad reputation so local private schools were thriving. A new Principal is turning the school around and is getting great results. However I only know this because of local gossip – anyone outside the loop will still be under the wrong impression which includes future employers.

The best way for public schools to improve their image is to determine what factors are driving parents to private schooling – and accountability of schools and teachers is a major factor.

Scout – I share your ideals (and degree subject it appears) but we are a long way from achieving top level public education. First we need to improve standards and then maintain them which require some means of measuring performance. Using different criteria for private and public schools will just widen the gap.

Jolanda - I agree with you regarding getting rid of selective schools.

A thing to note from many of the words said, both in the article, and of those in support of the original author... surely we can trust the parents of Australia to know that there is more to an education than a ranking on a league table!

As Jayare put it thus: "test scores will vary from day to day depending on a whole range of variables, so how can test scores become the only criterium to determine which school ranks better than another?" The response to Jayare is simply that this is not how one picks a school.

Having recently completed my education in NSW, I remember the drawn out process of visiting and choosing a school, which involved not only investigation into academic results (only possible by knowing teachers from certain schools), but also co-curriculum, philosophy of education, religious affiliation, style of religious education, facilities, routine/regimentation, discipline, community spirit, class sizes, sport, and so on, and so forth. This is not an unusual process, and to assume that parent would just look up a league table to determine that is simply ludicrous.

Just the same, people are aware of the differing abilities of students and the different backgrounds at a certain school. Two points should be made to this: firstly, some parents do wish for their children to be educated at a school with a certain ethnic balance, such as is evident in higher rates of Irish Catholics at some Catholic schools and other Catholic groups at others, this is part of school community, and is a valid choice on which to decide a school because there are marked differences caused by it; secondly, it's unfair to con parents into sending students to schools where they are not best suited just because they cannot view a league table as part of the process of choosing a school, in fear of ranking schools with many migrants behind schools without them.

This has to be one of the most uninformed threads I have experienced. As a member of my (private) school board and about to become chairman, I saw this topic and looked forward to the debate that would ensue. Regretably, the article kicked off with such a poor appreciation of the 13 standards that schools will be assessed upon (see my next post) that distortion was inevitable. The thread of comments, all well meaning I am sure, equally displayed a distinct lack of knowledge of the criteria being implemented.

At my child's school I have spoken to the Principal and we will be actually building a 'balanced scorecard' of internal measures that will not only address the criteria being promunlgated, but reach far beyond. To his credit he has admitted that he, and other principals with which he has discussed this new reporting system, have little knowledge of performance measurement systems, public reporting etc. So I and others on the school council will be working with him, his senior staff and other Council members to ensure that we put in place the most robust and reliable system possible within our resources.

However the aim is not to meet Department standards, but to use those minimum requirements as a leverage towards a school management system that highlights needs and opportunities for development and thus continuously improve the school's culture and performance. Comparison with other schools is the least of our concerns: living up to parents' and students' needs and expectations will render that relatively irrelevant.

I would be very pleased, for the sake of her students, if Jennifer Aberhart were to now respond stating her intention to introduce a similar philosophy and approach at her school and that at which her children attend.

Following my preceding post, the Government criteria - which I believe even on their own will paint a very comprehensive picture, are:

1. Student performance in state-wide tests in the form of easy-to-read graphs and tables

2. A comparison of the performance of students in state-wide tests across the state in similar schools against the school’s performance over recent years.

4. The proportion of students meeting national benchmarks in
4-1. literacy and
4-2. numeracy over time

5. School Management Plan targets and achievements

6. Parents and Citizens’ Association report

7. Student representative body report

8. Trends in student attendance

9. Staff qualifications, retention, attendance and participation in professional learning

10. Parent satisfaction,

11. student satisfaction and

12. teacher satisfaction survey information

I welcome any commentary on the inadequacy of this scope of reporting (assuming it is made accurately) to enable students and parents to form a sound appreciation of the approach, conduct and performance of a school in question and to make a reasonable comparison with other schools, not just on past performance, but on potential to improve future performance.

"the powers-that-be will have created their "Like Schools" groups, they can feel justified in persecuting the lowest performing schools in each of their specified and statistically adjusted categories."
I think this quote about sums up the whole problem.

One objective of performance measurement, as Brisbane rightly points out, is to use it as a tool to identify areas of concern and fix them. To think of it as an opportunity for 'persecuting the lowest performing schools' just shows how paranoid the teachers federation really is. I think it is time that 'Principles of Management' become part of the teacher training curriculum.

Brisbane - I cannot really comment on the academic performance criteria. I am assuming that they will be based on the year 3,5,7 , 10 and HSC tests that are already in place. It would be good if other subjects apart from literacy and numeracy could somehow be included but this would probably be far too complex except for HSC results.

For primary schools it would be useful to know whether a particular school has an opportunity class which would increase its performance at the expense of neighbouring schools who often lose their highest performing students. Some schools specialise in certain areas eg. technology, performing arts, sports etc. which should be mentioned.

For the parent, student and teacher satisfaction criteria, schools have recently been including this information in their annual reports - at least ours has. However the surveys sent out to parents are pretty hit and miss and only a minority parents actually respond. I do not believe that there is any measurement of bias in these surveys. It would be useful to have data on percentage of respondants and address the validity of the survey process. The scraps of paper that ours are sent out on - especially once they have been screwed up inside school bags - hardly looks like official documentation.

It would also be necessary to provide information on population sizes and confidence intervals as it is unfair to judge very small schools by statistical methods. I would prefer some sort of accreditation scheme that indicates whether schools have met certain criteria at various levels for this reason.

Contrary to assumptions, I am not a member of the Teacher’s Federation but I do empathise with its stand on this issue because I am unconvinced that statistically adjusted comparative data is a suitable way to measure a school’s academic worth. Overseas’ experience seems to concede that there have been a number of measurement problems encountered with their formulae for grouping ‘similar schools’. There have also been concerns that the statistics used may not adequately isolate student gain attributable only to the school and not to home factors even when viewing a particular school’s internal year by year data.

This particular sort of system is open to corruption and in some cases has been found to lead to narrowing the educational focus to ‘teaching the test’, schools favouring the intake of children who can increase their score and seeking ways to preclude low scoring children from taking the test as well as even the alteration of test scores.

As a teacher of children with literacy problems, I have no problem with diagnostic tests that are useful in helping pinpoint an individual child’s weaknesses providing there is suitable remedial follow up but I do have a problem comparing young children against each other through bench marking as we know that they develop at vastly different rates in their early years.

I am also in favour of schools seeking better ways to deliver literacy and numeracy skills along with the host of other important subjects that help our children become independent, creative thinking adults. However, I find myself in agreement with Alfie Kohn that education today is in danger of moving further and further away from these ideals. (I would highly recommend his essays and books to anyone remotely concerned with education.

Jennifer A – you will need to be more specific as to why you do not consider it possible to compare schools statistically if you want people to listen to you. Just stating that you are ‘unconvinced’ or that overseas studies ‘seem to concede’ doesn’t do much for me. Does statistical analysis support your opinion? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you but you have not offered any actual evidence to support your arguments.

Why do you think that the system is ‘open to corruption”? I am assuming that the data will be handled by competent statisticians. Have you reason to think otherwise? I agree that wrong or incomplete information is worse than no information at all and this must be avoided. This is one reason why we need more reliable information than we get already – ie. HSC merit scores and word of mouth.

I would like to know why you consider parents too stupid to be able to interpret the data in context.

It is ridiculous to equate comparisons between schools with publicly ranking individual children. You are confusing two separate issues.

Also you said that “statistical data used inappropriately is a dangerous tool”. By the same token statistical data used appropriately is a very useful tool.

As I said before I am not necessarily doubting your judgement – in fact we are relying on teachers to a fair degree to make sure the system operates properly and to highlight the problems. However you need to make sure your objections are based on real issues with evidence to support them and not just the typical negative reaction to any attempts at government or parental interference.

Just wanted to show you how important it is that school reports clearly show what level our children are functioning at. If you go to http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/2006/02/documents_in_re.html in the 4th last paragraph I post a copy of my daughters school report and achievement award that was presented to the Opportunity Class Appeals panel in support of my daughters high achievement and a copy of the Minutes of Appeal headed by the Manager of the Educational Measurement Directorate of the NSW Department of Education.

You will not that the Leader of the Educational Measurement Directorate of the Department of Education, who are the ones that measure our children’s ability, said in the minutes of the meeting that my daughters school reports did not show outstanding ability!

That is what needs to be addressed, if there is no percentage mark or levels clearly shown, what’s to stop those in the system from misrepresenting your child?

If the link doesn't work you can go to my blog called "Education - Keeping them Honest" http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
and go to Categories on right in the History of Complaints section and find the heading "Documents in relation to Complaint and Latest OC Application" it the 13th post from the top.

Jolanda

I don't doubt that your concerns with the treatment you have received regarding your application on behalf of your daughter are valid. I congratulate you on the effort you have put in to support her future opportunities and would not question you will have got 'the run-around' from the bureauracracy. However I think you miss the point of the original article, which addressed the appraisal of a whole school, not an individual.

To other respondents,

An assumption, raised already, of the original article seemed to be the inevitability that data would be invalid, corrupted, misinterpreted or misused. Of course this is directed not to the data per se but to those who gather, present or analyse it, their needs and motives. This does not undermine the importance of public reporting but does highlight that much of the information will be unaudited. Any person using corruptible data or (possibly-biased) written reports to analyse a school, to decide whether to enrol a student there, should treat it with the scepticism it deserves.

Notwithstanding, the fundamental goal for the school for producing the report will have been achieved. Under the act, the schools will get their funding regardless of the performance quality. All they are really required to do is to deliver compliant reports, distributed in two forms, once each year.

From another perspective, it may be that a chronically poor performance, that is attributed to causes beyond the influence of a school's administration (eg local socio-economic demographics), will be a basis for gaining additional funding, to correct for the disadvantages.

Brisbane

I am glad to hear that there are others out there that can see problems/issues with my daughter’s application/appeal. This is why transparency in Education is needed. If they can show bias and victimization towards a student, what’s or who’s to stop them from targeting or having bias against a teacher/school.

There are some schools that I am sure the Government would just love to see fail so that they can sell them off. If bureaucrats have the power to make the decisions and access to marks/documents and they can do whatever they want and they don’t have to answer to anyone, then that’s a pretty powerful position to be in!.

I can understand why schools would not want to get assessed. Many public schools have had the power stripped from them, they have been under-funded and neglected, they have deteriorated and now they are going to be exposed and judged!

Otherwise, I think that children shouldn’t even be ranked from school unless they want to compete. Children should progress through school at a pace, manner and level that is suitable and appropriate for them.

If a student wants to compete in academic competition they should have to apply for that pathway with no testing to get in, just the application and ability to learn fast. Achievement testing for the pathway should be assessed externally against others from other schools and regions. The results and tests would then get returned to the students with their marks. It will give the students the information they need to compete at the appropriate level with those that they have to eventually beat.

Then, those students who really don’t enjoy competition and just want to get on with their learning don’t have to deal with the stress and often humiliation of having to compete for their education and constantly being graded and ranked. And teachers can get on with their job of teaching the children to learn.

It’s important because everybody is different.

Yolanda,

If you are looking for transparency don't expect it Real Soon Now.

NSW DET is about to roll out new software to Government schools to help word process the new Nelson Reports. But 30 months after the Eltis report recommended it search the market for solutions and with its share of Dr Nelson's $32 billion on the way to the bank, the new internally developed software does not contain a markbook.

In 2006 and beyond, this means there is no audit trail between the testing instruments in schools and what appears on the reports parents get. Nor are there the sort of datamining tools for senior school staff that the corner store has in MYOB.

Proud to be Public?

Well Judgement was handed down today in our matter. If you are interested you can access it here from my blog. Education - Keeping them Honest http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/

I understand why the Teachers Federation are against school benchmarking. They have a comfy life in a walled garden. In NSW, perhaps in other states, government has developed about the same sophisticated expertise in dealing with measures of school quality as it has exhibited with the contract for the Sydney Cross City Tunnel.

Unmentioned in this discussion is that making a paradigm shift to benchmarking needs skill, preparation, good will and, above all expertise.

Moving school education system to a market-based model could (like the preschool system) resemble Russian experience, where, like ABC, a few rich companies snare most of everything.

Or it could be like introduction of the market model into China, where, despite everything, there is still strenuous state control.

Or it could be like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, where chaos reigns.

Surely it will not be as bad as any of these, but it will still be painful. (Think Maggie Thatcher performing the Restructure That Britain Had To Have.)

So the Teachers Federation has a very well-founded belief that any major change will create a humungous mess, and probably has no desire to see it sooner rather than later.

I read somewhere, years ago, that it takes 50 years for a new teaching concept to reach 75% of American schools, and 75 years for it to reach all of them.

Atomic scientist Max Planck put it another way. He observed, "science advances funeral by funeral".

There is good stuff that student teachers (my daughter-in-law is one) need to learn.

With good will and firm resolve, Amanda Challita will probably see these changes for her grandchildren, and perhaps - even - her children.

For the avoidance of doubt: I am in not defending bureaucracy, nor am I part of it. I simply note that the rate at which social values change is related to the rate at which one generation overtakes the next.

Paradoxically, in a society where change is supposed to be happening faster than ever before, people are having children later and living longer, so generational change is slower than ever before.

Part of the problem is the need for the financial and social elite of Australian society to have a mechanism for deepening and entrenching their power and privilege. Access to education at both secondary and tertiary levels and the 'real' careers they lead to lies at the heart of the education debate. Since Whitlam there has been a huge transfer of investment into 'private' schooling. The restriction of entry and the application of significant additional resources confer an advantage on selective schools.

The publishing of selected information that confirms the academic superiority of these schools serves to justify the huge public investment in them and helps to reinforce the 'drift' towards private education which is a fundamental plank in the education policies of government.

Since the publication recently of a few indices of performance in Queensland secondary schools we have witnessed the media talking about the 'top' schools and pouring scorn on others. While making a self righteous demand that the poorer schools improve their performance, the media fails to appreciate that this can only be done at the expense of the schools currently placed above them. The Queensland OP system allocates scores on a percentage basis to each rank. Therefore a school can only improve its average rankings by taking them away from other schools. The system guarantees failure.

I don't think that encouraging people to make judgements on the basis of the information provided is sensible. It merely punishes some who don't deserve it and reinforces the prejudices of others

There are several rather different problems here. Firstly, school teachers have not had benchmarks against which to judge their effectiveness.

There may be brilliant teachers who worry every night that they are not doing as well as they wish they could, and lousy teachers who are perfectly confident that poor classroom results are simply due to being provided with poor students.

The former teachers resist evaluation. The latter are sure that it is unnecessary.

There are doubtless also excellent teachers who know they are excellent and mediocre ones who know that they are bad at their jobs, but the first two types I mention surely predominate.

I had the privilege of seeing what happened in a state government instrumentality that was corporatised and later privatised. With an influx of external appointments, the really capable people realised how good they actually were, and many left for better jobs. The non-performers were in due course retrenched.

But all this begs the question: what are realistic measures to use to pit one school against another?

HSC pass rates are a fragile tool.

In 1997 Sydney newspaper, The Daily Terror, got stuck into Mount Druitt High School and published a photo of its 1996 HSC class below the headline, "Class We Failed".

The students sued. A Supreme Court jury found that they had been defamed. The newspaper published an apology and a damages claim was settle out of court.

Our universities are suffering from a different problem from trial by media. Their financing structure is increasingly tilting them towards popularity with full fee-paying students. This measure is in fundamental conflict (at least in the short term) with the objective of maintaining academic standards.

Separately again, affluent parents, especially in NSW, seem to be increasingly viewing schooling as a positional economic good - choosing private rather than public schools simply because they can.

This trend will only diminish when credible measures are available for school performance, but simplistic ones (as the Mt Druitt incident and ongoing reports of relaxed standards for foreign university students indicate) will do more harm than good.

Jolanda - good on you for your perserverence. I am sure that your efforts will make life easier for the next person and are a step forward to seeing some level of accountancy in the public service. Whatever the final outcome your children will be proud of you.

Thanks Sago. My children are not just proud of me, they are my greatest supporters! My husband is the also most wonderful man. So in one respect we are very lucky.

Every little bit helps towards change and it is also a fact that I have been protecting myself. Already my children have suffered serious psychological issues and physical problems as a result of the stress, anguish and despair that they have had to ensure at different times. I have always had this fear that one of my children could fall into a depression and they could succumb to it and that one day they would come across the papers and documents that I have and see what was done to them and turn to me and say "Mum, why didn't you do something!". For sure they would have a case against me if I didn't do everything in my power to protect them.

At least I can say that I did everything that I possibly could.

I appreciate that it must be hard being a teacher ok? I for one would prefer to be a metal worker. But when you get these teachers who are on a power streak and want to bring you down when you are weak then what do you make of them. They are bastards. Nothing less. Mr Bland, Mr Blackman and that yobbo football playing turd Mr Cooper are prime examples. Then you get some nobby art teacher who doesn't like anything you come up with. Any wonder why kids are very bad today? You brought it on yourselves. Yeah I lived through the muck of the 70s and I would sue their asses if they were still alive.

The problem lies in the way we are educating our young people today, and for the matter, older generations as well, who are constantly being retrained by going back to educational institutions or via general workplace training. Our schools in their methodology were designed in the 19th century, when we were firmly in the Industrial Age. Very little has changed in the 21st century, except the tools we have at our disposal to teach. The general goal of our school system is to prepare students for a specific job, which they are supposed to hold for 40+ years, at which point they will be ale to retire. The first issue is that in a bygone era it was the responsibility of the organisation you worked for all those years and the government to look after you in retirement. Now of course it is the responsibility of the individual. The second issue is that words like downsizing, redundancies and lay-offs were not in the vocabulary of society in generations past. Also people go through a lot more career changes both within industries and to other industries than in the past. The final major issue is that our life expectancy has increased and thus our post-working life based on traditional retirement ages is a lot longer. So even people who do follow some sort of traditional plan of working 40+ years at an average decent salary and retiring at 65 will probably still run out money. Basically both the content of what we are teaching our youth and methodology we are using in terms of what we value as important are severely out dated. In fact a leading global economist recently remarked that he thinks Adult Education will be the single biggest industry in the 21st Century. Go to http://www.jiveskool.com for a guide to Aussie schools