Yes, Jolanda, the education system does have a duty of care due to compulsory education, but we only ask one half of the publicly funded schools to take on that duty of care. There are not infinite resources - particularly when we give milions to already highly resourced, expensive schools that don't need it - and that is why a system has to organise distribution of kids somehow. Even the Catholic system will send kids to schools that have room for them, rather than crowd them into schools already stuffed to capacity - that's how "systems" work. And if you have compulsory education for every kid then you have to have a "system" of some kind, unfortunately.
Again, I am sorry their school failed your children, and I am a supporter of choice. I simply don't believe vouchers will give anymore choice to families like yours who cannot afford to top it up to meet private school fees.
I would like to see more choice within the public school system, as is the way in most other countries in the world.
And money cannot be ignored when it comes to teaching and learning. Sure, exceptional teachers may be able to overcome its absence to some extent, but teachers are like anyone else, exceptional teachers - like exceptional doctors, lawyers and engineers - are rare. And now, with so much more money going to private schools (and vouchers would be an absolute windfall of cash for them), they will (and are) able to offer such teachers higher pay and so take them from the kids who need them most.
The best way to improve public schools is not to punish them or wash your hands of them, but to help them gain the resources, the morale and the respect they need so they can do their job better. Constant abuse and criticism - much of it (though not all) unfair and ill informed will only bruise them further and reduce their capacity to properly perform their duty of care. Reform them, don't destroy them, in other words.

Ena. I agree that Public schools are being neglected and hard done by at all levels of Government. I also agree that teachers often cannot provide the services that they are expected to provide in the conditions that they are expected to function in.

Pretending everything is rosy when it isn’t doesn’t make things better. If teachers want positive feedback then they need to support and protect their students.

Teachers have a duty of care to their students and if a teacher stands by and watches students get systemically neglected, bullied, treated unfairly and psychologically harmed and they say and do nothing, then in my books they are as guilty as the abuser.

I understand that the system is set up so that those that speak out pay the price but if teachers supported each other and their students and spoke out to support an individual students right to an appropriate education presented in a safe environment, and shone the light on those that are failing in their duty of care as a result, then things might change.

My family has been trying to reform the system for 6 years and for our efforts we have been victimized, vilified, and treated unfairly. Those in higher positions in the education system have a problem with those that complain and they have a lot of influence and power. It isn’t as easy as you think!

Had there been a voucher system, instead of 2 of my children being in a non-government school it would be 4.

Even when I wrote to the President of the P&C association in relation to what was being done to my children they responded with – “Although we appreciate your concerns, it is beyond the scope of the P&C.” How can the welfare, education and well-being of students be beyond the scope of the P&C?

It seems that it’s not just the public schools that are failing students, it’s also the public school parent bodies.

I sincerely doubt Private school parents would have sat back and allowed what is being done to my children to continue unchecked

Jolanda,

Which secondary school did/are your children attending.?? If you look at any educational district in Melbourne you will find a number of govt. secondary schools that have enrolment ceilings. These schools have enrolment ceilings because they have more applications for Year 7 admission than they have places. These govt schools are FULL. The only kids they have to admit are kids that are in their local zone. These schools probably comprise at most 20% of all govt secondary schools in Melb. Vouchers would not help get your kids into these schools. In my experience many parents are paying for private education because they can not get a place in enrolment limited govt schools. Why do these few schools have more applicants than places- because they offer reasonable /good academic performance, good programs, etc. Most of these ceiling limited schools will not be in the outer or more economically disadvantaged suburbs-people with the means in these suburbs will almost always pay for private(usually cheaper Catholic schools) than send their kids to the local govt high school. This is the harsh reality. The govt system in Melb is basically a two tier one. Vouchers will not change this,

"The fact that the Swedish model precludes parental co-payments and obliges schools to accept all applicants does not make it any less of a voucher system."

I never said it wasn't. What I did say is that the Swedish system is definitely different to the intentions of voucher-advocates here and in the USA. Would you find Des Moore or Kevin Donnelly furiously advocating that the Swedish model be replicated here? If you're going to use Sweden as an example, then make sure you include ALL the facts - THAT is what I was saying.

"As a side-note, the requirement that schools accept all applicants has been criticised on the basis that it prevents a school from developing a specific educational ethos."

By whom? Kevin Donnelly again? Please provide quotes and links. And how many public schools have been able to develop a "specific educational ethos" yet are required to accept all applicants? I can think of a few here in Melbourne just to start with. How on earth does obligation to accept all students preclude a school from getting on with developing educational ethos and philosophy? What an arrogant claim.

"Whilst it is sensible to guarantee that a school place will always be availible to a child at the cost of the voucher, parents should be allowed to put more funding into their child's education if they so choose."

Well, Sweden has firmly stated that it's not on. I'm sure it's for a reason.

"As for your suggestion that Sweden's independent schools are heavily regulated, approximately 40% of Sweden's independent schools are Montessori or Waldorf. The Swedish model gives schools enough flexibility in their curriculum to allow for diversity and competition of ideas."

Are Waldorf schools not subject to regulatory rigour? Why would so many Australian public schools adopt a Steiner stream (or Reggio, for that matter) if it couldn't be regulated? Seems that I'm not the one creating the straw man, here.

Furthermore:

"I found an entry on your blog particularly illuminating:
"Kids really don't respond well to being shifted from one location to another on a parents' whim (which is what it often is). And please don't quote your own experience to show me that it's not the case, Joel. The overwhelming majority of kids need stability. And WHY would parents exercise choice, anyway? What about a particular school causes them to choose that school over another? VCE / HSC results? We all know how accurate THEY can be ... School uniform? Facilities? Are these accurately showing what a school can offer to a child, or are they just showpieces?"
Clearly you are skeptical about the capacity of parents to make an informed decision on behalf of their own children but are quite happy to make prescriptions about what is best for vast majority of children. When a choice has to be made about a child's welfare and education, I would leave that choice with the parents rather than government bureaucrats and the teachers' union."

Would you ALWAYS leave that choice with the parents, MonashL? ALWAYS? It doesn't take much for someone to become a parent (don't make me start with the birds and the bees, for goodness' sake) and just because it happens to you, doesn't mean you're suited to it. As a teacher I've met plenty of kids who were quite happy to let the state take over, for their own safety. Parental neglect can also occur in well-to-do families, for that matter - I've seen it for myself. Please don't give in to the neo-con rhetoric - parents (and yes, I am one) largely get it right, but often they don't. Making it just that little bit more difficult can mean the difference between a disrupted life or a more consistent one for a child.

I just want to say something about kids being shifted around from one place to another. For my children it was the only thing that helped them to cope and pass the time. My children have all changed schools around 5 times each. AT THEIR REQUEST. If they were in an environment where they were not learning, where they didn't feel validated or respected and where they were totally wasting their time they didn't want to be there and they didn't want to go. They made my life miserable refusing to attend school. Changing schools always gave them hope that maybe things will be better.

They enjoyed their friends but 6 hours a day 5 days a week of total boredom in the classroom and total lack of respect from the system was more than they could bear. Eating resess and lunch with their friends didn't make it better and you are not allowed to sit next to who you want to in class!. They made friends at every school that they went and they still keep in contact via the internet with many of their friends.

What kids need is to be in a school where they feel validated, respected and where there individual needs are being met. If they are being neglected and ignored, then to go to school just to spend time with your friends was not a good enough reason for my children to want to stay. Lots of nice children in lots of different schools with which to play