Billie,

I agree that it is unlikely that society will improve the teacher pay system. One reason is the increased weakness of teacher unions, which really mean the increased weakness of teachers to take a stand on anything.

I don't have figures on the categories of employment in the DoE, but there have been a huge cut to the numbers of central personnel and the total abolition of staff in school support centres (which no longer exist), and the cut has not been matched by an increase in school administrative staff. Teachers involved in interview panels get no reduction in their loads. In fact, they may have to give up their spare periods and even after-school and holiday-time to conduct the interviews. Schools are responsible for their own hiring choices - with precisely zero improvement in student learning. Schools are responsible for paying their casual relief teachers directly, with some exceptions. The DoE has saved a fortune on staff costs. In the days of Henry Bolte, about half the state budget went on education. Today it is below 30 per cent. Victorian schools are basically financed on a voucher system, and the principal can then spend the money any way he or she likes. There are very few rules left. Until 2005, the maximum teaching load in my school was 21 periods, while in other schools it was 24 periods. One school will have an adequate number of leading teacher positions, while another will not. A school may be funded for ESL teachers, but the principal doesn't have to use the money to deliver an ESL program.

I have served on panels and looked at applications done under the web-based system. Their presentation is very poor.

The basic problem is that the previous government destroyed the idea of an education system and replaced it with an inefficient chaos of competing small businesses. This reconceptualisation of schooling was so deeply embedded in the subconscious of public life that the current government has so far not understood what has been done.

shorbe - ahhh, so we'll be seeing the same schools lowering their fees to make them more "inclusive", then, thanks to government subsidies? That was my original point.

Do you really think they are going to do that?

Also, too bad if your child is not A-grade academic material, even if you have the money and your child is a hard worker - they still won't let you in.

petal: In the majority of cases, people aren't being subsidised to send their kids to private schools because they're paying into the system (via tax) more than they get out. In order to prove this, all we would have to do is stop taxing people equal to the current educational budget. You know as well as I do that most of the people sending their kids to government schools are not paying their fair share of this funding.

Also, you're arguing that private schools are homogenous in the objectives of their outcomes. By analogy, there would be no restaurants but five star restaurants offering a particular cuisine. Obviously that's not the case though. I'm sure there's a market for parents of C grade students whose parents would be happy to get them up to C+ or B, or who might even place other outcomes over academic results. For example, there are plenty of independent schools that don't achieve results greater than government schools, but parents send their kids there for a religious education.

Finally, many of these schools don't cost an arm and a leg in fees. Once again, the market place is not homogenous. Further to this, it's possible to afford private school fees if one does not lead an extravagent lifestyle. The bottom line is that a lot of people out there want to have their cake (a consumer lifestyle) and eat it too (free education at someone else's expense).