Ah Dale - once again the provider of an alternative viewpoint. I was so pleased to read this article.

It has always mystified me why the most vocal outcries in the education debate come, in the main, from those who don't have kids in school. Phrases like "I'm concerned for my grandchildren's future", "To-day's students SEEM to...." "We've all heard that..." "It's common knowledge that...." seem to preface many of the remarks that constitute the "public outcry".

What mystifies me even further is that many of these irate, blustering and vehement comments are couched in terms which would have any teacher - from "the good 'ole days" to the present - wincing and reaching metaphorically for their red pencils. Outrageous syntax, complete disregard for the basics of punctuation, total ignorance of grammatical construction, spelling which renders the comments sometimes unconsciously hilarious and which sometimes horrifies - and limited vocabularies in which to couch the whole thing.

Yet these are the voices of those who protest the loudest at to-days teacher's, students and educational standards. Makes yer fink, dunnit?

The rort that the Howard Government is perpetrating on the 63% of Australians who by necessity or choice send their kids to public schools must be exposed.

Between 2004 and 2008 the Feds will spend 7.6 billion on the 13% of kids who attend the non-systemic independent schools. That’s fewer than 500000 kids; over this same period Howard will spend 7.2 billion on the 2.25 million kids that attend public schools. Of that 500,000 students 27% attend schools where the tuition fees alone exceed the average resources provided by governments to public school kids.

The $370 million p.a Federal funding to these schools raised their total resources to 62% above the average public school’s resources. 55% of students in these independent schools attend a school where the average resource level per student is higher than that of the average government school.

In general today all students in non government schools get 51% of their funding from government grants both state and federal without the accountability that is required of government schools.

Because the federal government raises the lions share of all Australian government revenue it can easily keep increasing its funding to non government schools. Because the states bear the brunt of expenditures health, education transport etc, it is difficult to expand the education budget at the expense of others.
The rort and Howard’s lie is that the Fed’s say they will increase funding to government schools in line with the states increases. The blame for under-funding public schools is sweetly passed on to the states; Howard is using Federalism in a manner that was never intended in order to shift public money to a private system in yet another portfolio. Meanwhile the majority of Australian kids suffer

thinksthinks4self: i bet you voted for a politician. this is what happens. are you going to vote for another politician? probably. will it help? not much.

Demos I'd hoped we might move the debate on a little
so that even those who most benefit from Howard's largess
may see what this is doing to the fabric of our society

Too true Dale Spender. Except for one little point.

The newspapers do support your arguments, just not in the opinion pages. Take a look at the job vacancies instead.

Must have experience in Word, Excel, MYOB. Good research skills. Ability to think outside the square. Team player.

Can't say I recall seeing an ad for good knowledge of Shakespeare, but I might not have been looking.

- 15.3% of Australian boys lack the literacy skills to benefit sufficiently from their education opportunities, compared with just 8.7% of girls.

- 69% of 15-year-old girls scored at or above the OECD mean in reading literacy tests, compared with 55.4% of males.

- Between 1975 and 1995 the proportion of 14-year-old male students who demonstrated mastery on reading tests declined from 70% to 66%, while the corresponding proportion of female students changed little, from 73% to 74%.

http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/E635D70E-EB9D-4168-A382-3A2D093CEB34/4589/educating_boys.pdf

But none of this is a reason for panic. We should be waiting until it gets to 30% of boys and 15% of girls.

In the meantime, students should be improving their literacy skills by watching more commercial TV.

Thank you for this article Dale Spender. I have seen, on a number of occasions in The Australian, reports from ACER which indicate that Australian school children do quite well in literacy and numeracy according to some internationally accepted measures. I cannot recall however whether this information was contained in articles printed by the newspaper or whether it was in the Letters to the Editor section in responses to Dr Donnelly's articles.
It is incredibly difficult to measure educational achievement through decades of time and across national and language divides in order to compare standards. My understanding of the information is that Australian schoolchildren seem to do quite well in international comparisons of higher order literacy and numeracy skills but not so well at tasks involving rote-learned knowledge. (I am not knocking rote learning). Also, I gather that whereas our average achievements are high we have too high a proportion of students who do not do well.
Before we get too political about all this and argue strongly about the relative dispositions of funds between sectors, we need more intelligent debate about the successes and weaknesses of our system.

I thought we'd heard the last of the lugubrious Kevin Donnelly and his asinine views. But he materialises, like Banquo's ghost, to whisper "political correctness will be the end of Judeo-Christian Civilization as we know it". Kevin reminds me of the educational reactionaries of my boyhood who forced us to write with nib pens and bottled ink (ballpoint pens being a device of the devil).

Education should be about more than job skills and Shakespeare still has a place. But we also need to realize that the world has changed enormously since the days of the manual typewriter. I'd be hard-pressed to get a job with the skills I left school with. Things need to come out of the curriculum, to make way for the new.

For a bit of fun, I checked my favorite jobs website and found 25 jobs using Shakespeare as a keyword (mostly companies with Shakespeare in the title). Using J2EE (Java 2 Enterprise Edition) I found more than 2,000 jobs and nearly 2,000 jobs for XML (Extensible Markup Language). Looks like PHP or VB might be the languages to learn, rather than Latin, eh Kev?

DEMOS, don't you ever get sick of writing the same post all the time? I know I'm sick of reading it.

Championing education. Someone needs to champion public education –that’s for sure.

Ask yourselves who benefits from the idea that public schools fail to provide a decent education.

I recall twenty years ago that the religious right started undermining peoples’ faith in public education. Of course pubic schools are a public institution so it’s in the “public interest” to defame and slander teachers and schools; while the private schools have their army of lawyers to silence critics who level similar charges against them. This is regardless of the fact that the public taxpayers fund these private corporations.

They have a similar curriculum and failings that we never see beat up in the media.

As the old saying goes:

“If this were played upon a stage now
I could condemn it as an improbable fiction”

Or as the punk song goes:

“Still got a funny feeling that my times are caught in a jar
Madness and insanity have arrived”.

Or as the pop song goes: “Don’t let the loonies take over..”

How much money does the music industry make? Hmmm. For instance: Did Michael Stipes Philosophy Degree help him write the best songs around. Did Thom York and the boys come from a university background? Did Casey, Barr, the Kid (forgot the drummers name)and the crew make their living from singing the best kick- in- the- arse songs around. Hmmmm.

Faack education that stifles creativity, ideas and understanding –why just concentrate on instrumentality and practicing parroting to produce perfect-spelling perpendicular pronouns to pander to the needs of producers of pointless products.

Where would we be without thinkers who produce gaffiti such as: “Dyslexia lures KO”. Heee, heee, heee , gotta laugh. Just imagine if you where a shiat-stirrer like that would you want some pedantic teacher correcting your rowds. Gotta laugh, mustn’t grumble.

P.S. A friend of mine was dyslexic and he knew the score even though he had big trouble spelling. The private school he attended threw him out – impatient fools. Conscientious, brainy as, great lad with Catholic ethos (the good one) working in a factory. What a waste?

yes, jj, i do. glad to see you noticed. now, if i could just see some evidence that you grasped the futility of supporting a feudal system of governance while talking about the web society, i'd be even more gratified. so far, all that's happened is that ozzies shrink away from the difficulty of being part of the changes needed to meet possible ecological disaster, and even more likely economic disruptions.

just skip over my posts, if they bore you. i'm not at all confident that i'm doing a lot of good, but occasionally people write some variation of "demos is right", so i'm hopeful a few people are enlightened or encouraged.

Public education doesn't need a champion. It has millions of them already. It's time for all of us to value and support the young champions among us.

Dale Spender, it's not up to any one person to "champion" public education. Such a messianic notion is straight out of the play-book of those who are doing their best to undermine public confidence in our schools. This is not some gladiatorial combat between media personalities. It's a deep and enduring conversation that Australian society has with itself.

In any case, there are many tireless defenders of public education who actually do get a fair bit of media attention: Columnist Maralyn Parker in the Daily Telegraph, Jim McAlpine and Judy King of the Secondary Principals' Council - and Geoffrey Robertson's speeches are also invaluable. Ironically even some private school principals such as Judith Wheeldon have done a lot to balance the public debate. And there are many private individuals and teachers such as Chris Curtis who often get a run on the Letters page.

In Australia today there are thousands, if not millions, of champions of public education. They are the teachers and students and parents who are building strong and cohesive communities centred on their local schools.

These champions do not need the putative approval of some newspaper editor to continue their good work. Their contributions to Australian society will last for many years after Kevin Donnelly's tiresome rants have served their higher purpose - to wrap the fish & chips.

Dale, as long as High Schools continue to 'teach the curriculum' and not the teenager in front of them, your arguments, and those of Donnelly are a bit irrelevant.
Primary schools are quite brilliant at addressing the individual students' needs. High Schools however, particularly years 7-10 still ride roughshed over student needs. This despite a doubled budget per student compared with Primary schools.
The emphasis on curriculum over student development can have dire effects on a student who will stop progressing in a subject at the point where they first encountered problems.The lack of remedial teaching to fix this is disastrous for the child. But the structure of our high schools means that the juggernaut just roles on. This is an issue of philosophy of teaching, not one of budgets. The harm done to too many kids by this systemic failure is the big problem with our education system, and most controversy would fade away if this was fixed.
Whether its Shakespeare or Sex in the City- without a proper grasp of the tools of analysis a student will suffer.I'm a parent who has suffered along with my child as she has been punished for not doing work demanded of her,despite her protests that she did not understand what was required. BEING FORCED TO GO OUTSIDE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM TO FIX THIS WAS A BAD JOKE and an indictment of the system.
While your article makes many valid points I reckon its not really the main game.

Palimpsest is right, it is the quality of the teacher. What is the use of comparing Shakespeare with Big Brother if the teacher can't explain what's interesting about either?

But using ignorant examples does not help your cause Dale.

If you must compare Big Brother with Elizabethan entertainment, then compare it to 16th and 17th century public executions - mostly unscripted, tasteless, voyeuristic garbage that achieves notoriety for people who otherwise don't deserve any.

Or, if you must compare Shakespeare to modern dramatic performances, why not well-scripted shows which comment intelligently on today's society, like The West Wing and the various works of Joss Whedon?

Yes, shows like Big Brother are cultural phenomena that will one day be studied by historians (if there are any left), but not as great art, or even mediocre art, of our era - it is not art at all.

Also, while Shakespeare's works were first and foremost performances, to say that he wouldn't understand studying drama in its written form is plain wrong. Do you think he travelled in both time and space to read and hear the foreign stories his plays were based on? He well knew you could learn from books, even though you could take that learning and transform it.

Even the Younger Pliny understood that earlier "writers" performed their works, even though all he had to look at were the written words. Are today's students so thick they can't work out that these written works of Shakespeare were performances? Again, that will probably depend on the teacher and how it is taught.

If teachers can competently explain the differences between texts, as well as similarities, then all is well. But the texts do matter. If Big Brother is being taught as some kind of comparison with Shakespeare (and why else bring them together?) then something is rotten in the state of Australia.

Mercurius,

I am not uncritical of the government school “system”, but I am a defender of its schools and an opponent of the teacher-bashers who regularly denigrate the work done in them and who hypocritically call spending around $7,000 per student in a government school “throwing money at the problem” but who remain silent on the $20,000 fees charged by some private schools, which by their reasoning should be called “shovelling huge amounts of money at the problem”. Government schools do need people to speak up because they are under regular attack. But they also need to reflect seriously on their own faults rather than play into the hands of their enemies. This means they should be unashamed about supporting high standards of discipline and of academic achievement.

Palimpsest,

Secondary schools do not get twice the funding per student of primary schools. Victorian government schools no longer even have a staffing formula. Theyare funded on a de facto voucher system. Last year, the per capita payments were $5,141 for prep to grade 2, $4,376 for grades 3-4, $4,197 for grades 5-6, $5,491 for years 7-8 and $5,821 for years 9-12. The primary average is $5,003; the secondary, $5,711. There were also base funding - $36,565 for primary schools and $340,124 for secondary schools – and special program funding. These amounts reduce in an illogical fashion with the growth in the size of the particular school once it reaches 500 students. A secondary school of 500 started with $3,195,624; a primary, with $2,538,065. In this case, a secondary school got, not 100 per cent more than a primary school, but 26 per cent, which reflects the additional costs of specialist classrooms, the need to provide elective subjects (which tend to have smaller classes than compulsory subjects) and the slightly lower teaching loads in secondary schools (reflecting both the extra work involved in teaching senior students and the historical fact that secondary teachers used to be far more willing to stand up for their profession than primary teachers).

Technology has far more to offer education than Microsoft Word, Powerpoint and nifty Graph drawing programs. If you really want to know where education is headed then read this article..

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3210506.html

Goodbye stuffy classrooms, prison-like institutions and dusty old books. If you ask me todays schools are far too much LIKE the schools we suffered in the 'good' ol' days BUT that's all about to change and the schools of the future look FANTASTIC!

Thank you technology!

There will always be a percentage of students who will not be able to cope with learning what is deemed necessary at any time; and they are students with learning disabilities. Also, students with specific learning disabilities will also struggle. Schools in the State I reside do not have the resources to assist these students. In subjects they find difficult to comprehend (eg English or Maths ) students tend to behave badly on the basis of preferring to have a reputation as a trouble maker rather than as being a dunce. They do not appreciate that while they are struggling in one area, they are often doing well with other aspects of their education or life. That is, misbehaving students are seen to be students who need discipline; but bad behaiour is often an indication of not coping.

Whether teachers are good or bad is immaterial in relation to the learning disabled students; they will not attain National Standards. Students with specific learning difficulties are hard to assess, they cope very well in some subject areas, and they are often deemed to be lazy in the subject area they are struggling with.
The matters of learning ability will still be a feature of Home Education or learning via the Internet.

We can get very excited about people not spelling properly, but surely if the message that is being expressed is understood, that's the important matter. If somebody was to write the Prime Minister is "arogant"; that is as easily understood as to use the word "arrogant", "arrogent", "arogent" or "arragant". "Arrogant" is the correct spelling but it is possible to know what is meant when using the other spellings. Let's face it we all make errors spelling, no matter how careful we are.

Ant,

There are two problems with the 'spelling doesnt matter as long as you are understood' theory.
1. Employers can/will/do use spelling ability as a discriminator in evaluating potential employees. Those who have managed to learn to spell demonstrate their 'superior' learning ability. In business circles poor spelling IS noticed and reflects negatively on the writer.
2. a certain amount of our culture and history is preserved in our spelling. Ideally we ought to learn that history and absorb that culture through learning to spell. In losing our spelling we lose our culture.
There are also good arguments for changing to phonetic spelling, particularly for all those people trying to learn English as a second/third/fourth language.
Perhaps we should develop a phonetic spelling and allow it alongside 'correct' spelling much as the Japanese have Kanji and Hiragana.

Waterboy, it seems that you belong to the baby boomer generation. I know your right in relation to spelling being seen as a sign of intelligence by some people; but as indicated in my last post people can be very talented but have a specific learning disability in say spelling. Rote learning spelling lists does not indicate any kind of creativity or aptitude for anything in particular. Being good at spelling just means that a person has an ability to spell, nothing else.

The theme of my last post was that teachers, no matter how good, are not going to be able to be able to bring students up to National Bench marks

Young people seem to have an afinity in using technology; a lot of older people would not be able to compete in relation to the use of new technologies. Can any conclusions be drawn from this observation?

Ant,I don’t accept your thesis that spelling isan innate ability that some have andsome don’t. On the contrary,Iam quite convinced that itis learnt. My thesis isthat itis most effectively taught by teaching children to read ata much earlier age than isdone at school,infact they need tobe reading well before starting school. Teachers facean impossible task in teaching children to spell because they're starting too late and,if they are using a ‘rote-learning’ approach then they're also going about itinthe wrong way. My older sister started teaching me to read whenIwas three. She was remarkable,but that’s anotherstory. I could therefore spell quite well before I started school without ever having ‘rote-learnt’ a single spelling list and I insist that Ihave no‘innate’spelling ability other than that I learnt atthe right time when Iwas three and four yearsold. Interestingly,it took the teachers atmy school nearly two years to notice that I could spell. I suppose it wasthat long before they asked usto write anything that required spelling.You're right aboutthe extraordinary ability of children to learn. The trouble isthat our education systems are not adapted tothe spectacular rate atwhich children really learn. Our classrooms actually givethe distinct impression ofa deliberate attempt to slow down children’s learning presumably due to limitations in the teaching paradigms used in schools.

I personally think itis abominable that children arebeing labeled as having ‘learning difficulties’ just because our education system fails toaddress theirneeds atthe appropriate time. This is just another version of ‘blaming the victim’. The increasing ‘diagnosis’ of learning difficulties in children isa symptom ofthe failure of our education system which is NOT the fault of classroom teachers. There isa far deeper problem with the system inthat it dictates a teaching system thatis wrong-headed, hopelessly inefficient and absolutely inappropriate for teaching children.

Dale is right about using technology in teaching but he does not go far enough. The potential exists inthe ‘virtual-school’ concept to address many ofthe inherent problems in our ‘out-of-date’,‘old technology’ teaching paradigms so let’s bring it on. The children will adapt to it much more quickly than the teachers. Why am I NOT surprised about that?

Fair enough Chris C- I can't argue what I don't know. I was repeating what a school principal here in NSW said to me, however, when I commented on the budget of high schools, and I don't suppose, now, that they thought they'd be taken literally.
My point remains that years 7-10(coinciding with puberty) are perhaps the years where students need the most individual teaching and attention; yet these are the school years when they get the least. If it can be done, and is done well, in Primary years and in years 11 &12 why not 7-10?
'Teaching the curriculum and not the student' can obviously be detrimental to the student who misses out; and also gives us the truly bizarre notion of the 50% pass. One of the first things I have had to disabuse my apprentices of is this 'half right' idea. "No' I tell them, "this wall must stand up everyday, not just half the time; this roof has to be watertight and not just keep half the rain out".
100% knowledge of 50% of a course has gotta be better than 50% understanding of the whole course; and leaves open the possibility of further education, where the latter is more likely to cruel a students interest in that subject.
Public education needs to be championed, and add me to the numbers. But that should not blind us to critical analysis either.

A life lomg education model needs to the continuing learner from pedagogy to andragogy [adult learning]. A complementary model in practice takes one from replicative to analytic to spectulative leaning outcome over the our life cycles. This is not to say that children should not be spectulative nor does argue that replication is not relevant to adults. Rather, the cognitive domain [Bloom] needs to examined from the perspective of situation specificity and developmental capacity [Piaget].

In overviewing the centuries, the Great Divergence is significant, as leveraging rediscovered Greek philosophies Western society became to apply Episte to Techne. Else put, theory to practice.

Herein, as one moves through the education system eventually one confronts the effective application of the abstarcts on practic application; while, replication remains important [and must not be dispensed with], theory's guiding hand must provide direction. Thus, the process involves complementary entities, which the education must support. In this frame, Why and How are paramount to unstanding.

Teachers and students need to manage both Epeste and Techne. Which means not ditching one for the other. Here incremental phased learning plans needs address both and recognise the change in emphasis as we progress through the Education system.

In regards to the above what has become problematic is the poor quality of education ministers we have had over recent decades. Dawkins and Nelson come to mind in the Commonealth. Also, by selecting teachers, who have been through the barstardised system, and,with relevatively low university entrance scores; we have set ourselves up for failure. That is, the teachers are not fully literate themselves.

Thus, championing education requires we address failures in approach from Prep. to MBAs, where there has been a major softening standards. I recall that about two-three years back, as an experiment, the States's "top" NSW HSC student took a 1966 HSC paper and scored 52%. Of course, this might reflect some structural anomalies: But, we cannot dismis outcomes like this, either

A life lomg education model needs to the continuing learner from pedagogy to andragogy [adult learning]. A complementary model in practice takes one from replicative to analytic to spectulative leaning outcome over the our life cycles. This is not to say that children should not be spectulative nor does argue that replication is not relevant to adults. Rather, the cognitive domain [Bloom] needs to examined from the perspective of situation specificity and developmental capacity [Piaget].

In overviewing the centuries, the Great Divergence is significant, as leveraging rediscovered Greek philosophies Western society became to apply Episte to Techne. Else put, theory to practice.

Herein, as one moves through the education system eventually one confronts the effective application of the abstarcts on practic application; while, replication remains important [and must not be dispensed with], theory's guiding hand must provide direction. Thus, the process involves complementary entities, which the education must support. In this frame, Why and How are paramount to unstanding.

Teachers and students need to manage both Epeste and Techne. Which means not ditching one for the other. Here incremental phased learning plans needs address both and recognise the change in emphasis as we progress through the Education system.

In regards to the above what has become problematic is the poor quality of education ministers we have had over recent decades. Dawkins and Nelson come to mind in the Commonealth. Also, by selecting teachers, who have been through the barstardised system, and,with relevatively low university entrance scores; we have set ourselves up for failure. That is, the teachers are not fully literate themselves.

Thus, championing education requires we address failures in approach from Prep. to MBAs, where there has been a major softening standards. I recall that about two-three years back, as an experiment, the States's "top" NSW HSC student took a 1966 HSC paper and scored 52%. Of course, this might reflect some structural anomalies: But, we cannot dismis outcomes like this, either.

I thought maybe you had realized the harm you had done to a generation of Australians, and decided to lie low....no such luck.
You and the late Garth Boomer wrote a toxic little book in the 70s, called ‘the Spitting Image, which was an assault on parents’ and their children’s apirations for real literacy and numeracy, your book replete with Marxist claptrap about schools as 'sites of political struggle'....children not being expected to 'jump through middle class hoops'..... 'rebellious illiteracy....and much more.
You politicised education, and called for comprehensive teaching of English grammar to be abolished in Australia....before long it was.
You made names for yourselves at the expense of the life chances of a generation of children, who reached Year 10, and found that, despite previous glowing reports, they did not have the fundamental knowledge to be able to study higher maths, physics and chemistry to Year 12, and further.
Many private tutors have had to clean up your mess....I was one of them.
Australia is now very short of science students due to you, Boomer and others on the Left.
Your Shakespeare/pop lyrics analogy betrays your shallowness.
Shakespeare has much to teach about everything , and always will...acknowledged by most cultures....pop has very little.
Real literacy and the study of Shakespeare enriches the study of everything , technology included....it never precludes it.
In your sneering ageist remarks.....’these oldies’….’nostalgics’ you merely out yourself as a sad eternal teenager.
You are the same age as Howard....maybe older....but pretend otherwise to look hip....doesn’t work....he's infinitely more with it than you.
Your whole piece proves nothing but your own culpability...you’re still at it.....damaging Australia.
You probably see your chance at getting a grip on the education of young Australians again, with the rise of Rudd, but hopefully Australians will come to their senses and reject both of you.
It’s you who lives in the past…go back to ‘flower power and feminism’.
Your business is show business, and education and Australia can’t afford any more damage from your subversive old hat ‘ideas’.

Oliver, the fact that top students scored only 52% on an exam paper which was set 30-40 years earlier does not indicate a drop in standards.
That you should offer this in demonstration that our standards are slipping strikes me that something may have been very lacking in the very education that led you to this conclusion. Sorry, but your pedantic quotes and references irked me.
I have faint memories of Uni exams that I did some 40-50 years ago, and in which I often scored distinctions and high distinctions. I would certainly fail them miserably today. This does not mean that I am less smart, less wise, less educated.

Waterboy, students with specific learning disabilities or the learning disabled can only be defined as such by psychological testing by qualified Psychologists. It is a travisty to try and make a child conform with normal classroom functioning when they do not have the ability to do so. The human brain keeps developing until a person is around 25, its a possible argument for beginning teaching young people later than we currently do.

Ant,it seems we're pretty much in agreement apart from one small quirk of language.

You said "It is a travisty [sic] to try and make a child conform to normal classroom functioning.."

Hallelujah to that!
Thenormal classroom environment is certainly a travesty of education and justice.Itis no coincidence that corporal punishment waspart of the earliest classroom environment to 'motivate' children to attend tothe pedagogue inorder to learn.

Also ".. its [sic] a possible argument for beginning teaching young people later than we currently do."

Assuming you mean thatwe should defer subjecting children tothe traditional school environment then I entirely approve of this. It's plain common sense that 5 year old children don't belong in a classroom. Their ability to learn atthis age far outstrips the ability of the average teacher to respond to them individually, let alone en-masse and while they certainly need social interaction with peers it is sheer lunacy to immerse them totally in a social environment consisting almost entirely of their age-peers.


Children learn when they are motivated and the normal functioning of school serves to de-motivate most children and slow down the learning process, hence the retarded social and intellectual status of so many late teens in our society. The only strategy schools ever had for motivating children, the stick, has, thankfully, long since been banned, leaving schools with no strategy at all to motivate children and the fundamental flaw in institutional education is finally exposed. It is a very poor way to 'educate' children.

Virtual schools will provide the flexibility and the resources children need for learning at the rate that best suits them. They will not be constrained by the classroom rigours which are so counterproductive to real learning. The virtual school will suit children very well,allowing them to use their naturally powerful inner motivation to drive rapid learning. Given the opportunity,I believe children will take themselves off to v-school ata very early age and will have conquered most of the hard stuff long before they ever see a traditional classroom. The school of the future is available now and it looks FANTASTIC!

Ant, you said

“I know your [sic] right in relation to spelling being seen as a sign of intelligence by some people; but as indicated in my last post people can be very talented but have a specific learning disability in say spelling.”

Let’s test your theory.

What do you make of Oliver? Is he a dyslexic genius or a semi-literate dilettante? On the basis of his contributions to OLO would you employ him to teach history in your school?

Those who can do, do
Those who cannot do, teach.
Those who cannot do nor teach, teach others how to teach.
Garth Boomer and Dale Spender belong to this class of educationists.

It's about time we get real in education. Leave out the fancy talk and froth coming from theoretical educationists and make sure that real learning is taking place.

"This does not mean that I am less smart, less wise, less educated." - Fencepost

In one sense it does: The typical extinction curve of knowledge gained is 80% over five years. Of course, that applies to me too.

Greenfield posits that young people have an adpative intelligence; whereas, old people have a crystaline intelligence. Translation: The former are flexible but not knowledgeable: The latter knowledgeable and inflexible.

Achieving high grades can simply reflect "smarts" with regard to preparation, such as, reviewing old papers to produce template base answers and using primers. Receiving low grades in examination settings can be a results of examination anxiety.

An eighteen year old, sitting a 1966 paper in c.2004, would have structural problems. I acknowledge that matter. For example, I can parse a sentence and take grammically correct dictation. If you are ten years older than, me, perhaps, you, unlike me, are fluent in Latin?

Logic in philosophy maintains argument from authority to be a fallacy [Popkin et al.]. The kernel point here really is that "facts" are not correct or incorrect, because an authotity states it so. Nonetheless, citation research, scholarly literature and even Forum debate, is common practice.

ant,

Good comments.

1. Pych tests are important. For example, an under performer with high verbal intelligence might be a poor reader owing to a specific problem with short term memory affecting reading abilities. Relatedly, reading [used for learnining] is a cultural aboration not a biological function, having no "direct" underlying genetic cause. Rather, a product of several functions.

2. True. The brain matures c. 25 years. Representational thought commences around twelve years [Piaget]. In the teen years, while there is intellectual progression, there is also a level of emotional regression. A person in their early twenties might have an adpative, open and flexible mind, bit, the person can lack the maturity to make major life choices such as marriage.

[aside; Our immune system matures in our forties. Relatedly, Richard Dawkins has suggeste older people might all be a genetically superior to the mean for the total population, because this group has not already died from inhertiable factors that reduce survivability.

Oliver, we could have a lot of fun arguing these points. But to state that the typical curve of decline in knowledge is 80% in each subsequent 5 years is an appeal to the very authority that you condemn. I am now 12 sets of 5 years past my privilege of education at a junior tech school, with 12 times 80% loss compounded I ought retain a trivial fraction of the "knowledge" that I acquired. Of course I am not typical. But, I imagine, no one else is typical either.
When did I learn to plane a piece of wood square, why in 1944, and I still can - 12 times the 80% loss I am supposed to lose each 5 years? Stop quoting the authorities and start to think, for goodness sake!
Said fencepost provocatively ;-)

waterboy,

Cemy litter eight lysdexic, acutually. :-( OOPS, :-)

[The children are safe. While I have taught in other disciplines at universities in five countries; I have not taught secondary school History anywhere.]

A reported account:

When Albert Einstein first moved to the US, some colleagues took him for a ride on a San Franscico trolley-bus...

"Fares, please..." Fares please," was the conductor's summon. Reaching Dear Albert, the conductor paused, and, he paused some more... [tick, tick, tick]

Confused with the new currency and the extent of the tariff; and, of course, the general behavioral and financial relativities of trolley-bus trekking; well, he was very slow. Eventually, Einstein, held out his hand, now, full of coins, coaxing; "please, take what you need".

From within the same referential frame as Einstein, the conductor abruptly retorted:

"What is the matter with you? Stupid or something? Can't you add?"

:-)*c2

The problem with the education system is that it is not flexible and those in authority have set as a standard or level that they dictate children should know, or be at, in different subjects and areas at any given age. If your child doesn't fit, they are branded. It is age discrimination.

This method of grading our children into School Years doesn't take into consideration that every child is different even if they are a similar age. It doesn't allow for children to progress in a foward fashion in subjects and areas in which they do well and it doesn't allow students to work at a slower pace or level in difficult subject areas so as to improve in the subjects with which they struggle.

Everybody has to be the same at work at a similar level if they are a similar age and that age has been set by somebody in the Department of Education.

Why are children not allowed to progress through Education at a pace and level that is benefitial to them in the different subject areas?

Jolanda
Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our Children deserve better.

Jolanda,

I have had kids in various education systems for nearly 20 years now and over time we've seen that parents are increasingly being excluded from their childrens education.
We now get 5 mins twice a year to catch a glimpse of assignments and test the kids have submitted and this is always long after the event so it's of little or no use as part of the educational process. They just don't want us 'interfering' in our own childrens education, in spite of the rhetoric to the contrary.
As you have noticed, their bureaucratic structures and processes are designed to protect teachers, not to optimise the education of children.
Unfortunately the vast majority of todays senior teachers and education 'theorists' were chosen for their academic mediocrity and haven't the intellectual clout to deal with modestly intelligent children let alone gifted ones. Their idea of a top student is a compliant one that does what he/she is told and doesnt make waves. Their marking systems clearly reward compliance for more highly than intellectual curiosity.
You are their worst nighmare because you are obviously anything but meekly compliant and no doubt you are far and away their intellectual superior. You also threaten to expose their blundering mediocrity.
Good on you! Dont hold your breath waiting for anyone from the department to 'throw you a bone'. They have immense political power and they are not afraid to use it

Jolanda,

Having writing 25 curricula in three countries,I would posit that there does need to be a kernel to syllabi, especially up until year tweleve or AQF Certificate IV and even first year university 101 subjects. Competencies need be demonstrated in variety situations, as defined by the leaning outcomes assessed. That said, one need to manage the progressive process of moving the leaners from childhood learning [pedagogy] and adult learning [andragogy]. Howevr, one also needs how the learner moves through the system.

Herein, where the curricula can remain somewhat constant, streaming
students into tiers based on individual ability need not be. Collaboration between the Educator, parent and learner are required, here. A case of round pegs in round holes. Alternatively, one has thirty odd students in one room with the teacher delivering lessons to the middle of the class. The poorer students stuggle and the better students are unchallenged.

Education is a political process. Not surprisingly, then, university deans, TAFE directors and school principals have a wide streak of the Politican running them. The last thing these folk want is a Ministerial or controversy. Hence, non-compliant teachers having concerns about standards are marginalised. What we a left with is a bland education system, which side steps students' special needs and quashes educational innovation. Sure, the parent will point the nicely student-assignment decorated classroom as evidence of a good teacher; but, there are larger systemic matters, which are more significant

Does anyone care that just under one third of independent schools charge fees in excess of the totals of all government spending both state and federal. These same schools are receiving increased funding annually from the Howard Government whilst increasing their own fees. Surely that if those wishing an exclusive education are willing to get this by paying higher and higher fees there should be no call on funds from any level of government. It's the privatisation of Australia's education that is demolishing our common wealth.

thinks4self (but not very well)

There is one good reason why parents are prepared to put their own money into their children's education. The amount the government spends per child is pathetic and education is important. Its not just wealthy people who send their kids to private schools so why shouldnt the government contribute as much for a child at a private school as they do for a child in a state school. The logic behind your insane post is that parents should be punished for trying to give their children's school more resources.
I agree that the level of funding to state schools is disgusting but there is no logical reason why private schools should be denied funding at the same level per child as a state school unless they are failing to comply with DOE standards. There IS a Marxist view to that effect but one wouldnt call that logical.

thinks4self,

The government ultimately funds the Australian student per capita. In this sense,the funding is for the student, not the school. Perhaps, there is an argument that some free private places be set aside for promising limited means students: I thing some Catholic (CEO) schools migh already do this?

Oz has adopted more the British "old school tie" tradition over the
American, what university did you go to? Mediocre students with a Kings or Tara pedigree will be fast tracked by employers more so than the dux of Bidwell [poor area in Sydney. In the UK, Eton is preparation for Oxford or Cambridge. It is a matter of champion caste over education. In the US, 15% of applicants to Harvard are accepted. An average applicant would not achieve the minimum standards [circa 90th percentile] to enter the Business faculty of UTS. [of course, poor performers would not even try for Harvard].

To be eligible for a Rhodes Scholarship one needs a good credit average and to be reasonable sports player. A basic good all rounder, not acadenically brilliant,as is often thought. Mintors in private schools know this sort of thg; in a public school Rhodes Scholarships [at university] are less tangible.

In sum, with private schools, parents are buying entry into a class and opportunity, perhaps, more so than a good education.

Oliver,

Even the 'old school tie' doesnt count for much any more. The only obvious advantages (some) private schools have over state schools is infrastructure, discipline and some special programs.. more expensive excursions etc.
We've come across about 4 really exceptional teachers in the process of educating our children and ALL 4 were teaching in state schools. By and large, private school teachers are of a more even standard but not particularly higher than the state schools we have experienced.
I think the point of Dale Spender's article was that technology is going to bring about a paradigm shift in education and that this is starting to happen. Private schools are really taking the lead in this regard. Some have even built their programs around the assumption that all students have notebooks and access to internet. This is the beginning but imho the real change comes with the virtual school concept which is starting to occur in the USA... and possibly elsewhere. I think virtual schools will be able to offer personalised programs and degrees of flexibilty that are quite impossible in the conventional, 19th Century approach of our present state school systems. Obviously they dont offer infrastructure like science labs, swimming pools and sports fields and those things are valuable.
Sounds to me like you value education... what do you think of virtual schools?

Sadly like most proponents of the private school funding rort Waterboy, because of an not surprising common ignorance of the funding system or a bias towards private schools, misses the point that the $370 million government funding to the high fee paying independent schools raised their average resource level to 62% above the average resource level of government schools. Why should my taxes go to enhancing a private system to a point where it can charge still higher fees as an exclusivity marketing tool over the public system and yet still be non accountable to the public as to use of funds, be exclusive as to enrolments and increase fees to customers at will? Where is the common good to Australia when as even Waterboy himself states funding to the public is so inadequate?

The real degradation of education is slow and almost imperceptible
The net affect of Howard’s private enhancement policy is a growing differentiation between those govt and non govt schools that serve the families on high incomes and those who are not well off

Now public schools get 31% of Fed funds where as private get 69% a total reversal since the 1980’s The funding is skewed toward those least in need.

"Even the 'old school tie' doesnt count for much any more." - waterboy

I have been offshore for ten years and not in a good position to dispute what you say. That said, in the 70s-90s, going to a private school was a real plus, even if the academic standards were below top public schools like North Sydney Boys. When I worked with a Bank, I noted several capable, but not particularly outstanding Kings' students promoted faster than equally capable age peers. Correspondingly, these ex- private school students didn't start their first rung in the mail room or the voucher department, like many others.

In Hong Kong, my neigher is a Lawyer. He is in the process of enrolling his son in Eton. He is a pragmatic guy. I don't see him doing this, without him seeing a benefit.

Virtual school programmes, like CBT [Computer Based Learning,to work, have to be well designed. Perhaps, like AI it has potential, but,technically, we might not be there yet. Interaction, assessment and delivery should not be impeded by a [virtual] programme, which might need to be more inclined to stay on the rails of its environment. At this time, I see vitual ed. delivery best managed, as a complementary aspect to overall education.

On the other hand, I have an other friend very happy with her online course taken from Cornell University. She is mature aged and has a garden variety Stanford Masters, already. It suits her life style.

thinks4self

You conveniently neglect to mention government funding of state schools through state government (ultimately from commonwealth govt).

Total govt funding for state school students is about $11900/student
Total govt funding for private school students is about $8400/student

I assume a small part of education funding goes to the respective state education bureaucracies and not directly to schools so I suppose you could argue that the $11900 slightly overstates the amount actually reaching the student in the state sector.

Govt funding per student is essentially similar for state and private students,slightly higher for state school students. That seems fair to me.
Private schools do, or at least some of them do,have very good facilities. You say that is unfair and that just sounds like sour grapes to me. Parents who send their children to private schools(and at the risk of repeating myself they are NOT just the wealthy people)do so precisely because their is a simple mechanism for contributing financially to give the school extra resources.
The implicit logic behind your argument is that parents should be discouraged or even prohibited from contributing to their childrens education and you have not provided even the simplest of justifications for this proposition.
Another of your false assumptions is that people who send their children to private schools are wealthy. Either you are ill-informed on the subject or just plain deceitful. Many families make great sacrifices to send their children to private schools BECAUSE they believe in the importance and value of education and they dont have confidence in the state school system. The net result of their willingness to send their children to private schools is that the govt saves money, the total community spend on education is increased and teachers are not faced with a monopoly employer(state education department)and have far more career choices than they would otherwise. That is good for society which ever way you look at it.

Howard, for all his faults, is actually facilitating a mechanism that is significantly increasing total community spending on education.

Now... convince me that your whinging is not just sour grapes!

Waterboy I cannot believe that there are still people in Australia that think like you. This is the typical pseudo conservative claptrap that allows governments like the one we have now to run down Australia's once great public education system the system that defined our country and will make us less competitive with the rest of the world in the future. It's the kind of logic that has allowed this government to squander the riches generated by a once in a lifetime resources boom and leave us as a nation with little prospect of being competitive when the boom ends. Not one cent of public money should be spent on a private system until every public school has the resources that private schools use as marketing tools. We have the cash to do it if our politicians had the will.

And while I'm at it these "Blue Receivers" like Waterboy, when attempting to defend the private rip-off of our education system just will not admit that the vast majority of families cannot afford to send their children to private schools even if they believed in the exclusivity and nation dividing nature of the systems. The Americans have 90% of kids in the public system and real private schools are independent of government control and funding. Other countries cannot believe the sheer waste of duplicating education systems using public money.
The higher the income the more likely the child is to attend private school and the private schools use their overly generous government subsidies to position themselves in the market for the students from more socio economically privileged families rather than reduce their fees and open their halls to all comers.
The immoral nature of a system that takes government money yet restricts the vast majority of the population from partaking of the fruit, is conveniently omitted by the likes of the Waterboys of the world.
The use of terms like “ill informed”,” conveniently neglect” and “sour grapes” highlight a plethora of pathetically unconvincing arguments, just listen to our equally unconvincing politicians. The Waterboys of the world need exposing for what they are, the vanguard of the me, myself and I brave new world of 21st century Australia

Thinks4self,

ABout one third of Australians send their children to private schools and you are trying to tell us that they are all remarkably wealthy and privileged. Would that this country was so fortunate to have so much wealth at its disposal. Your deceitful use of statistics and eristic manner of debate, so typical of the devout ideologue, is utterly unconvincing. It is simple logic and a sound ethical principle that the government should contribute equally to the education of each and every child in this country. You have yet to produce any convincing counter to this argument. Furthermore,if a parent elects to make a further contribution to their child's education by making donations or paying fees that hardly seems immoral.
I have yet to see the government school that refused to accept donations of money, labour or kind to enhance their facilities by building a hall, a swimming pool or whatever. By your logic government schools should not accept such patronage. I have been heavily involved in the P&C movement, having chaired the P&C at two different state schools and been involved in a number of major infrastructure projects funded by the P&C. The idea that parents should be prohibited from such enterprises is patently absurd.
If you can think 4 yourself you might try to work through the full implications of your absurd ideology

Greed is alive and good in private school land
Ever heard of needs based funding or doesn't that enter into the them and us philosophy of the likes of Waterboy as for "deceitful use of statistics and eristic manner of debate, so typical of the devout ideologue" You can't handle the truth.

Thinks4self,

As long you keep making wild assumptions like:

'All people who send their children to private schools are wealthy, privileged and greedy.',
and;
'Everyone who disagrees with me must send their children to a private school... and are therefore wealthy, privileged and greedy.'

your arguments will convince no-one.

As for 'needs based funding'... no-one will have any argument against the government providing additional funding to children with genuine learning difficulties or whose physical circumstances lead to a need for special resources to facilitate their education. The vast majority of students, private or public, do not have 'special' needs.
Children do not automatically have special needs just because they attend a state school. It is particularly silly to attempt to apply the needs based argument to all state schools and their students. State schools do not have a monopoly on 'special needs' children... many of them attend private schools.

If you had been reading my posts more carefully you might have noticed that I dont believe private schools offer better education and my children attended state schools. You only have to read the HSC results each year to see that public school students achieve excellent results and that it is the 'selective' schools (private and public) that APPEAR to perform better than average. Private education merely offers educational choices that the state system cannot or will not provide.

In order to be seen to be just a government MUST start from a position of equal treatment for all then adjust this according to GENUINE needs. Parents, however, have different ethical obligations and MUST act as protectors and champions for their own children. So it makes perfectly good sense for the government to contribute to every child's education and for parents to contribute to their own child's education over and above the goverment's contribution.

The reason I say that your argument is ideological is that it is essentially an argument based on an imputed class system (that does not really exist anyway) and is not actually rational or ethical in any sense.

I don't have time just now but Waterboy I will attempt to enlighten you over the next few days you are just so typical of the pro private lobby ideologically driven and ignorant of the real facts. In the mean time just read over what you have said in you posts over the last few weeks then go and research the federal governments SES model of private school funding and Dr. Kemp's demolition of the New Schools Policy as soon as Howard was elected and also read all you can about the concept of common wealth. You may, unless totally indoctrinated, just come to see the inequity of the system and how it is rapidly breaking down the society we have come to cherish

Exposing Federal Government Schools Funding Pt. 1(or How the Howard Government is privatising our education system along with everything else)

Waterboy look and learn.
Most of the ability of the Howard government to overindulge private schools stems from the dysfunction of federal Stare financial arrangements

In no other country does the provision of public funding for non -government schools dominate the agenda of a national government

Howard government spending on non - government schools is growing at the rate of three times that of government schools

The increased public responsibility passed on to government schools is not matched by federal government funding which is flowing 3 to 1 to the private schools. Look at the debates on values, standards etc all brokered by the Howard Govt. and targeted at only government schools

Enough for the time being Waterboy dwell on this for a while. It is all fact.(to be continued )

For anyone who is really interested in the truth!

Read this media release from the Catholic Church in NSW
http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/Archbishop/Addresses/2004229_688.shtml
or this from the Catholic Church in Victoria
http://web.ceo.melb.catholic.edu.au/uploads/news/election/facts.pdf

They clearly expose the deceit in t4s's misrepresentation (by careful selection of statistics) of the facts and they are obviously NOT conservative propaganda as t4s has suggested.

In 2004 Catholic schools in NSW received, on average, $5,506 per student in total government funding. In the same year NSW government schools received $7,832 per student. In Victoria the situation was even worse for the Catholic Schools. The majority of govt funding to Catholic Schools comes from the Commonwealth Govt. These are NOT wealthy schools. Victorian Catholic schools have LESS money to spend per student than government schools. And thinks4self would take half their income away from them.

This whole debate is a bit pointless since the Labor Party is now committed to maintaining the current arrangements at least for their first term of government. They can see the difficulty in disrupting the whole education system just on an ideological whim and circumstances will not be any different at the end of their first term. Political reality will dictate that they do no more than fiddle around the edges of school funding.

T4s's proposal to shut down private schools for all but the extremely wealthy is a dead duck. NO party could ever take away school funding and hope to stay in power for long. Australians do not want an American style system where the leaders of the country (business and political) come almost exclusively from a very few, extremely privileged schools, courtesy of funding arrangements that roughly match t4s's proposal

Waterboy am I reading correctly

You're quoting a Catholic Church media release on school funding as being the truth. I direct you to some great reading, the story of Rip Van Winkle in your case it could almost be autobiographical.
Next thing you’ll be saying any politician that attempts to cut funding to private schools will not go to heaven

t4s

Well... you've just managed to alienate nearly half of Australia's population.

BUT we'll keep trying!

This information comes from the Productivity Commission. You probably dont believe them either so this is just for those people who really CAN think for themselves.

• There were 3.4 million full time equivalent school students enrolled in August 2005 in 9623 schools. Of these, 70.9 per cent of primary students and 62.1 per cent of secondary students were educated in government schools.
• Australian, State and Territory governments spent $30.8 billion on school education in 2004 05, of which $24.2 billion (78.5 per cent) was spent on government schools

from http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/reports/rogs/2007/factsheet01.rtf

Oddly enough, the Productivity Commission data is pretty consistent with what the Catholic Church and Christian Schools Association are saying!

It simply does not make sense to look exclusively at direct Commonwealth Govt funding in this debate. That is only a small part of the story and to pursue your line of argument without reference to total goverment funding is most disingenuous of you.

It’s sad that this schools funding debate usually incorporates a lot of religious zealotry which clouds logic but I’ll keep trying. Waterboy keeps harping back to the mischievous total funding argument. This is what pro the private lobby rely on and on it alone. The real picture is very different.
The growing reliance by non-government schools (NGS) on public funding has not been matched by these NGS taking on the responsibility that attaches to public funding in public schools. NGS are exclusive and in most cases secular – their marketing tools.
The is no public regulating of funds to NGS, no regulations that prevent NGS opening more schools or raising fees at the same time as getting more and more public funds.
The provision of accurate and transparent accountability imposed on public schools is not applied to NGS even though they are getting increased funding (Audit reports from both NSW and Vic)
There is little real accountability for the use of public funds in NGS where as funds allocated to special areas in public schools such as low socio programs and aboriginal education are bound up in red tape. NSG can keep the quantum of private funding from the tax paying public.
Catholic parents, big recipients of public largesse don’t even know how much the public is paying for their secular schools. A survey done by the Sun Herald 2001 found that 2/3 of catholic parents thought that parents provided most of the funding for their primary schools where as they actually provide less than 15%. The rest comes from government.
Waterboy the school funding debate is being manipulated by ideology and very powerful political and religious lobbyists who are getting huge and increasing amounts diverted away from what could be a truly a world best education system such as we had before the private rorts started. I hope you are just misguided and not one of them.

Before the next election we must all understand that Howard's schools funding policy has moved away from the concept of social justice. He has based his schools funding regimes on three evils that are breaking up our society

1. Maldistribution of educational assess and resources so we have to return to needs based funding.

2. Misrecognition of values. His government values exclusion and privilege so we must return to policies of inclusion and withdraw public support for exclusion.

3. Misrepresentation of private education as having some intrinsic value. We must return to a system that values public education and democratic educational leadership above all others so that we can have all children participate in the benefits of being a clever country.

thinks4self

1. Maldistribution of educational assess and resources so we have to return to needs based funding.

You have yet to construct any sort of argument to support your 'needs based funding' point. This is just an ideological point and not a rational one. I assume you will persist with your silly argument that all private school parents are wealthy and privileged. You have not actually proved that point yet either.

2. Misrecognition of values. His government values exclusion and privilege so we must return to policies of inclusion and withdraw public support for exclusion.

State schools are not selective? ? ?Sydney High? ? ?North Sydney High? ? ?James Ruse? ? ? ? Conservatorium High? ? ? ?And of course you can easily choose to send your child to Hurstville school if you live in Collaroy.... if you want to and can afford the travel.Geographical restrictions are probably even more insidious than financial restrictions. Private schools,particularly boarding schools like Kings,pose no geographical exclusions whatsoever. Anyone from anywhere can put their boys into Kings.

3. Misrepresentation of private education as having some intrinsic value. We must return to a system that values public education and democratic educational leadership above all others so that we can have all children participate in the benefits of being a clever country.

You may hold that view if you choose but obviously not everyone feels 'compelled' to share your view as you suggest they ought.You are simply blustering in a vain attempt to impose your ideas on others.Since when did the education department have 'democratically elected' leadership?Actually the NGSs have far more deomcratic processes for appointing school leaders.

I,for one,am not saying that private education has any intrinsic value over and above public education.I am simply saying that it has a right to exist and that while goverment is funding education it should contribute equally to every child in the country.

When are you going to desist from your ideological brabbling and present some well-constructed arguments?You may be surprised,but I would be very glad to hear a decent argument for your case.

Just a couple of words to our gullible or Machiavellian Waterboy

Under J.H. fed public school funding has fallen behind OECD averages
Among 30 OECD countries we rank 18th in public spending but 3rd in funding to private education

The proportion of Ed funding going to public schools has fallen to 35% despite the fact that they educate 70% of kids. Forward estimates say 32% by 2010

This year’s Howard budget gave $1.7 billion to 30% of kids in private schools yet only $330 million to 70% of kids in public schools.

Failure to increase funding to public schools puts increased pressure on parents least able to raise the shortfall needed to provide a decent education for their kids

Waterboy poor families don’t send their kids to private schools

Hey Waterboy now even the Sydney Daily Telegraph
has started highlighting the politically driven funding
of private education by Howard. When this right wing rag exposes Howard's private bias in school funding even the likes of you should cringe with embarrassment

To our blinkered Waterboy

Aimed at accelerating the flow of students from public schools to private schools, between 2005 and 2008 the Howard Government will hand approximately 75% of federal government recurrent funding to private schools which enrol 32% of students

The February 2007 Productivity Commission Report on Government Services reported that for every $1051 spent on students in public schools, the Howard Government chooses to provide $4515 for every student enrolled in a private school. That is 4.3 times as much.

Since the Howard Government was elected, the total share of Federal funding to public schools has declined. (In 1996 public schools received 42% of total school funding. It decreased to 35% in 2006. If this decline is allowed to continue, public schools will only receive 31% of federal schools funding by 2012). The Howard government has no constitutional role to fund one type of educational system.

If public school funding was maintained at even the unacceptable 1996 levels, Australian public schools would be receiving around $1billion more per year than they do now.

With respect to additional schools money, both recurrent and capital, in the financial year 2007/08 the increases translate into $381 per private school student in comparison to $80 per public school student. To close this gap would require $677 million.

The Federal Government's own Schools Resource Taskforce (SRT), established in 2001 by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), has calculated that public schools require an additional $2.9 billion in recurrent funding to ensure that the National Schools Resource Standard necessary to achieve the National Goals of Schooling. Indeed, the $2.9 billion dollars grossly underestimates the true level of funding required as the SRT has not yet calculated costs associated with capital, or specific costs associated with special education or with assuring quality teaching for all students.

All politically inspired, ideologically driven and totally inequitable in a rapidly diverging society .