Thanks Linda Graham - a good summary. The ideology of parental 'choice' has always been a transparent sham. Only those with the income or capacity to borrow to pay school fees have a choice. The great majority of the rest of us have no 'choice' but to send our kids to the increasingly under-funded state schools.

Some of us actually see the benefit to the child and to the nation of a broad social mix in a person's schooling. These parents exercise real choice but are increasingly challenged to keep the faith in the face of constant Government denigration of state school teachers and failure to provide adequate resources for the majority system.

Under the Howard regime, vast amounts of taxpayers' funds have been transferred from the state systems to the private sector, and 'choice' has been the camouflage for this unfair strategy. A number of these schools are hard-pressed to find ways of spending their windfall. Any decent self-respecting citizen with children in wealthy private schools would be honour bound to advocate the cessation of the Government's generosity to the wealthy and its mean-spirited approach to state schools.

Moreover, they would pressure the Howard Government to get out of the game of funding minority parental 'choice' on the grounds that good education is a public benefit and ultimately a national asset. Linda Graham is right to assert that - to the extent that governments can intervene - all Australian schools should be equally good. Imagine that!

An excellent article. It is deeply disgraceful that something as important as the education of a nation's children is not seen as the single most important expenditure by a government.
That we actually accept such a notion as private schooling affordable only to some and that these are seen as a better choice than public schooling sits very uncomfortable with the idea that every child deserves an equal chance.

A free and open market is one thing, but whether education should be seen as just another commodity is another.

The Netherlands, like the Nordic countries, regard education as a right equal for all children. The elite, aristocrats, wealthy, unemployed and average joe-blows send their children to the same schools. International benchmarks speak for themselves.

Australian parents will always look for ways to get their children out of the public school system, while that system fails their children.
Parents want a curriculum that provides a very solid base of fundamental knowledge in literacy, numeracy, history, geography etc, so that children’s options are all open for years 11 and 12 and university.

They don’t want ideological conditioning from Left wing teachers designed to equip children for social activism…if their children want to be social activists, they can make that decision for themselves, when they have acquired the education and experience in life to decide.
The Left always seeks to blame such ills as drug dependence, welfare dependency, low self esteem, on the wicked conservatives.
The opposite is the truth.
Over the last thirty years , the Left has socially engineered this society into one in which women have been encouraged to place their own wants before their children’s needs.
The mother who elects to stay at home and raise her own children, has been derided ( as we’ve seen this week from Rudd), and relegated to the status of second class citizen…not by the government, but by Left wing women and feminist men.
Children find themselves in some no man’s land between two families when their parents decide to do their own thing, divorce at the drop of a hat, and start new families....a recipe for lifelong insecurity, low self-esteem and despair…the legacy of Left wing social engineering....not conservative government…they are the ones who just have to pick up the pieces.
The genie will never go back in the bottle.
All the Left can think of is money ...they are the problem.....not the money.
Children in Norway and other countries gain a much more comprehensive knowledge of our language , English, than children do here… that’s the legacy of the Left…and it’s criminal.

Real nonsense!

real says: “Parents want a curriculum that provides a very solid base of fundamental knowledge in literacy, numeracy, history, geography etc, so that children’s options are all open for years 11 and 12 and university.” Cliche, cliche. Is that why the vast majority of parents send their children to state schools?

real says: “Over the last thirty years , the Left has socially engineered this society into one in which women have been encouraged to place their own wants before their children’s needs.” What sort of Left government has ruled in Australia for the past eleven years? How did the Left manage this engineering?

real says: “The mother who elects to stay at home and raise her own children, has been derided (as we’ve seen this week from Rudd [sic]), and relegated to the status of second class citizen…not by the government, but by Left wing women and feminist men.” Such power to relegate! But compare: real’s quote immediately above. Apparently Australian women can be relegated to second class stay-at-home citizens AND simultaneously taught to place their own wants before their children’s wants. How do they manage both?

real says: “All the Left can think of is money ...they are the problem.....not the money.” I'm not kidding; it’s real - that’s what he said!

real says: “Children in Norway and other countries gain a much more comprehensive knowledge of our language , English, than children do here… that’s the legacy of the Left…and it’s criminal.” Last time my family was in Norway (a recent visit to Oslo and Stavangar in 2006) many people had no English language skills at all. Conversations were strictly limited in many cases.

real says: the Left are somehow responsible for high divorce rates. Is he sure it’s not the learning of the English language that causes it? The number of divorces in Norway has increased fourfold since the beginning of the 1960s. www.ssb.no/ekteskap_en/arkiv/art-2004-09-02-01-en.html

“Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock.” www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

Told you they shouldn’t teach English at school.

Linda and FrankGol, do you really believe equality of outcomes can be legislated into existence?
Two points- schools are happy to teach and achieve 'half understanding' in their students(50% passes) and then argue themselves blue in the face about how good they are. Why does any education system process their clientele through the system blithely ignoring their failure to educate the child in front of them? And don't tell me its wrong to expect a child to demonstrate learning and competence through examination and demonstration.
-here in NSW the Dept. of Commerce rips who knows how many hundreds of millions out of the Dept. of Education budget by artificially inflating prices for school maintenance projects. ie a $100,000 job costs the DoE $160,000 after Commerce has whacked on its fees.
My point is that the education system is its own worst enemy and articles like Linda's' sound great but are meaningless in reality.

Interesting article but I am concerned here with the issues, and there IS much in what Donnelly states

Over the years I have worked with great teachers and brilliant principals, but they have been in a minority. Far too many were, full of themselves, there only for the power trips over kids, the abuse of the system...

I have had principals whom I would love formally investigated, but the Department protects errant principals while allowing teachers to drown. Even the Union has made an agreement which sabotages teachers .

But a few salient facts

- there have been many schools over the years that abused state and federal grants for areas unrealted to the grants
- there are schools that refuse to fly the flag or to allow schools ANZAC ceremonies, blaming ethnic kids
- there are teachers who bag Rotary and other great organisations
- there are principals who cover for mates while they are away, even overseas but who make life hell for a teacher they do not like who is on sick leave
- I know of one school where disabled kids are either left in rooms or corridoors and that is all the attention they get
- I recall a truly great first year out once who truly impressed me with his dedication and his caring; that bloke, however, offended the powers that be due to his professionalism and they bullied him until he left teaching, and Australia behind - a great loss to education
- I have been to staff meetings where staff were refused the right to speak on the school's triennial reviews, where they are not allowed to communicate with the department on a range of things
- I know of principals who do not allow staff time release for PDs

And there is so much more

But the worst in many ways is that there are MANY schools in Victoria where kids only need to get 20% to pass. Is this not dumbing down?

Let's not get on political horses but look at what IS wrong and bloody well fix it!

palimpsest asks: "Linda and FrankGol, do you really believe equality of outcomes can be legislated into existence?"

My answer: No, and I've never said so. If you mean equality of outcomes for each individual, that is an impossibility .

However, we can and should aspire to EQUALITY OF OUTCOMES for groups of people (eg girls and boys, English-speaking and non-English-speaking, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, children from low-income families etc). To have anything other than that as an aim is to have an unjustifiably discriminatory education system.

Governments can certainly legislate for a pre-requisite EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY which entails at least three other concepts:
EQUALITY OF ACCESS to a comprehensive high quality curriculum,
EQUALITY OF PROVISION of resources, and
EQUALITY OF PARTICIPATION rates and RETENTION rates for all groups of students.

A government that consciously sets out to give one group of kids an advantage over another in education is immoral and undemocratic. There can be no other ethically responsible AIM in education than EQUALITY OF OUTCOMES for identifiable groups of
students. That's why I oppose the Howard government's discriminatory policies that favour students from high-income families.

The Howard notion of 'choice' in education is a sham when only a minoirty have the wherewithall and the government support to exercise a dinkum choice.

Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 1:07:15 PM

Very well put. I totally agree.

Frankgol, totally agree with your discussion points re basis of inequality in the the system and its causes. My observation is that state high schools are mirrors of the increasing gheottisation that is occuring in Australian cities. If you look at almost every economic indicator including income, educational level of parents, social capital-the inner and mid suburbs are increasingly concentrations of high achievement, job opportunities, educational opportunity. The outer suburbs are increasinly made up of families with low incomes,high unemployment, social issues. Any discussion of why high schools are seen as underperforming must include analysis of this process.

FrankGol and Pdev, hear, hear.

It is becoming unbelievably tiresome to suffer through the rants of 'left wing conspiracy' whenever issues of equality of opportunity and access is raised. I fail to see what 'left wing' or 'right wing' political views have to do with the issues FrankGol raised.

What is left wing in wanting public schools in socio-economic disadvantaged areas delivering the same outcomes as in affluent private schools?

As a parent, who is struggling to provide for my children, I'm sick to death of the left wing right wing rhetoric. Entry to public schools are determined by your address. So much for parental 'choice'.

Opportunities provided through education is the surest way any child has to break a cycle of familial poverty and disadvantage. Keeping people disenfranchised from mainstream opportunities is the surest way to create a class of 'social activists' who will want to upset the apple cart. Why not if it is out of reach?

We keep on waffling about how 'merit' ought to be the deciding factor in accessing university and trade opportunities. How is that possible if there is an increasing number of children unable to develop their merit because their parents haven't got the financial wherewithal or lack any determination to assist this?

Spot on Pdev!

The Educations system has the capacity to segregate. They have the power to do whatever they want with students scores and marks without question or challenge.

The Selective Schools Unit and Education Measurement Directorate in NSW have had serious allegations made against them of systematic bias, victimisation, manipulation of test scores/documents and discrimination. Allegations that are being ignored and covered up. There is no accountability or transparency.

If they can manipulate scores just by entering their password on a computer, they can do whatever they want. Education - Keeping them Honest - http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/

In order to appear that the public system provides and show that they are performing as well as private schools the public system has developed Selective Schools. These schools allow those that are in a better learning environment to have an even greater advantage as entry is determined by an academic competition. Those who get the highest marks win. The Education system knows that groups of parents train their kids for years to master these entry tests so as to gain access to these schools, yet on the application form for Selective School placement it clearly state that coaching does not make a difference as it is an ability test and they say that ability is something that is developed and not taught!!. Somehow the Department of Education doesn’t seem to believe that if you are taught to take tests and given strategies to deal with common questions that are repeated in these type tests you will perform better than those who are not taught.

How can it possibly be seen as equitable and fair to provide disadvantaged schools for some and then expect them to compete in academic competition for access to Selective Schools against those that are in optimal learning environments and/or are coached?

So much depends on the purpose of the education you are serving up. If all you want to achieve is to sort and credentialise students for the work force then you WILL perpetuate the inequalities of the system. If you want a real education system you will have to dump 150 years of baggage first.

Now everyone will jump on me for being idealistic (and simplistic) and carp on about how impossible it is, and how "this is the result of many years of development", etc, etc. Shut up. IT IS NOT YOUR EDUCATION SYSTEM. It is our children's. Stop thinking of the way it's done today, because it is obviously failing. The problems are getting worse and it will continue to get worse if you let it continue. Band aid solutions cannot give us the results we need.

With all due respect to my primary school collegues, they are failing. Many students are leaving primary school with poor literacy skills. Why? Not because the teachers lack skills, dedication, professionalism or anything else the govt wants to blame. THE STUDENTS THEMSELVES are the only ones who can improve their skills. This is clear in high schools, where lack of effort sabotages the scores of many capable students.

I don't pretend to know the answers but I'll tell you something for sure; many student's see little or no benefit in the system that is worth their effort. OK, some do, and go on and do well, but they have bought into the system (or have been bullied, cajoled or bribed into participating).

So the question would seem to be "how do we make an education system that student's will want to participate in"? Bribery, threats, discipline, consequences, etc are methods of the past. We must be honest with students and not insult their intelligence. They are smarter and more savvy than many people think. They understand power and control, consciously or not.

In the past the system has has been geared toward producing obedient, compliant workers. Is this still our purpose? If not, time for a rethink.

Stonecoldsober, one way would be to make it actually worth a student's while to put in the work, starting year one. The automatic progression to the next grade is a joke. There is little real reward for effort. Achievement is of minimal worth in many children's eyes. Working hard is only for the 'nerds'. I've heard this statement. This is well and truly worked out by upper Primary School.

People are supposed to develop at different rates yet we insist that all 6yr old, 8yr old, 15yr old, etc. kids, sit in the same year class.

Especially in the early years, why are children expected to learn numeracy and literacy at a particular rate? Some 5 year olds are ready, some 7 year old are not.

It's time teaching took into account what is known about human development. We all learn to walk at different ages, yet we all end up walking in our own good time. There aren't 'better' walkers or 'poor' walkers.

It is manifestly cruel to condemn a child to a school life of perpetual 'catch-up' and therefore 'stupid'. I had this with one child. I finally pleaded with the school for him to repeat year 9 only to be told it is 'important for him to be with his peers'. He was willing to repeat. We talked about it and changed schools to avoid embarrassment. He never 'caught up' in spite of tutoring. In the end he stopped working, handed in minimal work and still went to the next grade. Half way year 11 serious depression set in. He felt overwhelmed, pressured and a failure.

The teachers are generally good. The system stinks.

Too right Yvonne! A more open ended system (a la Skinner) that allows students to work at their own pace would seem to be a less stressful, and maybe more thorough approach (for those interested in academic rigour). Ever tried to gain a belt in Judo? You have to keep practicing until you get it and the sensei is satisfied.

The current curriculum is too vague and generalised to engage students. Yet ask a poorly performing student to make a table, a chair or a chess set and watch them devote their recess and lunchtimes to producing a fine piece of work. Some are square pegs, and all of the academic holes are round.

Do you remember asking yourself (or the teacher) in frustration "Why do I have to learn this? When am I ever going to use this?" Well, students today are still asking the same questions. Maybe we need to take an approach more like a Bachelor of Arts degree. Each subject being worth X points, you need XXX points for a School Certificate, you need at least XX points of Arithmatic, XX points of English, etc.

However, Academics should probably not be let anywhere near planning any new system. They are a product of the old system and have expectations alien to those students who really do find it difficult and who need a different approach, a preparation for a life outside of educational institutions.

Schools are too often treated, by government, parents, or society in general, as daycare centres, a way of keeping children off the streets and out of our collective hair. The children are resentful of this and will resist ANYTHING you try to do with them, until either you or they give up. For those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who see no prospect of a job or tertiary opportunity, school holds no benefit (except social interaction). Add bullying, by other students or by STAFF, and school becomes a place of fear and despair.

The problem is serious and a definite solution is needed before we lose another generation to the failure of the system.

My daughter, when she was in Year 4, told me that there were so many kids in her class who were smart and they didn't even know it. They thought that they were dumb, for silly reasons like their hand writing was messy or their spelling was not up to scratch. Nothing they did at school made them feel that they were good at anything. It made them feel bad.

This daughter is an identified intellectually gifted/accelerated student, having this year started high school age 10. She struggled during the early days to cope in a system that insisted on teaching her the alphabet when it was obvious that she already knew how to read, fluently. We had to fight to find a suitable learning environment because the Education system didn't and wouldn’t to do anything to help. For speaking out and trying to find appropriate educational placement for my daughter I was deemed a trouble maker and vexatious and our family was targeted as a result.

I feel for Yvonne and more so her son. That our Government can permit a child to move through education at a level that they know will disadvantage them in the future is neglect.

Knowing about it and doing nothing is culpable neglect. Our children deserve better.

Hi stonecoldsober,

I had to chuckle when I read your comment that academics should never be allowed to redesign the system. We're not that out of touch with reality! Not all of us anyway...

In our recent review of curriculum (Luke, Graham, Sanderson, Voncina & Weir, 2006) we actually did advocate a university style credit system for secondary school and multiple pathways with choice in academic and applied study units, and flexible re-entry points to enable students to change direction and interests easily and quickly. Basically the aim was to develop a curriculum structure where students (who didn't particularly like school or academic work) to be able to see and work towards an end-point and feel that they were getting there before they vote with their feet. Whether a system like this ever gets taken up in Australia who knows, but it seems to work extremely well in countries like Finland!

Regards, Linda

Jolanda,I admire your determination with your daughter. Congratulations on her being able to work at her level.

Julion is now very well settled in a full time apprenticeship in the Beef Cattle industry (as a jackeroo!). He has matured enormously and is good at what he does. In another 18 months he will have a TAFE based Certificate III.

I feel for your daughter having to learn the alphabet. My daughter could read before she started school. (We had a computer and she played endlessly with a particular kids programme, so I can't really take the credit!) She was lucky in that she went to a little school with grades 1,2 and 3 in the one class. So she could just keep on working at her level. At first she secretly read the grade 3 books. She thought she was being naughty, because the teacher had said you had to finish a series first before going on to the next!

When she was supposed to be in grade 2 she was helping with the grade 3's. She topped grade 3 work.

At no time did any of the kids have any perception that they were supposed to be grade 1, 2 or 3's. They just worked at the level of their ability at that time.

Unfortunately when we came back to the Gold Coast, she was 'too young' to 'skip' a grade. She had to be with 'her peers'. We left it at that. We've just challenged her at home with literature, she reads very widely and enrolled her privately in learning Mandarin. After 4 years she loves it still, is doing really well and now in High School is in a French Immersion class. After doing Mandarin all this time, French is a cinch!

None of my 3 children are strange or loners. They all have wide circles of friends.

Adults can stick to boring work because we know it brings in the weekly wage to pay the rent. What reason do kids have?

Yvonee, Good to hear that your son has found something he enjoys and he is doing well. It is generally better for kids that are not happy at school to leave and do an apprentiship. I wonder why your son stayed on to Year 11?

I had no choice but to push for appropriate placement for my daughter. She wouldn't shut up; she refused to go to school. Said she did nothing all day except look out the window and that the view wasn't that good. When she started school she said that socially it was embarrassing, as all the Kindergarten kids would run up to their Year 6 buddies and sit on their lap every recess and lunchtime and carry on like babies. My daughter saw the behaviour as so childish and embarrassing.

Kids often know what they need. My daughter knew what needed to be done and she hounds me to do something about it. She says that it is my job as I am a mum. She feels so much more appropriately placed where she is, socially and educationally, despite her date of birth.

Her older sister is also accelerated, it made things a little better as it was one year less of high school that she had to consider but it was and is too little, too late.

If my children were not happy at school they didn't want to stay and they asked to change. They saw it as a total waste of their time and our money. With change there was always 'hope' that things would be better and it helped the years go pass. Didn't do much to preserve my repuation. I was pretty much seen as a pushy mum.

All this educational and intellectual difficulty and neglect when all that time these students were in schools 5 days a week for 6 hours every day wanting to learn.

Surely the system can do better?