My wife taught for many years in government schools. She now teaches in a private school in a low-socio economic area. She reports that the behaviour of the kids, the interest their parents show, and the support she and her colleagues get from school management makes the government school system look like reform schools for thugs, without the discipline.

Our own children went to government schools, as did we. But, if I had to go through the process again, there is no way in the world that I would condemn any child to a government education; their performance is so bad that they should not be receiving any money at all from taxpayers, if we are talking value for money.

When people like Jane Caro rubbish private schools, they seem only to mention the few – very few – elite organisations; simply because they are the only ones who could, possibly, be subjected to some ridicule. Even there, however, they are expected to, and do, offer scholarships to kids without the means to pay the fees. They are not just handed obligation-free money.

American education is all of the things the author claims. But, the success of their system can be put down to a different attitude shown by students and parents than the one demonstrated in this country.

Parents do not have to be rich to send their children to private schools in Australia. Like other things which work better under private stewardship, all education should be private.

Taxpayer’s money should be put where it will do most good, and that place is not government schools

An excellent article and not just because it matches my views. On the basis of school funding no parent or grandparent who believes in equal opportunity could justify voting for the Howard Government. As a society we need to ensure that we provide an education which encourages enquiring minds and which ensures that each child reaches his or her full potential. That won't happen under people like John Howard or Julie Bishop.

Just a comment that the ad shown on this page is inappropriate.

It shows a man siting in a toilet, and that toilet is supposed to be his office. I think this is quite representative of the way the advertising industry treats the male gender.

But in the area of education, I think that throwing more and more money at the schools (whether they be private or state) will not necessarily bring about improvements in student outcomes.

It is teaching methods that are the main determinant of student outcomes.

Leigh, Caro did not rubbish private schools.

She pointed out that the governments of this country and its states are allowing public schools to go to the dogs while handing out largesse to private schools.

Private school education in this country is pretty good, always has been. But public education used to be of a comparable standard -- it isn't any more, because the private system has been able to draw away many of the children of the (very large) middle class, leaving public schools struggling for enrolment-based funds at the same time as catering for a generally poorer demographic.

Those talented children who might have raised the bar at the same time as helping their peers to reach it are now, "for their own good", sent by their equally-talented parents (who probably attended public schools themselves) to private schools where they can grow up into fine little snobs who have no idea how the other half live and don't particularly care.

It's the public schools that are rubbish, and present Federal government policy ensures that they can only fall further behind.

It's all very well for the Federal government to say State education is the exclusive responsibility of the States, and it's up to the States to fund them, but why then is private education not the responsibility of private institutions, and why are State schools not eligible for the same Federal subsidy as the private ones?

Howard's government has rubbished Australian public schools. No-one has rubbished the private schools here.

Dear Leigh,
Relative merits of public and private aside, what do you think we should do about the children whose parents either cannot or will not pay fees? Just toss them on the scrap heap? Whether you think public schools are currently good, bad or indifferent, is that a good reason to walk away from the ideal of universal free compulsory education for all children, regardless of who their parents are? Are you really suggesting the Australian govt should be the first in the democratic world to wash its hands of public education?
By the way, while you seem to consider you know all about all of our public schools, there are tens of thousands of them in Australia, and, as their students, once they get to uni outperform both their selective and private school peers by an average of 5 marks by the end of their first year, the evidence would suggest that at least some of those schools must be doing something right.

When people choose to spend tens of thousands of dollars to buy a service that they can in fact get for free, you have to conclude that they are highly dissatisfied with the free service. This is the issue that most advocates of public education refuse to face. When parents buy a private education, they in fact buy the company of fellow students for their own children. They buy what they hope is an atmosphere of discipline and learning. The teachers are the same in both types of schools, the curriculum is pretty much the same, and the resources - outside of a few elite private schools - are pretty much the same. The parents who send their children to private schools do not have any duty to leave them in poor government schools because they will experience diversity if they stay.

The government “system” needs massive investment to upgrade facilities, to reduce teaching loads and to pay teachers the sort of salaries that they could earn 30 years ago so that more able and independent-minded graduates enter teaching. It also needs to reverse its inefficient aping of private schools which has turned Victorian government schools into competing small businesses, which have become bogged down in accountability requirements and the re-inventing of the wheel. Finally, it needs a much greater emphasis on learning and stronger discipline. Parents need to be confident that their local government school will be a calm, safe and learning-focused environment. Then they would not want to spend the extra tens of thousands of dollars buying what they could have for free.

HRS,

Money has never been thrown at education in this country.

I think that this forum should look carefully at what Jane is saying. She has brought up new and interesting information about how the funding system works. Even if not all of what she says is correct we have a real problem looming in this country.

So this means that we should not degerate into a private is better than public (or vice-versa) debate - that is the sort of nonsense you hear on talk-back radio....and there are plenty of pollies who don't seem to want a debate at all.

Jane - you've outlined what seem to be real long-term problems. What do we do about it?

Our governments do it for the votes. The Catholic and Holy Roller vote in this country is a big one.

They provide citadels for the furtherance of supernatural belief and bigotry.

We've unfortunately created a monster, and only the bravest politicians will confront it. Those who confront it will only likely do so at their peril, well in the short-term anyway.

We are a stupid country indeed. I love Australia and am Aussie, but we're hardly close to being the best we can be.

An interesting article. I'd opine that part of the problem with government schools is the top down approach imposed by bureaucratic non-educators. Also the inability of government school to get rid of the time-serving teachers that de-motivate the quality staff.

A recent article in the SMH described how a group of primary and secondary school in Sydney (the north shore, of all places) was combining it's efforts to make subjects available on a cross-school basis within the district, allowing younger kids to advance as their skills became apparent and offering far more subject choices. It seems that not only is the cluster of schools reversing the enrollment drain it is picking up lots of kids from private schools, most of which are, it seems to me, educationally, one act plays. Private schools might be able to provide the trappings that parents can boast about (after all, every kid needs a pool at school) but ultimately, as with the private medical system, it struggles with comprehensive challenges.

So, the States are failing their own schools. What's new......they're failing their own hospitals, ambulance services etc, etc. We're not Americans (thank God) . We follow the Westminster tradition.....and, according to an English contact, Church schools in the UK receive 100% government funding. They don't in Australia. What next, no government funding for non-government hospitals, charities etc

Leigh: Do not believe your diatribe about Government schools at all. I seem to recall reading not to long ago about bullying and fighting which was photographed and passed around among students and this in private schools.
Private schools are businesses pure and simple, they reward shareholders whether private or churches.So here we have howard assisting private companies to make a lot more money for their shareholders. Of course being so wealthy with tax-payers money these schools can offer much more to their students, but a "better" education? Here on Mount Tamborine (Qld.) we have three EXCELLENT Government schools all with very high standards and a private college with equally high standards.
Howard is throwing money at these private educational companies or schools not for the good of any students but for votes - remember this is sneaky howard. Another reason is that howard sees Government schools as controlled by unions and or communists so anything any amount of tax payers money is well spent in weakening them.
The same with the new work laws - for the good of the workers again remenber this is sly sneaky howard. The work laws are in part to cripple unions and we all know unions can be seen as the backers of the labour party. Remember sneaky howard and the Dubai affair this was stage one of weakening the unions and thus the labour party as any fool can see - that's of course if she/he wants to see it.
Howard berates the labour party as being anti-rich, anti-good education with their once opposition to funding these private very rich companies but it was sneaky little honest johnie that was causing divisions and didn't he fool most of us at the time eh? Now it seems that some are still fooled by this nasty little man (the word 'man' used in a generic sense only). Regards, numbat

Most church schools in the UK ( and many other countries) are fully integrated into the state system. They do not charge fees and may not pick and choose their students. In return for full funding they accept all the obligations public schools accept, while maintaining their particular faith based character. I challenge you to find a church school here that is actively seeking that situation. After all, why would they? In Australia, they can be private when it comes to who they will and won't educate ( even scholarships are only offered to disadvantaged kids who are high achievers - I'll have respect for their charity when our wealthiest schools offer places to the toughest and most difficult poor kids in our system), and what up front fees they will charge, but virtually public when it comes to the handing out of taxpayer's money.
this isn't about the rights and wrongs of subsidising private schools, its about how that funding combined with few public obligations asked for in return has undermined public schools and so negatively impacted on the children they teach - often the most vulnerable and needy in our community.

There is a strong element of chicken-and-egg in all this public vs private business.

Is it the fact that the public system fails first, and the private sector then has to step in to deliver to the standards the public want? Or is it that the private sector is encouraged to sap the resources from the public system, and consequently create the gap in the first place?

Personally, I believe that the State should provide quality education for all children. I believe also that it should provide a quality health service, quality public transport systems, quality water supplies, quality communication systems, quality power supplies etc. etc. that are paid for by the public through the taxation system.

But I'm clearly whistling in the wind. Quality isn't a word that is permitted in public service speak. It's equality, in whose name of course everything ends up in the bin of the lowest common denominator.

As a result, one by one, these essential services are being sold off to the highest commercial bidder, who then charge us a fee for those services that includes shareholder dividends and fat-cat directors' salaries.

We allowed it to happen, and therefore have no right to complain. Education has become "just another service product", so that those who choose to make the sacrifice, can access the quality of education that their wallets will allow.

The mantra is now "user choice" and "user pays".

But the fact is that in the education system at least, both of these could be satisfied by a well-designed voucher system that leaves the money - and the choice - in the hands of the parents, with the onus on the schools then to provide the product that those parents want.

Will it happen?

Not while the debate is carried on at an ideological level, as opposed to a practical and pragmatic level, it won't.

Here we go. These articles are always so one sided. Never do they mention the fact that parents who send their kids to private schools not only pay for the privilege but are also paying for other parents to send their kids free to public schools.

And as to the assertion that private school kids rank higher in the education stakes because they receive more money is baloney. The simple fact is that at a private school you get an education, at a public school you get an ideology.

The article and comments seem to be about public versus private but the real question is, how do we improve performance for as many as possible?
This is fundamental and the answer cannot be about eliminating one sector of education providers.
That's why I have never understood why vouchering is a dirty word.
What children need is not fewer educational options but more, each catering to particular needs. Not all children learn in the same way or at the same pace. Not all have the same aptitudes or interests.
Surely it makes sense to take enrolments and the money that comes along with it to whichever provider offers the bext environment for their needs. Make the money portable and you'll find out which schools parents think are doing a good job.
Disadvantage can be addressed by adding weighting - you're from a non-english speaking background - voucher + 10%, you're aboriginal - voucher plus 15%, you have diagnosed learning difficulties - voucher plus 20%. Whatever the numbers disadvantage can be addressed - and the power given to the parents to find the right school for their children - public or private - and take their voucher there!
The market will decide which schools offer programs desired by families and which don't. This system rewards performance and encourages excellence - all the while doing it efficiently.
Of course, there would need to be some rationalisation of State/Federal funding but funding schools solely on how effective they are in gaining enrollments makes sense - and doesn't discriminate except for the types of issues mentioned above.
As the parent of four children I would soon find out what schools offered what programs and would enrol my kids in the appropriate schools for their particular needs. What parent wouldn't? Why can't our education funding system support this?

Taxpayers' dollars are indeed funding private education. The question must be put: is the money following the students into private education or are the students following the money into private education?

My children went to public and private schools but that was in the days before left wing socialism became the norm and stuffed up the state school system.
Now the difference in teaching AND learning is becoming very plain, most thinking parents would prefer not to send their kids to state schools because they are failing their students.It is as simple as that.

Francis/ena – church schools in the UK do receive 100% funding but have to meet 100% of the obligations which go with it. They don’t charge fees, have to accept all kids, have much the same level of resources. Doesn’t seem like a bad idea? Jane says that our private schools are up to 80% funded but still charge fees – looks like double dipping to me AND a recipe for neatly dividing kids into those who can afford fees and those who can’t.

This is why I fully agree with what ena says. I can’t imagine private schools going for such as “all in” system……they wouldn’t be able to be “private” and being private partly means deciding who you will enroll and who you won’t.

I wonder how most private schools/systems would react if governments made an offer to fund them fully in exchange for a full set of obligations. I bet you wouldn’t see them for dust. Mind you, I am not sure if I want my kids to go to a local state school which subscribes to a particular religion.

Pericles and JS Mill – I partly agree – it really is a vicious circle, but one which needs to be broken somewhere. But I don’t agree with vouchers. Don’t we have a voucher system now? The money does follow the kids as some sort of entitlement….. it isn’t physically given to the parents first but the effect is the same. I have heard some people support vouchers but they just don’t seem to be able to show where on earth (literally) it actually works, without private schools asking parents to top up the vouchers with fees…..which is precisely our current problem. The idea of vouchers might make people feel good but let’s deal with evidence!

Is anyone else sick of these vacuous, evidence-free posts claiming the educational sky is falling in now that 'the school system has been taken over' by all-powerful 'left wing socialism'? First The Age, then the ABC, the universities and now the school system.

Is there no end to the socialists' hunger for power and their capacity for victory?

Yet I thought John Howard was claiming victory in the 'culture wars'.

If some of the posts today are an indicator of the standard of education they achieved in the good old days, I'd say the schools were 'stuffed up' (to use mickijo's term) well before 'left wing socialism' struck.

Let's have either some evidence or some reasonable argument. Enough of the wild assertions.

The one most significant factor delineating the difference between the private and public schools is the level of control parents have over their children's education.

In private schools teachers and administrators are paid and controlled out of the parents purse. The public system is controlled from faraway by out of touch state government bureaucracies.

Parents and local administrators need to be able to manage their local schools to the benefit of the children - not the whims of the vote buyers.This means the ability to hire and fire teachers and their assistants and to set the incentives, awards and pay scales for the local district.

I dont have a problem with our Government providing funding for all children no matter what school they choose to go to be it private or public. Every child should be entitled to the value of their education and it should go to their school of choice. If they want to pay more for a swimming pool and extras then that again is the parents choice.

My concern is that the Public system has been permitted to be run down for so many years. This has been a direct result of a process and culture of covering up and denying all failures and difficuties in relation to all aspects pertaining to the education of our children and the maintenance of our schools. This idea that if you pretend things are grand then that will mean that they are has fallen through. This attitude has ensured that public education has gone backwards fast as issues never get resolved or fixed. This situation needs to be addressed first.

The standards of the public system need to be raised. That not only takes money - it takes a change of culture and attitude.

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

It is noteworthy that in every public debate of note in Australia these days, one group of people seek to discuss the issues on their merits while another seeks to widen it into an ideological battle of "left vs right".

Such is the case with the funding of public education. The "right", for want of a better word, is gradually strangling the public education system of funds as a kind of payback in the culture wars.

Anyone who expresses legitimate concerns about the resulting inequities (in which parents feel they have little choice by to pay exorbitant fees to already highly subsidised private schools) is condemned as a "lefty socialist".

Such is the level of infantile name-calling in our public debates. No-one is expressing concern for our children, who have no stake in Howard's culture wars and all of whom have the right in our liberal democracy to a fully funded, high quality state education.

The knee-jerk, ideological reactions of some here to Jane Caro's sensible, well considered article fail to respond to her central point - the lack of equity involved in the state subsidising private schools, who already extract hefty fees from parents.

And I do not buy the despicable argument that "thugs" reside only in public schools. There are plenty of examples of bullying and anti-social behaviour in even the best private schools.

There is not to deny there are not many good private schools, just as there are some excellent public schools.

But can we PLEASE debate these issues on their merits and not according to the John Howard wedge politics manual??

Ena,

What do you mean that "most church schools in the UK are fully integrated into the state system?" I would be shocked if that was the case for Catholic schools ..... after all, they run according to Catholic curricula. This being so then Catholic schools at least are not fully integrated into the state system which is, after all,a moribund, politically-correct and a whisker away from being a form of institutionalised child abuse.There are, of course, government requirements, as there are in Australia. When it comes to Australia it is obvious that, by private, you exclude (thankfully) the Catholic parish school system, the largest non-government sector.Our local Catholic school does not pick and choose (many non-Catholics) but, if it closed, then there's no way that the local state school could take in nearly 400 kids! So, the state school would have to pick and choose. Public schools are STATE government responsibilities. Most state government funding, at least in Qld, goes to state schools. I wouldn't be surprised if that's also the case in other states. Your argument does not seem to be with equal funding but with, as you put it, the fact that: (1) the non-state sector can pick and choose, and (2) it is not required to accept all the obligations that state schools accept (whatever they are).

Chris C
It is difficult to imagine how many schools could spend even more money.

I have seen schools that would be the equal to a 4 star tourist resort. They are definitely above 3 star.

My old high school has air-conditioning in every room. In my time not one room was air conditioned. There is shade cloth and landscaped gardens right throughout the school. In my time there was no shade cloth anywhere, the parade ground was sand, and not one shrub was growing in the school.

There are over 200 computers in the school. In my time you had to bring along your own slide rule. The school has its own shade covered swimming pool. In my time you had to walk 1 mile to the town pool, and then walk one mile back, and most of the swimming lessons were taken up with walking.

They have everything from rock climbing equipment to in-house video equipment for use by the students, to a 30 piece marching band with all instruments being provided by the school. In my time the only musical instrument in the whole school was a single piano in the main hall. The school even has its own coffee shop run by the students. In my time you were lucky to get tomato sauce on your hot pie.

In grades 11 and 12, the math class sizes are now down to 10 students. In my time, the size of the class depended on how many student desks they could squash into a room.

But this is not a private school charging $20,000 per year. This is the local high school being run by the QLD government.

Instead of arguement on how much money the private schools are getting or the state schools are getting, it should be determined what are the basic essentials necessary for any student anywhere to receive an adequate education.

Priority money is then spent on the schools that don’t have those essentials.

Also not surprisingly, the current students are not getting higher marks then my generation.

In fact, the marks have declined.

my daughter went to both private and public schools and i think there is alot more involved in our childrens school life than the actual school contact time alone, ie: influences they bring into the school.
A parents influence and the social network out of school probably has more affect on a child than any school. Mabye its peoples home / lives that need looking into and improvement?
And still many kids do just fine under the worst circumstances.
An unsettled child suffering domestic or other violence etc will show signs of such abuse at any school.
Why decide on just one school anyway? because initially its easier for the parent?
personally i think a variety is best-let your child try out two or three schools?
when you leave school extra mobility skills are an advantage
knowing theres more than one way to do things and more than one place to fit in is a big start.

My experience as a parent was probably fairly limited. As a single parent for my teenage children I lacked the resources to have my children educated privately...as I had been. So I adopted some simple criteria and checked a number of local and not so local public schools.

Firstly I knew my children's preferences. My son's was mathematic's and my daughter's music.
Secondly I interviewed the School Principals.
Thirdly I attended the various pre-enrollment and open days and interviewed the heads of the music and mathematics departments and arranged to meet the senior teachers or the teachers who taught the senior students.
Fourthly I attended parent teacher evenings and P&C meetings.

This was all done in the year prior to enrolment.

The attitude of the principal was paramount. For my son's school the Principal was a strict disciplinarian, indulged in 'streaming' of the more able students and had an iron control of her expectations of her staff. Her school was not on any of the lists for top performing schools. The Principal of my daughter's school was long-serving and nearing retirement but his experience was formidable. Unfortunately he retired during my daughters second year.

The Heads of Departments at both my daughter's and son's school were experienced and outlined the development expected of my children over their school careers. All their senior teachers knew their stuff and were obvious mentors to younger teachers.

The last were other parents and I enquired of their experiences.

My son's education was fabulous and he is outperforming most others at tertiary level.
My daughter's was a disaster. The school changed dramatically after the appointment of a new Head, the removal of the Music Department Head and senior teachers.and the final 3 years of her education was a disaster. My daughter's achievements in Music occurred outside of the school. Today she has her own business, is independant...and plays music for pleasure.

Public Schools: it's the Head and their standards...that is the key to high performance and standards.

Keith's comments hit the nail on the "head"!

Schools are invariably run in a very hierarchical fashion, and the effectiveness of the principal (or, rarely, other senior management) has a profound effect on the mood and dedication of the rest of the staff and, in turn, on the pupils.

This is the case whether the principal answers to a State government department, the education office of a church, or to a private school board consisting of parents and alumni.

I'd like to see a school run on a more democratic, egalitarian blueprint. Perhaps they exist, but I'm aware of none. The principal's firm hand on the reins is the deciding factor in the style and quality of the education a school can deliver.

Francis – lets leave aside the histrionics about child abusers etc aside and deal with some facts:

· Most Catholic schools in the UK are grant aided or grant maintained. Grant maintained schools operate in almost exactly the same way as any other state school. This is the deal they have to accept for public funds. The only essential difference is that they are committed to a particular faith.

· In such integrated state systems AND even in our dysfunctional public-private system we have in Australia ALL SCHOOLS USE THE SAME CURRICULUM. These are not government requirements – statutory curriculum authorities represent all systems.

· Even the poorest Catholic schools in Australia are non-government schools, an odd description which means almost nothing. In common parlance they are private schools, even the ones which are 80% gov funded.

· Local parish Catholic schools DO DISCRIMINATE in enrolments – fees are the discriminator. Now you and I might know that probably most are also interested in social justice and waive fees from time to time BUT Cardinal Pell has lamented the fact that his schools are becoming middle class schools. That is what school fees do!

· The Australian constitution does not stipulate that one government is responsible for public schools and the other for private schools.

· In NSW private schools get over half a billion in state funding….and rising

Bunyip,

Refer previous correspondednce....you seem to have missed the point.

Likewise, every Catholic school in Australia is grant aided or maintained or funded or fiancially assisted - from the taxes that Catholics pay. What the essential difference is we give children an holistic education. And, yes, I went to a state school and so did some of my kids for a while.

Do all schools in Australia use the SAME CURRICULUM? If you're an educationalist you would know but I would have thought that that is what the Commonwealth governemnt is pushing for. There does seem to be a wide discrepency between states.

Of course Catholic schools are non-governemnt and, therefort, in some sense private but refer to previous correspondence.

Fees are not the discrimntor (even state schools have fees or charges) - the state high I went to years ago had all sorts of fees and charges - since kids are entitled to a Catholic education even if their parenst cannot pay.....most do pay, even if reduced fees. What';s the problerm with fees?

Re the Constitution: it might not be in the Constitution (most things aren't) but state schools, like hospitals, are the reponsibility of state governments and do get the lion's share of state funding. The funding should be equal from both governments.

The difference between Catholic school fees and public school fees is that it is illegal for a public school student to be excluded from classes for non-payment of what is in fact a voluntary contribution. In even the most middle class public schools only around 60% of parents actually pay fees. In schools in very disadvantaged neighbourhoods an even lower percentage pay - compounding, of course, that schools lack of resources to help the kids who are often our most expensive to educate.
Some catholic schools may decide to waive fees, but that is up to them. As 69% of the poorest Catholics (that's Cardinal Pells own figure) are educated in public schools, it would seem many catholic schools do not waive their fees.
As for curriculum, the curriculums in each state are the same in all that state's schools - public and private. Indeed, it is one of the few requirements for the registration of private schools that they teach the curriculum - hence the arguments over Intelligent Design being taught in science classes, and the Exclusive Brethren having to hire non-exclusive brethren to teach computing. How could we have state wide exams if the curriculum was not standard? Curriculum is designed by representatives of all schools including public, catholic, anglican and other private. So if you think the curriculum is dumbed down and politically correct in Chatswood High, it is equally dumbed down and politically correct in Newington or Scots College.
A child has the right to attend a public school as part of his or her individual rights as a citizen or permanent resident. A child derives his or her right to attend a private school through their parents ability to meet any requirements ( most often pay the fees) the school decides on. This is a fundamental and important difference that is often ignored or not even properly understood.

I was all fire and aflame to write a post on a subject close to my heart as a parent of 3 children until I read Keith's post. He wrote basically exactly what I would have written.

The issues have NOTHING to do with left wing conspiracy theories or the superior backgrounds of parents of private school children.

It ALL and I mean ALL hinges on the principal of the school AND the heads of departments. The teachers are all basically the same, educated in the same universities following the same curriculum.

My children have been students at excellent private schools and public schools, but also mediocre and poor public schools.

The reason why a private school is never mediocre is because a principal would not last in a school where parents see themselves as clients paying for a service. He/she would get the sack.

The entire public school system would get a big kick up the backside with a similar selection process of principals as they have for private schools. In fact, why not have the boards of successful private schools interview and select principals as a service to their community for the state schools in their districts?

These principals should then also have a similar leeway to determine how and where money is spent and be part in selecting at least the heads of departments, as they do in private schools. The principal should be held accountable for the overall success or otherwise of the school, providing s/he has similar independence as a private school principal has.

Let's also make assumptions that there are fewer parents interested in their children than in fee paying schools and so much 'power' could go 'to the head' resulting in bullying tactics of working teachers when results are not good, so let these selection boards also determine if the principal is delivering what s/he was employed for, creating the environment where teachers are supported to teach and students achieve and if not remove her/him. A confidential report card from all teachers and interested parents would greatly assist the board.

No, no, no Yvonne, I simply cannot let your assumptions pass without really strong objections.
I chose public schools for my kids, the private schools in my area make my gorge rise. I simply refuse to accept the assumption - made by only private school parents - that private school parents care more for their kids and their kids education than public school kid's parents do. I recently saw a 5 year old who attended some ghastly high expectation private prep school literally dragging his back pack to the car - it was so weighed down by his parents expectations that the poor little mite could not lift it!
I also know many, many, many families who - having paid enormous sums of money for their children's private school educations are quietly but bitterly disappointed about what they got for their money, but they do not openly criticise because that would mean putting down their own kids.
My own daughter, who has gone from an ordinary public co-ed comprehensive high school to Sydney Uni ( I was called "brave" for sending her) recently said this to me, "You know mum, I'm seeing at Subski parties all the kids I went to primary school with who went off to those expensive private schools. But its funny, $100,000 later they look like me, they talk like me, they dress like me, they're doing the same courses as me. What exactly did their parents get for their money?"

ena, I take on board your comments about the assumptions re 'caring' parents. I actually agree with you. There are as many neglected children in private schools as there are in public schools. They only look scruffier in a public school.

But, you have to admit that there is this prevailing attitude that a great part of the problem is attributed to uncaring, unsupportive parents. If they were interested they would pay and send their children to a private school. So the public school is a good place to keep no-hope kids off the streets for as long as is legally possible. 'Throwing' money at these schools is only going to benefit left wing teachers who need a reality check. Or maybe the local sunshade maker.

Then there is this experience that if you give some principals too much unchecked power managing their schools, they become uncontrolled tyrants. Which can happen. I saw this, it resulted in a disgraceful staff turn-over with dreadful results for many primary school children who were still automatically progressed to the next year level. Some never 'catch up'.

Hence, I thought to kill two birds with one stone and address those assumptions straight away.

My youngest daughter is going to a State High School. An excellent school with excellent educational outcomes. I choose this school because of the educational programme it offers.

Xoddam:
The public schools in Australia used to be very good …until the Left wing teachers and their unions managed to get them by the throat, and turn them into ‘sites of political struggle’
It’s all documented, because the Left wing academics who were responsible for the changes, like the late Garth Boomer, Dale Spender, Brian Cambourne and others….. all proudly wrote books about it….replete with all the Marxist jargon and propaganda.
Contrary to your assertions, the only hope for education in Australia is the Howard/Costello government.
They’ve tried to make the changes needed , so that Australian children will not continue to leave school semi-literate and innumerate, after 12 (or 10) years of ‘education’.
Anyone who’s being honest and real, will remember that the Labor states had to be dragged kicking and screaming to testing for literacy and numeracy……to begin teaching grammar again after the Left had it banished….to teach reading by the phonics system instead of the disastrous ‘whole language’ method of the Left…….but only after a whole generation of children had had their life chances damaged by Left wing ideology….which had the system in its grip, even when the Coalition was in power in the states.
And now, Labor has the hide and the dishonesty to pretend that the return to sanity was all its own idea…and Labor’s media gives them the credit and all the credibility on education.
Jane Caro: what your post really does is prove that the Coalition funding system allows parents who aren’t wealthy, to choose to make sacrifices in order to send their children to private schools…and ensures that they are not stripped of all federal funding because they make that choice……the funding ( a lesser amount, but some) goes with the child…..nothing could be more equitable.
You want it to be ideological….and I’m sure your forthcoming book will just be toxic electioneering.
What dumbs the public schools down is the anti-Australian Left wing ideological curriculum, implemented by Left wing ( not all ) teachers…not funding…….crazy Left wing schemes like Alan Luke’s New Basics and ‘rich tasks’….not fundamental education…..subversion of Australia.

Leigh....;ach! forget it.What's the point..

"......most thinking parents would prefer not to send their kids to state schools because they are failing their students.It is as simple as that." (Quote:Mickijo)

What a crock!! WHY?...,why are they failing? It is NOT as simple as that.

Likewise I cannot agree that a good Principal and HoD's are the key. They can make the best of a bad lot, agreed; but like the gourmet cook, they cannot make an educational gateau out of a flour and water budget.

In a First World Country, education is a right NOT a privilege. (Spare me the broken record mantra of 'Left-Wing Sociali...zzzzzzzzzzz...)Yawn. Where was I? Ah yes! the right to a decent education.

What has happened here is akin to Thatcher's butchering torture of the Brit. NHS. Once she'd reduced it to a skeletal mess, she then went on to pour vituperative scorn on it's inadequacies, extolling the virtues of Private Health Care, which quite predictably was superior;-if one could afford it.

That's how it's done folks! It IS as simple as that!

(I reckon I'll try something new at this juncture..).

...........when we allow these self absorbed, and utterly self serving Right Wing Neo-Cons to run rampant through an egalitarian society; this is the damage they do....

'Real' duckie; I'm delighted that my post came just after yours.....!!

The problem with many public schools is that many in them tend to have a very negative attitude about rich people and about children who are gifted. They keep saying that the rich look down on the poor, but those that are not rich have a worse attitude towards the rich and those who are by nature gifted.

If you read my blog you can see that what I am saying is true about the negative attitude to gifted children and the attitude towards those who dare to complain. The public system is cutting down tall poppies and dumbing down society and they resent and target anybody who dares challenge them.

The public system wants to present the bright student who remembers every answer that they say (and who’s parents can afford to or is able to coach them) as being the 'smart’ students and the gifted variety are either ignored or cut down to size and discredited as they ask too many questions and are hard work. The public system controls people. the tall poppy syndrome and it is rife in Australia.

Money certainly helps with education but my families issues didn't need money, my family just needed to come across someone with a bit of courage, integrity and compassion. They don't teach or practice that in the public school system. It's every man for themselves attitude and a process that covers up and denies. At least in the Private school parents care more about each other and they will support a parent who’s child is being victimsed or neglected. In the public system – everybody shows you their back.

Education – Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our Children Deserve better

I was educated at a private school that had consistently high university entrance results, even though it provided no maths tuiton to 80% of year 9 to 11 students. The local outer suburban high school had the same university entrance results for my age cohort yet 3 years later only 3 students got to university. If I had lived 1 block over I could have gone to another government school that consistently had very good university entrance results.

My experience is that parents will happily pay for private school education if it is better than the local high school. If you want a good standard of education pump money into the public system and private schools will have to lift their game to compete for students.

In Victoria where 40% of high school students are in private schools the experienced teachers in public schools bear the brunt of providing in service supervision for trainee teachers. There is a crisis looming because there are not enough experienced teachers willing to supervise trainee teachers and there are many teachers reaching retirement age in the next 3 years.

Its seems unfair that private schools that receive 70% of their funding from the federal government have no obligations to follow the state curriculum, accept disadvantaged or disabled students and are able to provide very pleasant surroundings in which to educate their pupils.

"real": I'm afraid I have to agree with you on grammar, phonics and "whole language". The folly of reducing systematic language education was adopted wholesale by well-meaning academic curriculum developers and imposed on public and private schools alike.

It had a worthy goal -- letting students get on with developing higher-level skills instead of getting bogged down in details some found very difficult -- but it also meant that people who could have learned these linguistic fundamentals with ease ended up ignorant of them.

Yet it's not only crude but also historically false of you to paint that mistake with a "left" brush and claim the "right" fixed them.

Funky ideas like "whole language learnig" worked, experimentally, with a relatively gifted population of children (those sent to private Montessori and Steiner schools and the like). They turned out to be inappropriate for 15-20% of students in public schools, who were consequently "left behind" with a poor understanding of grammar and spelling (yet with reasonably well-developed reading skills), where traditional schooling used to leave some students functionally illiterate, actively avoiding tasks that require reading or writing out of an inferiority complex.

The decline in spelling proficiency and grammatical comprehension was absolutely NOT the goal nor the policy of the "left". In fact dropping structural literacy was opposed all along by the teacher's unions and it was they, not the Howard Government, who finally recovered they baby that had been thrown out with the bathwater.

The timing of various studies criticising the results of "whole language" learning let Howard take advantage and throw in a whole lot of wedge-driving remarks critical of genuinely "left"-wing reforms like teaching critical literacy (the "bullsh-t filter" so vital for coping with today's slick media) and the demise of corporal punishment and saluting the flag.

I can't believe the comment editor told me to "remove the profanity". What a crock of ----!

HRS,

Your old school sounds particularly fortunate. Perhaps it has the ability to raise a lot of funds locally. No school I have ever taught in has had a swimming pool, a rock-climbing wall or much in the way of landscaped gardens.

The “additional” money would simply restore the spending levels of 20-30 years ago. If, instead of cutting teacher pay by around 30 per cent relative to average earnings over the last 30-plus years, society had maintained it, there would be a lot more able and independent-minded people in teaching today. If, instead of increasing teacher workload – by both higher classroom loads and additional busywork demands – over the past 20 years, society had kept in place the gains of the 1970s and 1980s, teachers would have more time to focus on their educational task. If, instead of increasing the power of poorly skilled principals and the accountability and management functions in individual schools, society had remained committed to trusting the professional judgment of teachers and to providing central support, better decisions would be made at the school level.

The billions needed by our schools would simply restore the effective level of funding to what it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Xoddam

I agree with your comments 'The principal's firm hand on the reins is the deciding factor in the style and quality of the education a school can deliver'

However, I think it's the parents that play a greater role in the above.

The school I work at now has wonderfully supportive parents. But at my prior school, there was an entrenched culture of bullying towards teachers'.

I think it developed because Admin were fearful of the parents. So the teachers' were subject to the whim of some vocal parents. And they weren't nice people.

The students hear the disrespect at home, and come to school with uncooperative and disruptive behaviour. Learning is undermined. The principal would unfairly blame the teacher rather than the child, to avoid the wrath of the parent.

Quality education is undermined in these schools. And I believe there's a lot of these types of schools out there.

Liz: In response to your post I have some questions:

a) Why would administration have to be fearful of the parents?
b) Are you suggesting that parents ‘bully’ teachers and school staff just for fun and that these bully parents controlled the teachers and the Principal?

In my families experiences the students feel the disrespect at school not at home and the bullying is happening at school and more often than not some kids do everything in their power to try stay away.

If the Principal blamed the teachers, maybe it was the teacher’s fault? If the parent complained it doesn’t mean that they are bullies or vexatious.

Of course that is not to say that there isn't unreasonable parents out there but if there are a whole lot of disgruntled parents who are turning up to school upset about their children's treatment or education then there are issues there that need to be acknowledged and addressed.

Education – Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

The funny thing about the private v public school debate is that sp few people question the assumption that private schools provide a better education and get better results.

Private schools do tend to be better at producing a finished product - by getting rid of any students that don't fit the image, by coaching their students to pass exams often at the expense of getting a real education, and by their emphasis on external appearances (nice, neat uniforms and the veneer of politeness). It's all part of the marketing spin.

A "good private school education" can make an average student seem confident and able. Just don't send the creative kids, the intelligent ones who see through the veneer and ask awkward questions, or the child who is likely to be bullied anywhere near them. Those children are much safer and will get a far better education in an imperfect state school.

Not true counter. The creative kid, the gifted kid will be far better looked after in the Private schools as they are more highly regarded, treated with more respect and they dont have to spend thier whole time proving that they are smart or worthy of being treated fairly and with respect.

I know this from experience.

Education - Keeping them HOnest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

real (Friday, 3 August 2007 12:11:28 AM),

Left wing teachers and their unions do not have schools “by the throat”. Evidence of the dramatic decline in teacher pay and conditions shows how powerless the teacher unions are. That an academic is left wing is not proof that the idea is. An engineer can be left wing, but that doesn’t mean the bridges are. “Whole language” is not left wing – it’s just a way of teaching reading that isn’t very effective. There is no “anti-Australian Left wing ideological curriculum, implemented by Left wing ( not all ) teachers”. Grammar has never been banned from schools – by the Left, by the Right or by anyone else. I taught it every year from 1974 to 2007, and so did the other English teachers in my schools.

Labor is promising a national curriculum, in plain English, with real subjects. The Labor state and territory governments support the return of real subjects such as history. The state Labor Government of NSW never dropped it, while the Liberals in Victoria were the ones who brought in SOSE and it is the Victorian Labor Government which dumped SOSE and has led the other states and territories in a return to academic disciplines.

Your account of what actually happens in schools is a fantasy. There is no conspiracy. Teachers get on with their jobs of teaching children as best they can in a massively under-funded “system” while being abused by people like you and being overburdened with the changing demands of governments of all persuasions.

(Readers can see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5080 for some quotations of this despicable abuse of teachers by the Right and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5225 for a list of the damaging things done to Victorian education by the Right.)

Jolanda

In the school I work in now the parents are wonderfully supportive.

However, I have worked in a school where some of the parents were unsupportive and quite a hinderance. Of course, their children were the disruptive students.

If a parent was contacted about their child's behaviour, they would become abusive towards the teacher rather than support the teacher by demanding their child behave in class.

The classroom behaviour would not be resolved, and the parent had effectively given their child permission to be disrespectful towards the teacher and continue undermining the learning environment. That's bullying.

Now you and I Jolanda would be horrified if our child/ren were disrupting classroom learning. We expect our children to be respectful. But some parents are nothing more than bogans, and that's what they role model to their children. And frequently you will get a grouping of bogan parents in the same suburb, so they'll spread rumours and gang up on a teacher rather than accept that possibly their friend's child is not such a nice little boy or girl after all.

These parents are usually very young, and not well educated. They are the same type of parents who abuse referees at their children's footy matches.

A principal may be ineffective in that they don't support the teacher. Rather, they might blame the teacher to stay on the good side of the parents, and avoid the same sort of harassment.

There are schools out there that don't support their teachers. I know a male teacher who was so harassed by students and so unsupported by the principal that he was literally driven from the school.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6179#89226

Jolanda, maybe you have found one school that does what you want - or seems to for the time being.

Private schools often include gifted education (however they choose to define it) in their marketing, and they give scholarships based on ability and claim the credit if those students excel. After all, they are businesses under pressure to get good results to boost their reputation and sell their services to more parents.

Good grades indicate how well the child fits the school more than they indicate ability or future success.

In my opinion, also based on experience, parents would be better off investing the money into their families, more resources, better holidays, parents able to spend more time with their children instead of having second jobs just to pay school fees.

There are good and bad teachers in both systems, good and bad parents in both, good, bad and troubled kids in both. But who is the judge of who is good and bad?

I think as a society we must fund a public school system adequately to give all children a chance. Society as well as the individual children will pay the price if we allow public school students to become an underclass. Parents are welcome to pay for some variation of private schooling for religious reasons or for the old school tie system but please look a bit more critically at the propaganda of the private school system and those who claim it is superior.

Liz. I accept that there are some parents out there who are very unreasonable when it comes to their children and who are very rude and disrespectful. I also believe that there are unreasonable teachers and unreasonable Principals and even some very rude and unreasonable referees. In every group and in every culture there is good and bad. The trick is to identify those who are failing in their duty of care and make them answer and be held accountable. Otherwise why would they change?

I know my husband had to put up with one of ‘those parents with a brat kid’ whilst coaching our son’s then under 9 soccer team. The kid was so disrespectful and rude. He was a bully. He mucked things up for everybody. His parents thought that their son was a king and a saint and their sons behaviour was everybody’s fault but their own or their sons. They tried to blame my husband because their son kept acting up by attacking my husbands ability to discipline the kids and coach. They challenged him in front of all the other parents and the kids after a game. My husband told the parents that he was there to teach their son soccer and that the discipline part was their job and they should discipline their son before they bring their son to him.

We live in a world where there are all sorts of people. That society tolerates and accepts such poor standards and such bad behaviour in general is what is a shame.

I'm resisting entering the ideological 'debate' and accompanying ideologies/generalisations to correct some inaccuracies in the article and from contributors.

- 'Private' schools in NSW are accountable, reporting in fine detail educationally and financially, including for every govt dollar they receive. They also report to ASIC. Saying they are not as accountable as a government school is a myth. This includes regular inspections to ensure adherence to curriculum, legislative and other educational requirements.
- No individual/church/organisation running a non-government school profits from it. Legislation prohibits for-profit schools receiving state or federal funding.
- There are few academically selective non-government schools in NSW. The vast majority take all-comers regardless of background, disability, academic ability etc.
- Non-govt schools that operate with high resource levels do so because the parents pay fees. These schools receive little govt funding ($700-$800 p.a. from the state and $1,000 - $1,500 p.a. from the federal govt). Parents pay for everything else.
- The notion of 'privilege' doesn't make sense when most non-govt schools have resources that are no better than most government schools. Most parents want their child's educational needs and interests met, not social or business networks.
- Non-govt schools are funded because they provide a public service, which they have done since European settlement (the churches provided education before governments got into education provision). The cost to government is lower because they receive less govt funding per student than any government school - without exception.
- Non-govt schools in NSW received $668m in State Govt funding (2004-05) for educating 34% of the students. Government schools received $7.45bn for 66% of the students. That's 8% of the funds for 1/3rd of the students in non-govt schools. *Productivity Commission Report on Govt Services. Let's show ALL of the funding figures please. Ms Caro included.

All of this information is available from independent sources, let's go beyond the ideology and present facts. There is room in our (excellent) education system for all types of schools that reflect our society.

Malcs:

Most of your “facts” fall short of the whole story.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE? Yes, but over a far narrower range of OBLIGATIONS. ABS data shows that private schools don’t take on anything like the full range of students. Some actively seek kids who will enhance the school’s profile….and avoid those who won’t. Also, they are not subject to public audit or FOI.

FEW PRIVATE SELECTIVE SCHOOLS? You may be right as far as NSW is concerned, but wrong about the other states. Private schools don’t have to be selective to ensure an academic profile. Fees, combined with scholarships, do the trick. HOWEVER, it is a big leap to say that private schools take all comers. ABS data clearly shows they (collectively) don’t.

HIGH RESOURCES FROM FEES. Partly true: both fees and public funding has created the resource gaps between schools. It is the combination of funding sources available to private schools (some far more than others) which has created our resources gap.

RESOURCES AREN’T DIFFERENT. Even three years ago over half of private schools were resourced at higher levels than government schools. Do you have evidence that the situation has reversed since then?

PRIVATE SCHOOLS PROVIDE A PUBLIC SERVICE. Only for that portion of the public they wish to serve (or end up serving). Public education expanded precisely because church schools wouldn’t serve the WHOLE community; they still don’t. Is the cost to government lower? Don’t forget to add up ALL the public funding. I wish you luck in getting the figures! Of course all students don’t get the same funding; they don’t all have the same needs, never have!

THERE IS ROOM FOR ALL TYPES OF SCHOOLS THAT REFLECT OUR SOCIETY. But the enrolment profile of most private schools does not reflect the demographic profile of their location. Check the aggregated data and then look (for example) at the “low fee” private schools in low income communities. There are exceptions, but the rule remains!

Yes Malcs, the ideological debate often gets in the way of good solutions, but let’s not replace ideology with a set of untested myths.

Bunyip - everything I've said is accurate and I stand by it. You've conveniently (deliberately?) misread much of what I've said and put your own spin/interpretation on it, and indulged in your own subjective, untested myths (to use your own words). Working in media I recognise this approach among ideologues, regardless of the topic, who make their points through headline seeking and absolute statements. We can all find grey when someone else sees black & white, and vice versa, because we all see the world a little differently.

There's little point in my debating this topic with you further because we'll never agree. My objection to ideology (of any sort) is that there's never a valid alternative and a reasonable and rational debate based on fact is not possible so I'm not going to, point by point, waste my breath defending what I've already presented.

Malcs, you came into this debate happy to distance yourself from ideology. So you offered information which you presented as being above reproach (from “independent sources”).

I conceded some of your points – but much of what you said is very challengeable. But when I question your claims with other information, all you can do is spit the dummy?

I can’t see why you need to attack me, rather than try to address the points I have raised.
If I am wrong, spell it out! You really don’t do yourself any great credit unless you do.

There is an alternative to ideology and “a reasonable and rational debate” IS possible, but only if you engage. It isn’t a “waste of breath”, it is the stuff of democracy.

Audits are a waste. Invesigatory bodies are a farce. Rights only exist for criminals and those who abuse.

There is no accountability in the public system and I know because for over 7 years my family have been trying to get serious allegations of bias, victimisation, vilification, bullying, neglect, manipulation of test scores and documents, discrimination and psycholgoical abuse against children, addressed. Allegations that include a conspiracy to cover up and that come supported with huge amounts of documentary evidence. Nobody is required to look at what the parent presents or to believe anything the parent says. Nobody is required to protect the children. Parents are not respected and best interest of the child does not appear to be a concern. The system just takes the word of those responsible on face value and on the basis of that they justify ignoring complaints.

Audits are a joke, policies are not worth the paper that they are written on and the public system's only focus and concern is to present the picture that they want to present being that if a students is not learning it is the parents fault and if a parent complains it is the childs fault and/or the parents fault.

The public system never wants to ever be made to answer or held responsbile - no matter what. There is no way that the Private System would get away with that. At least in the Private system more fellow parents would support a child/family who was being victimised and treated unfairly. The public system doesn't care.

Education - Keeping them HOnest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

Jolanda, you obviously, like myself, have quite a bit of experience with both the public and private education system. And like myself you are very interested in giving your child the best platform to start off in life as a young adult.

Many parents are actually not motivated by societal justice or left wing/ right wing ideology where the well being of their child’s education is concerned. That’s OK for OLO discussions, not the education of my child.

There are some posters who want to blame a ‘left wing’ conspiracy. If only it were that simple!

Parents aren’t the reason for schools failing either. Liz, if you want to blame bullying parents who ‘frighten’ an administration, then I have to reiterate again, it is the principal. Why is someone a principal if not capable to deal with parents like this? The principal is the one who has the chance of creating the kind of culture between parents and school that is beneficial to school, students AND teachers..

I have no idea how principals are selected in the public school system. All I know is that the most inadequate principals I’ve come across are in public schools. These schools also had a high turn-over of teaching staff, usually the best ones seemed to leave quickly. This is not a reflection on how nice or not nice the person is who happened to be a principal, but on leadership and motivational abilities.

I have a son who did very, very well in a private school. Excellent education, not coaching. The school doesn’t ‘select’ students either. And now I have a daughter in a public high school, also excellent education, not coaching. Both have excellent principals.

With any business or organisation anywhere, private or public, the results and outcomes are a reflection on the capabilities of the management to lead a team, to actually make a group of people a team with common goals. Why would schools be any different

I've experienced several education systems including higher education both in the US and Australia. There is not much value placed on education here to begin with and its evident from the fact that a tradesman who drops out of secondary school can make more money than a college graduate can and over time. Australia is far from being a knowledge driven society whose key export should be knowledge and derived expertise given that it’s an OECD nation. I’ve travelled in enough taxis driven by PhDs and MBA graduates to realize there is some sort of problem here. These people can’t advance in their careers or get a job simply because they didn’t attend the right PRIVATE boys or girls grammar school as a child! You want to talk about handicapping people from early childhood in a developed country – well at least you guys take much better care of the retarded compared to the USA, kudos.

Jane Caro:

What a breath of fresh air - your well researched and deeply intimidating article-of-faith deserves the highest applause. Not before time. Read in conjunction with the Report on Commonwealth Funding for Schools ( Senate Committee Inquiry 02-04 ) should raise heckles and alarm bells at the duplicity and corruptness of Aust Govt's of all persuasions.

A can of worms expose' relating to the SES model; pork-barrelling of Private Institutions and the them-an-us supercilious attitude. Demeaning our intelligence.

All concerned Australian's should be affronted by the magnitude of Taxpayers dollare being squandered and the covet ' cover-up ' and obfuscation perpetuated by Oz elitist - biggest and best Academic Institutions.

" The stupid country " is a mild commentary. The lexicon used in polite circles should resonate on every Parent - particularly disadvantaged middle class, Indigenous, under-privileged, disabled,impaired, special needs, and disfranchised families enrolled in ' free ' Government State schools.

Dr Barry McGaw, director of Education for OECD :" Australian Schools system as a whole is one of the most discriminatory in the developed world in terms of distance between the schooling outcomes for students from high socio-economic backgrounds on one hand, and those from lowest, on the other ".

Blatant non-equitable disparities include Govt funding tipped in favour of private schools with their 30% of total school students receiving 70% of Commonwealth Funding. Additional top-ups, recurring / emergency funding, and special grants not based on merit. Historically, uder the Hawke Keating Governments, funding increased fourfold. Petty-fogger, prime ministerial aspirant Kevin Rudd has pledged more-of-the-same, unilateral support !

The 2007 Budget announcement's in the Education sector highlighted a comprehensive investment of $5 B in HEEF; providing a perpetual source of funding for Capitol works and Research facilities, and promising further contributions out of future surpluses ? $ 843 M to improve the quality of Teachers and education foa ALL Aust children.$ 700 M to boost funding ( presumably, to selective recipients and non-government schools ? )

So what is new ?

Since 1997, the New School Policy and ground breaking Karmel Report which has been the corner-stone

continued..

of our Eduction system for over 40 years, and incidently honourably served the Nation's requirements, has been unceremoniously dumped !

Surreptious private schools have deliberately fostered growth and expansion. Most have cooked-the-books, and encouraged at the highest levels, manipulation of the system, with little transparency or accountability. Unregulated expansion on facilities,buildings and campuses. Restrictive enrolments, inconsistency and discriminatory practices. False and misleading reporting.

In turn, we have Financial scandals, bankruptcies, closures, prosecutions of Principals and Business management. Poor regulation and importantly a ' hands-off ' application aimed at the rest of Oz vox populi. The elitist, priveleged them-an-us syndrome. Divisive ? Depends on which side of the track you come from. Good read : Jane Nicholls " Commonwealth Funding to Private Schools 1996-2000. See 'Taylor's College scandal ".

The Bulletin recently ran a thought provoking article, questioning Year 12 examinations. Why it is no longer conducive to have all students, Oz wide, sit for Public exams under strict supervision, and marked appropriately ? The inference being some prestigious Grammar Colleges are so statistically oriented, the results at best spurious. Public students given pathetically poor outcomes.

Govt's arbitrary assistance to high-fee schools has not resulted in lower fees. Quite the opposite. It has inadvertently increased their capacity to compete with other similar schools in the area, especially those offering a gamut of sporting / academic facilities. Attractive salaries, perks and ex gratia emoluments for talented Principals and businesss management. E.g. Bond University.

Have we reached a water-shed ?

Is the system loaded to favour the cognoscenti and affluencza ? Sadly, it has become the norm, and the zeitgeist quest for material gain. Although we acknowlege the unfairness and appalling one-sided double standards, we dubiously, and in all sobriety wish it upon our off-springs. That said, it behoves a visionary ethicist of Jane Caro's calibre to NOT only pay lip service, whistle blowing the Intelligentsia, and rocking the boat, but to defiantly ' maintain her rage '?

It's unlikely, a revisit 20 years hence, will see much change in the status quo.

Ciao

petal returns from the real world into cyberspace to post two significant links:

http://www.adogs.info/pr216.htm

and

http://www.adogs.info/pr215.htm

Public Schools are becoming a forgotten matter in this society, but in Sydney the selective schools are dominanting the academic aspects. selective schools are the considered to be half government funded and the other half privately. Going to a Catholic school myself, i often had to pay for everything i use, and had little privileges growing up. Public schools have it lucky in my opinion.

Chindia your Catholic school received 70% of its funding from the federal government. Your school probably got more federal government funding than the NSW government paid per student at the local high school. Your Catholic school can never have the amount of federal funding reduced whereas the local government school's funding changes from year to year depending on student numbers. Your Catholic school didn't have to accept every student under 15 who asked for entry, and some children are thugs, menaces etc and your school didn't have to find a way of teaching students whose parents couldn't or wouldn't pay for books excursions etc

Stop bleating and be thankful you weren't taught in a class where students and their teachers fear for their physical safety when loony goes off his meds.

I don't believe many posters above have actually read The Stupid Country by Jane and Chris. It is a clear articulation of the need to properly support Govt schools and the effect federal policies are having on Australia's education system. I don't however believe many of the parents shifting to Private schools will be persuaded. As Jane contends there is most likey already a split in parents between those that have faith in a liberal education and morally support the idea of a free public eduaction and parents who via incolucation from the commercial media and its stories of values, fear and free market rhetoric hanker for authoritarian private and religious school conformity. As a parent of a son in an inner city a Melbourne school however I see a trend against this swing to the private sector especially where there is govt scools with high concentrations of middle class kids-in fact there is long waiting lists for these govt high schools. The problems lie in less well off suburbs where high concentrations of poor kids from low SES families have the aspirational middle class scurrying to the closest usually catholic high school. Fearful parents of which there are many are the drivers of this shift-the same people the Liberal party has been successful in frightening into submission with interest rate rises and threats from terrorisim for the last decade.

I went to the launch of The Stupid Country at Gleebooks. It says it is not a one sided debate on the cover, but the THEM and US mentality of the speakers last night was frightening. One teacher in the audience was asking advice about whether she should remain friends with people who sends their kids to private schools! I dared not breath my disdain, especially when the Speaker starting calling the audience, COMRADES! Another speaker reckons she has the best job in the best school as its principal. I thought you wanted all public schools to be equal COMRADES? So how come you think Merrylands High is the best? Because you have faith in your abilities as a leader and you perform. Not everyone reaches for the top and it shows up in a system of tenure. PS teachers are the only public service left with tenure and boy does it show!
We private school parents are just everyday people seeking the best possible outcomes for our kids. Stop blaming the private schools who take in 360000 NSW students. Where do you propose to put them if you shut down the privates? Start blaming the governments. I spent 3 years in the Public system. My child has major gaps in learning, due to ineffective teachers over 3 years in the public system. In just 2 terms at a private school, my child is now engaged and happy learning. It's about the teachers stupid! A message to those underperforming teachers: Start performing and see where it lands you. You are pretty much the only public service left with tenure and boy does it show! Not all teachers are good and not all are bad. But 3 yrs of ineffective teachers was enough for me. My younger child is still there as it is working fine for him. There are individual reasons we parents give up on the Public system. One speaker got up and said it was the teachers fault that they are in the mess they are in, and he was absolutely right

I think that until schools address the issue of Education bullies - nothing will change.

Here is some interesting information in relation to bullying and victimisation of children by adults employed by Education Departments. This might not be in Australia, but from my families experiences things here are exactly the same

http://www.stopbullyingnow.com/teachers%20who%20bully%20students%20McEvoy.pdf

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