American teachers earn between $28,000 and $40,000 a year. Australian teachers earn from $42,000 TAFE, $50,000 primary to $76,000. There are probably 350,000 teachers in Australia so you can understand the appeal of the American system to Rudd and Gillard.

What other university trained professionals earn such money? Nurses.

Although its fashionable to decry our literacy standards they are still higher than they were a generation ago but if we keep chiselling away at our education budget (of which salaries forms a major part) then our literacy standards will fall.

There is a maxim: "You cannot control what you do not measure".

All the information on school performance is either generalised or anecdotal.

One thing is clear is that the independent schools publish their results, compete for students, and out perform the state schools. While some may claim that the funding model is unfair, the state gets an excellent return on its investment in results.

The problem is with public education. No one knows where the failings are, and without this knowledge there can be no action or improvement, and the acceptance of mediocrity will continue.

The steps taken in NYC are drastic, but there are many other less draconian steps that can be taken with great effect.

Nothing new here folks - and it just doesn't seem to be working for a lot of parents does it - or there would be no attraction to it or even the semblence of a debate about it.

I know you have to try to defend the status quo, and admirably done by the way - but we need to try something new, something different to the socialist management and employment system currently running, where good and bad teachers get treated exactly the same and go up the food chain at the same rate regardless of performance.
(Sorry, almost out of breath there.) Talk about stifling creativity and enthusiasm, that will sure do it - the rest of the community works on a reward for effort and performance system - come join us.

Your arguments though of playing the man (or woman) and not playing the ball are typical of this sort of fight against progress. it may be Labor, Coalition, NY government employees, whoever - yet everyone seems to be wrong except you guys, seriously.

The current system isn't working for us .. the taxpayers, and we want a change.

I too wonder why our politicians are facinated by the failing USA education system.
Good education is about teaching children to think clearly for themselves. Sure they need to learn to read and write but if youngsters learn to think (to analyse information and ideas) the basics tend to come more easily and more naturally.
I have pointed out to this and the former federal government that education aimed at specific employment opportunities is largely a waste of effort as who knows which employment in the future will go the way of harness making and buggy building.
The Scandinavian countries are leading the world in primary and secondary education with Finland to the fore.
Some of our politicians should have spent their winter overseas holidays studying the systems in use there. My reading indicates that early year exams are rare and teachers tend to be given their head. If teacher changes were fewer with each teacher following their class through the first few primary years then picking up a new beginners class as they lose their earlier class to the next three year group we would soon lose incompetent teachers from the system.
Maybe if we aimed to emulate the best we could really achieve something for the coming generations of Australian students. The last thing we need to do is to follow the Americans.

No, the rest of society does not operate some "reward for merit" system. Generally quite the opposite. That's why the various bubbles - property, shares (especially energy), and credit derivatives - all re-create, perpetuate and entrench feudalism. It's about "who's your daddy" inheritance and opportunism - forget proper notions of "ability".

My kids' school is actually a very "private enterprise" system, though nominally "state-run". From my observation, the more intelligent and conscientious teachers (like the students) get more harassment and expectation to do more work, but with generally less reward unless, of course, they are rich. The rich factor is important, because many education apparatchiks suck up to the rich, often in the hope of direct payoff via Blairite "public-private" scams that are so fashionable now.

Publicized ranking of schools will merely further entrench feudalism in the education system; brilliant kids in poor schools will have next to no chance, unless they beg and gamble for scholarships.

Despite the narrowly-focused headlines (“State to pay $10m for jaded teachers to leave schools”, The Australian, 3/9 and “Fast-food giants may be welcomed in schools”, The Age, 3/9), the Victorian Government’s new Blueprint is one of the three most significant reports on education in the last thirty years, the others being the Blackburn Report, which brought us the low-standard VCE, and the IPA’s Schooling Victoria, which set the damaging agenda for the previous government.

The true significance of the new Blueprint is that it signals the long-awaited reversal of the market-based approach to education that has failed so badly since 1992. The government is once again accepting responsibility for the education of all children and not leaving some to languish in failing schools while the market slowly closes them.

It is a pity that the Commonwealth Government seems to be jumping on the creaky market-based bandwagon just as Victoria accepts that it has led us into the mire.

The actual report can be found at:
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/directions/blueprint2008/default.htm

As expected, many are outraged by the Klein-Bloomberg plan to make kindergarten kids take a 90 minute test. Here's one opinion piece in the New York Times from Monday Sept. 1. The additional comments make interesting reading too.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/09/01/2008-09-01_mayors_plan_fails_our_kids.html

I'm all for teachers getting more money but I'd also like to know how well my son is being taught. I don't know what the American model is but if it give parents power to make informed decisions, I'm all for it. It seems like educational institutions look first and foremost to their survival, even if according to all social and economic indices (such as demand) their survival is not warranted. Put parents in the centre of the picture.

Cheryl,

If you really want to know how well your children are doing you need to look inside the school. If you are asked politely what you are doing wandering around the school then politely escorted to where you want to go - that's a start. How do the kids play in the playground? are the different age cohorts seperated? Walk into a class, can an adult hear themselves think? can the teacher explain new material in silence? how effectively can the teacher control the class? are there rumours of drug taking? are there stories of fights?

These are not measures of individual teacher performance rather of whole school performance.

My nieces went to a secondary school with a very good academic record, trouble was my nieces played dumb princess and were told to study terminal maths, they changed schools and got HECS places in Melbourne University Arts. Their first high school has large numbers of girls from Malaysia entering at Year 10 and Year 11 level.

The logical conclusion of New York City style report cards is that non-performing state schools will close and private schools will open using the same facilities. Personally I am not a fan of small government and charter schools but if Rudd wants to pursue it then I say get rid of state governments because education is one of their major responsibilities. It's a pity Rudd kept the old Howard advisors because I voted to get rid of Howard and his mean spirited government.

Bloomberg's micro-management of education - like his imperious meddling in Kalifornia with steroid man/Hitler admirer Arnie - just proves the colossal greed and egos of multi-billionaires. Like so many other oligarchs now, Bloomberg sees boundless political opportunities to spread his power; education is just one of these, and this current exercise proves that he does not regard the US sector as some limit either.

Klein is, by his own admission, completely without qualification in the field; he regards that as some special, more objective, quality to justify his involvement in policy, or perhaps in a more conceited way he sees it as proof of just how smart he must be to be dabbling in something so far removed from his experience.

The situation with the above two would confirm just how truly feudal the system has now become. The prospect of state school closures seems part of a self-fulfilling prophecy when privatizers hover like vultures - just ask Bloomberg and his mate Schwarzenegger.

How is it possible to measure peformance in schools where there is wide variation in demographics, migrant populations and other socio-economic factors. How would you compare the results of a school in the Northern Suburbs of Sydney to one in the outer West? A teacher who gained brilliant results in one school may find after transferrig to another school a less brilliant result. Has the teacher's competency suddenly changed overnight? Of course not!

Are schools going to be overly focussed on mainpulating performance indicators than on teaching?

The idea that we 'punish' schools who underachieve by giving them less money with the expectation that they should do 'more' is astonishing.

As a parent I knew how well my school was doing by seeing what my children bought home and by being involved with the school. Yes there were some problem teachers (some who could not string a sentence together) but mostly the teachers were wonderful, committed and literate.

What about supporting educators and education more by:

1. Increasing the budgets for extra assistance for children with special needs including gifted children;
2. Making classroom sizes smaller;
3. Encouraging high achievers into teaching by offering larger salaries rather than losing them to other disciplines; and
4. Increasing the University Admissions Index for teaching to ensure quality candidates.

This new 'education revolution' reeks more of being seen to be doing something rather than actually doing what is needed.

Well there you have it, pelican.

There were clearly much fairer, more merit-based and generally higher-achieving education systems in the old (still-maligned) Yugoslavia, Warsaw Pact Czechoslavakia, East Germany, Hungary and much of the Soviet Union. End the Cold War and you end the incentive to make the west a fairer place; in other words, that ended real and meaningful "competition" from the perspective of those who work for a living.

The feudalization of education here merely follows what is happening throughout the rest of this corrupt network of countries that claim the mantle of "western civilization". Thus ensues a looting process, as more and more public money is spent to fund:

- massive bail-outs of banks and hedge funds (now well exceeding a trillion USD)
- various band-aid works for infrastructure that is already either fully privatized, or virtually so (PPP), and thereby long neglected
- subsidies and bonuses to snob schools and unis
- similar incentives and perks to speculators and others who buy into the debt-based and monetarist feudal paradigms and myths

... and so on

The effect of Bloomberg-style initiatives would be more profound, but a logical continuation of trends to date. Performing such brutal actions on the education system would accustom younger generations and recent migrants to the many inequities, injustices and lies which leading oligarchs intend to normalize.

When Gillard first put forward this Klein model of gathering “rich information” on schools she referred several times (2GB Radio interview with Chris Smith; ABC Brisbane Radio interview with Madonna King) to the fact that “we have a socioeconomic index of private schools…but we don’t have that sort of information available nationally on state schools”. (Of course, the various State and territory education departments do have that information).

In Opposition, however, Gillard was the leading critic of the former Government’s Socio-Economic Status (SES) model, describing it in Parliament as a “flawed index” (Aug 20, 2001) and listing “five flaws” and accusing the Howard government of using it to “create an education market in which the wealthiest have the most choice because they have the ability to buy any of the options on the table (Sep 4, 2000).

She also said that “research is telling us that, even if you look at cohorts of students who all come from financially disadvantaged backgrounds, there are wide variations in the educational attainment within that cohort, which can be explained in part by the cultural foundation of the family- the way in which that family values education- and in part by the educational attainment of the parents.”

Now, however, she proposes to use the SES model to establish which schools are alike, and then to encourage comparison of their student results!

And as Rudd said in reply to a question at the National Press Club, if that results in parents voting with their feet “we’re not going to apologise for it”!

Shades of John Howard and Julie Bishop indeed!

An impressive bit of pollie exposure there, mike STP.

However, given the far more powerful people involved in this - I mean beyond just Bloomberg, for sure - I think we should really be asking ourselves just what kind of implicit threats would compel Kev and Julia to look so dirty on this and other obvious issues.

My bet is the threat of speculator runs on the Oz currency. Or even terrorist attacks to hasten and ensure compliance.

This reminds me of one of my more difficult moments as a principal at a state secondary school in Adelaide.

I had to get the teachers in to discuss their year 12 Chemistry results. We had two classes, one had performed really well – high number of passes, high number of A’s and several perfect scores.

The other was a shocker – just the opposite.

So I got the good teacher in for a praising and, as he went out the door all happiness, I asked him back in and tore strips off him. He was the bad teacher too.

How come? Both classes were “self-selected” by the timetable process. One group did advanced maths and physics. The other self selected against arts subjects.

Their teacher was an excellent all round teacher, and it gives the lie to all these comparisons.

Then we have the common case of social stratification in larger areas where, as in Murray Bridge for example, most of the Aboriginal kids end up at Fraser Park, and most of the business people’s kids end up in the school at the city centre, with a bit of a mix in the remaining primary school. All have the same postcode, therefore all have the same SES according to KRudd. No prizes for guessing the NAPLAN results…

Good points mike STP, mil and greepo.

"And as Rudd said in reply to a question at the National Press Club, if that results in parents voting with their feet “we’re not going to apologise for it”!"

I agree, Mike very much shades of JH and JB. The irony in this statement is that parents of public school children cannot vote with their feet because if all states are like mine, you are only able to attend the school within your zone.

Admittance to schools outside your zone is only through luck where there are limited vacancies in the more 'desirable' public schools. Even if it were possible, it would mean overpopulated schools in some areas and underpopulated schools in others and in many cases the same problems will only be transferred to the new school rather than dealt with in any meaningful way.

What this really means is that parents with the money might be able to vote with their feet to private schools but lets not be confused - within public schools there is no such flexibility or 'choice'.

Rudd has made a mistake by coming across as the 'heavy' on a number of issues. Instead of walking with our feet perhaps more money should be invested in improving those schools that need it most by ensuring there is adequate qualified teaching staff and ancillary staff to provide necessary support and assistance to improve 'outcomes'.

In some schools the improvements might only be small where there are other factors outside the control of teachers and principals. What is important is equality of access and opportunity regardless of demographics.

Mike Williss has recounted some very important information on one of the half dozen most critical issues facing Australia, an issue which unfortunately seems to be approached by a kind of forward to the past strategy! It is a tragedy.

Shadow Minister says “You cannot control what you cannot measure”. This is nonsense. The critical issue is influence, not control. Control has become an article of faith in the managerialist agenda. If we look at the best organisations they are not concerned with control per se. American Airlines is concerned with control and look where they are.

It isn’t that the steps in New York are draconian: it is that they don't work! Like “No child left behind” which was a fraud.

Rpg refers to defending the status quo. It seems impossible for those proposing the kinds of changes that Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard, and Howard’s education ministers before them, are advocating to understand that there are very good pieces of research which show what works and what doesn’t: they involve change. (Surprisingly a lot of the research is being done in the USA: the politicians don't listen to the researchers but instead advocate phony business models, models advocated by the same kinds of people who have given us Fannie May and Enron, etc.)

Successful strategies involve respecting and rewarding teachers, they involve appropriate resourcing of schools. The OECD is about to publish a big report which points that out. Where does this occur? In Scandinavia and some other places. How do those countries perform? They are tops. Foyle makes these points!

What is Australia doing? Persisting with American models, models typical of a country which until recently did not require teachers to have teaching qualifications and a system which produces millions of students who cannot name the country to their south and believe that Intelligent Design is process which has produced life as we see it today.

Many of these issues have been dealt with over at New Matilda. It would be worth having a read of the articles.