Why are we spending more on education for poorer results? Well Kenneth Davidson in The Age http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so-ms-gillard-the-education-debate-is-about-values-whose-20081204-6rhe.html says its because we are spending $28 billion on the 1.1 million students in addition to the school fees raised by their parents. The schools that teach 70% of students including all those from low socio-economic background or with physical or mental disabilities are harder to teach, take more money to teach well and are being deprived of funds.

The teacher bashing debate in public arena disguises the fact that teachers are not well paid, a teacher with 11 years experience commands a salary of $75,000, starting teachers earn $52,000 they used to earn $45,000 and emergency teachers can earn a max of $45,360 if they can get 210 days work in a year. [10% of classes are taught by emergency teachers]. teachers must have a university degree plus teacher training by contrast there are no qualifications for politicians and they are voting cabinet ministers a $100,000 pay rise.

So yes Finland has better educational outcomes because they spend money on remedial education, do not subsidise a private school sector. In the Netherlands primary school children who do not speak Dutch correctly have mandatory speech therapy so they learn to sound their vowels in the Dutch manner rather than in German or French manner. This type of effort hasn't been spent on the children of migrants in this country.

Glynne is right to reject the never-ending stream of fads that now wash across our schools. 'Teacher as facilitator' is one of the most pernicious because it actually removes teaching from its key place in students learning. There have been many others - wellbeing, emotional intelligence (remember when it was called maturity) and all the rest.

It is difficult however to accept the determinism underpinning his claim that 'a child's future is framed in the first five years of life'. It's the sort of nonsense that both denies the experience of many children who have overcome difficult backgrounds and gives the social workers and their friends reason to intervene in the lives of families.

In the end, the problems, though exaggerated, won't be solved by pitting one type of school against another or simply increasing teachers pay. Teachers will always be poorly paid while the majority of them are employed by Departments of Education. A new funding model would place the resources in the hands of parents who could then choose whether or not to pay additional fees and new transparency would provide parents with information enabling them to choose the schools they think best. In a democracy, choice is the only way to go and needs to be at the heart of all school arrangements.

The claim that ‘From 1958 in Victoria student teachers destined for high school placement went directly to the then newly established Secondary Teachers’ College, instead of as previously, getting a University degree and then a teaching qualification (the one year post-graduate Diploma of Education)’ is wrong. Thousands of students continued to do university degrees and Dip Eds, just as I did from 1970 to 1973, 12-15 years after it supposedly became impossible. Students currently in Melbourne University’s Master of Teaching must do a degree first.
Class sizes matter. See the Tennessee STAR study for proof.

Expenditure matters, not the least because because it allows decent class sizes, decent teaching loads and decent salaries, which help attracts able people to teaching and keep them there.

The claim that we are spending more and more money is false when looked at in context; i.e., when the growth of the overall economy is taken into account.

The claim that children are learning less and less is also false as shown the by ABS Life Skills Study on the higher levels of literacy and numeracy shown by younger people as compared with older people.

A large sector of society is is actively working against a true education system.
The focus is on developing "boys clubs" rather than picking the brightest and educating them.
We are living in the "its not what you know but who you know" society now.
When kids are allowed to pass or fail based on their *abilities* rather than their parents bank balances then we will be on track again.
Allowing schools to be "private" (& wealthy!) and then subsidising them with public funds is another example of boys club business at it's worst. (Private health insurance is another "business" that should *not* be propped up by workers)
Education is pretty simple: It's a government function, not a market driven one. Provide a Dutch style public education system and set minimum standards for education. If folks want exclusive, boys club entry "private" education, don't ask other people to pay for it!
I don't mind paying for unemployment benefits even for deadbeats (it beats being mugged or robbed, and is ethical), but I *hate* paying for rich kids boathouses and country retreats!

I was publicly educated, but my uncle works in private education and the difference in the quality of education of the children is clear to see.
Parents who send their children to a private school pay their fees out of previously taxed money.
If the public system were to be completely self-funded (which is extremely limiting on choice and variety in the education system) parents of private school students should get per-child tax rebates for reducing the load on public schools.