Its interesting to see a Queensland management academic writing about Australian education standards. I was listening to a Radio National program where the chair of the board developing the national curriculum for English was talking and these a the points that he made and came out in discussion -

1. Qld's 5 years of secondary school lead to lower standards of numeracy in comparison to states with 6 years of secondary school. The Army finds it must provide remedial maths to Qld Engineering officer cadets

2. the best students are 5 year levels higher than the worst students in any classroom

3. Finland tops the OECD literacy tables and there are no private schools and no streamed classes. Teachers have higher social status, better pay and more support and refresher courses.

4. Australia's ranking in the OECD literacy tables dropped when the tables switched from measuring raw literacy to measuring higher problem solving skills. Bright Australain students cover more material bradly rather than learning to solve more complex problems.

5. From personal experience our family sends its children to private schools to increase chances of university entry, so if the government system is good then a private school must be better to make it worthwhile to spend $26,000 on school fees for each child.

It is far simpler and fairer to fund a strong government school system

The Victorian Government's "Education Reform Act 2006" enshrines the principle of choice of education as a fundamental right for parents. Interestingly, home schooling is included in the definition of education in the Act. Standards in all schools are now monitored by an independent body, separate from the Education Department.

Real progress in school education will not be made until we get over the 'public vs private' divide. We need a wide variety of schools, specialising in different areas and catering for different children with different abilities and interests. This won't happen while we argue about who should or shouldn't own the schools. Several European countries - The Netherlands and Sweden, for example - manage mixed private and public school systems without rancour. We need to do the same.

In the end, we need to pay more than lip service to the principle of choice. Julia Gillard's voucher idea for universities needs to be extended to schools so that parents can choose schools on the basis of both quality and price.

So it's all about choice, is it? What a wonderful thing it must be to exercise choice: "After all, why - in our increasingly diverse and tolerant society that likes choice in what we buy, how we live, the way we work - be somehow denied choice in relation to schools?"

With unconscious irony the writer then cites ABS statistics that show that about two-thirds of all parents send their children to government schools and one-thrid to private schools.

So how do we explain this pattern? Two explanations present themselves.

1. Two-thirds of all parents consciously choose public schools for one reason or another e.g. because they are satisfied with the standards, or because they believe in supporting the local community and its facilities, or because they believe in the democratic imperative that all young Australians should rub shoulders with the full range of future citizens.

Or

2. Assuming the private schools are more desirable and of better quality and that no thinking parent would willingly send their child to a low quality school if they could help it, two-thirds of Australians parents don't exercise choice because they can't afford it. They have no choice.

I'm inclined to the view that it's a combination of 1 and 2 above. But I'm yet to hear from the so-called 'choice' advocates any concession that countless numbers of parents simply cannot dream of having a choice.

That's why I find the choice argument so hollow and hypocritical. A more honest approach to government funding for private schools would run along the lines of saying that the articulate and affluent have always been keen to preserve and extend privilege.

They are buying an education for their children (note the language: 'monopoly supplier', 'competition' and 'attach the dollars to the student' ) and have used their power to persuade governments to increase the subsidies. It's another form of middle-class welfare.

The choices and preferences of the electorate and tax payers is a better test fo quality than any bureaucratic panel of paid for flunkies.

Senior Victorian “Julia Gillard's voucher idea for universities needs to be extended to schools so that parents can choose schools on the basis of both quality and price.”

I wonder if that is modeled on the UK voucher system which was introduced and implemented by Margaret Thatcher?

It might stand some chance of success if it is

Spikey “But I'm yet to hear from the so-called 'choice' advocates any concession that countless numbers of parents simply cannot dream of having a choice.”

I am not responsible for someone else’s lack of dreams.

To be honest for the vast majority of people who do want the “choice” it is achieved by making other choices

Choices like

not to drink to excess – I drink in moderation
not to buy recreational drugs – I never touch unprescribed drugs
not to smoke – I have not smoked in around 20 years
not to go overseas on holiday – oh I did last year but my kids are passed schooling
not to take a sickie and risk losing a job – I and self employed, my boss don’t pay for sickies
not to buy a new car but drive a second hand one – I do that all the time, saves me heaps

Another choice I made was to only have two children, no point breeding like a rabbit and not being able to bring them up.

Doubtless if you had the character to make choices for yourself, you would not feel “That's why I find the choice argument so hollow and hypocritical.”

As for “A more honest approach to government funding for private schools would run along the lines of saying that the articulate and affluent have always been keen to preserve and extend privilege.”

Ah the old green eyed monster

“It's another form of middle-class welfare.”
Not when government tax people to provide a service.

i wonder if even prasser believes the crap he writes.

If our public schools were as good as those in Finland, there would be little demand for private schooling.

The teacher unions and gov red tape have made public education a poor relation to the private system. Instead of trying to pull down the private system that produces the majority of university graduates, the socialists should pull their heads out of the politics of envy and fix the real problem.

likewise, I would also love to take public transport to work, but adding 2hrs travelling time to my day due to the lack of decent routes, makes this impractical.