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.

You already have freedom of choice.

Just stop expecting that 'choice' of yours to be subsidised by the Australian people. If some imaginary man in the sky floats your boat, then good luck to you, but these non-government schools, with restricted access, must stop their parasitic, whining behavior and same goes for their supporters too. Ironically, many of you lot are well-off and would probably preach that people should be self-reliant, so if the cap fits.....

Ah Col Rouge,

If only we were all more like you. Life would be so simple... and dreary.

As for society's opportunity structure being a simple matter of choice - all in the mind - your fatal blind spot is that you can't begin to analyse the structural causes of poverty which lie in the necessary relationship between poverty and wealth. People can only be rich if sufficient others are poor.

You might move in different circles to me, but I know no-one who chooses to be impoverished. And I know plenty whose whole lives revolve around the acquisition of money and material possessions and who think of education as a commodity to be bought for their kids and to be displayed just like the vulgar 4WD vehicles that are the ostentatious shopping baskets that hang around the private school supermarkets.

Of course you totally ignore the first of my two sets of options for explaining why two-thirds of all parents send their children to public schools. As one who chose to do just that - and the benefits have been amply plain - it is just silly prattle for you to talk about 'the old green eyed monster'. I know you are omniscient, but perhaps you misread your opponents' motivations.

What I resent is the taxpayers' money being drained from the already under-resourced public education system for the benefit of those who can easily afford another couple of tax-deductible grand to put into the college building slush fund. It's a wicked waste of money that could be spent where it's really needed.

Dr Prosser has writen a number of articles for OLO and in general I have found them to be interesting, well argued and based on reality. It is hence sad to see such a poor article from him. A couple of facts: The smaller fact for this discussion is the fact that all syllabuses in all subjects in all schools at all levels are the same, emanating from the Queensland Studies Authority. Secondly and crucially the choice that Dr Prosser (rightly) wants is simply not possible because there is NO DATA AT ALL on which to base a decision (choice). That is the reality on this issue and Dr Prosser ignores it totally. Consequently his article is based on imagined circumstances that simply do not exist. All very dissappointing. I appeal to Dr Prosser (and anybody else who is interested in this most important issue)to find an OLO article of 12/10/2005 entitled 'Choosing a school in a knowledge vaccuum' by John Ridd. That dealt with the reality - the poverty of available reliable information about any school, and points out that you know much more about the content of a tin of peas than you actually KNOW about a school.

Governments know best ... “Surely grown-ups do not believe that any more.” Amazingly, many do, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Re “market failure” for example: markets are very efficient devices for providing and processing information, for organising production and distribution of goods and services so as to allocate resources to their highest valued use and thus maximise community income. Their superiority to central planning is well attested.

There may, however, be cases where markets do not produce the most efficient outcome, where there is “market failure.” This tends to arise in particular circumstances, for example when there is a natural monopoly, where externalities are not taken into account, where there is information asymmetry or in the case of public goods.

The identification of market failure alone is not, however, sufficient reason for government intervention. There can be no presumption that governments outperform markets: indeed, “government failure” is more common.

The World Bank advised that “the countless cases of unsuccessful intervention suggest the need for caution. To justify intervention it is not enough to know that the market is failing; it is also necessary to be confident that the government can do better.” (World Development Report 1991) A Bureau of Industry Economics paper assessing the 15 major interventionist policies of the Commonwealth Government from 1970-85 found no positive outcomes: 13 had negative returns, while for two the net outcome was unclear. The Economist noted that “The skills of government in addressing market failure are often exaggerated. Government intervention must overcome three formidable difficulties: the tendency of regulated firms to “capture” their regulators, weak incentives for efficiency within the public sector, and missing information (where markets lack it, governments are likely to lack it as well). … The record of intervention is poor … history suggests that the burden of proof should lie with those who would extend the government’s role.”

billie, my kids were always going to go to university, we wanted the best schools for them, rather than wealth a combination of scholarships and frugality put two through private schools.

Spikey, as mentioned above, we looked for the best schools for our kids, in broad development terms as well as academically. All three got scholarships to private schools, in one case we decided co-ed Brisbane State High was more suitable, even though it was more PC and ideological. Like Col, we choose a modest lifestyle which extends ourr capacity to choose in areas we deem important, such as supporting our kids.

When government extends choice by, for example, education vouchers which can be used at any school, it will enable more parents to seek the optimal school for their children, and will surely drive improvement in the system.

“People can only be rich if sufficient others are poor.” Unbelievable, there has been a vast increase in wealth throughout the world in the last century, those in the lowest quartile of world incomes in 2000 had incomes similar to the second quartile in 1900. Incomes at all levels and in all parts of the world were similar and static for about 2000 years before the Industrial Revolution, and have advanced at a great pace since. What is considered poor in Australia today would have been undreamed of wealth to me as a child.

Des Moore noted in a 2006 paper that if Queensland adopted policies to raise the number of students in non-government schools to the national average, the net savings to the State Budget by 2011 would be $1-2bn, but total spending on schools would rise (The Role of Government in Queensland, Queensland Commerce). The Budget had already benefitted from a rapid switch to private education and medical care, and in prevailing circumstances encouraging those trends will surely be necessary

A few thoughts from a private school graduate who is now a state school teacher.

1) Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family suggests that non-government schools should not be government funded. At least, I think that's what he/she is suggesting. What people forget, though, is that the parents who send kids to these schools pay taxes. Those taxes fund government and non-government schools alike. They are simply willing (or, perhaps, able) to tip a bit more into the kitty to buy a 'better' education for their kids. My parents were never rich - in fact, they were closer to the other end of the scale. But they found the money. Their tax dollars funded the state school up the road AND the private school I attended; on top of that, they paid extra for a private education. If non-government schools ceased receiving government funding, I would expect a tax refund for parents who chose that path.

2) Spikey raises two solid reasons to explain the choice of parents to send their kids to state schools. It is certainly true that many people can afford to send their kids to private schools but choose not to. Not long ago, a student of mine - at an outer suburbs state high school - showed me pictures of her parents' stables and airstrip on Google Earth. They had the choice to send their kids to a private school but decided not to.

3) In 2006, approximately 67% of students attended government schools; these schools received approximately 78% of government funding. It is hardly true, then, that the government favours non-government schooling - the extra fees paid by the rich 'parasites' goes towards bridging the gap in funding - many private schools do little more than this.

4) It is certainly true that there are private schools out there whose filthy rich clientele could afford to live without government funding. BUT - why should those parents be denied the funding that others - some of whom pay a fraction of the tax they pay - receive?

I am the product of a small [only 15 kids in 5Th year] NSW country high school. Our science master ran physics, & maths honors classes, three afternoons a week, after school, so we could compete with the big city students, on reasonable terms. Those were the days when external exams gave a true measure of your results.

Five of us were in the top 60 LC results that year, which says a lot about quality teaching. Four of the kids from the local catholic school were there with us. 9 top passes, from a town of 7000 was something to be proud of.

My daughter is the product of a large, [1750 kids] near city Queensland state high school. She, & 3 other grade 12 students, spent every saturday at QUT, being privately coached in math C, & physics. You see, only one teacher in the school could even do these subjects, let alone teach them, & there were 56 kids wanting the courses.

One very genuine senior biology, & junior maths teacher quit, when told he was to take these classes. He said, "I can't even do the stuff", but he should have stayed. The Asian lady, with a bit of paper, knew much less than he did, & was happy to take the job. The kids who's parents did not know enough to see all this, had no chance. That womam is still there.

It's not too hard to see why people want to send their kids to a better system, & god knows it would be hard to find worse, for real subjects. I can see no reason why these kids should recieve less tax payer contribution to their education, than mine. That contribution would be better spent in any other system, private, or public.

There are many good teachers, who have not yet given up, in our high schools, but the Qld Education dept, is about as good as Qld Health
Dept, & with that management, those teachers have about as much chance as those Maths C kids had.

What is often forgotten in this forum is that most independent schools are not those charging $20 000 fees, but generally only a fraction of that.

As the funding per child by the state for public schools is about $12 000 and the subsidy to private schools would be between $6000-$9000 p.a. This means that an independent school charging $3-6k p.a. would have similar funding as a public school which is free.

If independent schools were taken over and run by the state, the increase in running costs (not including property costs) would be in the order of $6b per year or $800 per tax payer per year. Which is why even the labor party is not stupid enough to kill the golden goose.

Removing state funding would end up closing the majority of independent schools and land the state with massive expenses.

The major difference is that the independent schools are not restricted by the teacher's union into promoting based on seniority, and taking whoever the state board deems fit, and the students know that they do not have carte blanche for poor behaviour and that their places at the school are not guaranteed. Which means that the money is better spent and there is no ethos of entitlement.

A socialist paradise would take more money out of the pockets of the man on the street and ensure that only the richest benefit from private education.

http://www.isca.edu.au/html/school_faqs.htm#_Toc524245108

What a crock!

In terms of results, public beats private every time. Experiences in Europe and US have proved this time and time again. Real stats show that private education is not as effective.

Advocates of private education complain about the "socialism" and "government control", yet what they are asking for is more handouts!
What is it about "private" you don't get? You have all the choice in the world...just don't ask the community to pay for your "special" needs.

The rest of us want the "freedom of choice" not to prop up schools that peddle religious garbage and make profits by doing so. We don't want an "us and them" society like the US.
Fact is we cannot afford to fund dodgy "alternative education" when the basics are failing due to under-funding. I have no objection to alternate education so long as it passes certain standards, but why must I pay for it?

Lets stop talking garbage and look at results: US system has resulted in student results going backwards and social divisions increasing. Countries with public education have the opposite result. It is time for the advocates of private education to justify their grand claims with evidence, and account for the known deficiencies.

Most uni tutors would agree that private school kids are *not* better educated, they are better *differentiated*. ie. they know who "us" and "them" are. This pompous "better people" attitude is *not* good for society.

Correction: Education must be all about teaching kids.

This "pro choice" nonsense applies to a tiny minority of rich, mobile, city dwelling parents. They want the entire country to suffer funding shortages so that they can get government funds. Our public education used to be top class until Howard choked it of funds and status.

Putting a philosophical spin on personal greed and elitism is pretty low. The fact that Labour has continued this policy is lamentable.

BTW. Teaching "intelligent design" instead of science is child abuse. Science is what dragged us out of the stone age. Teaching your kids to mistrust evidence based knowledge is dangerous, stupid and irresponsible. We need logical thinkers, not fearful, faithful automatons.

Try calling the parents who send their kids to Saint Theresa's College in Abergowrie ('where?', you ask) rich, mobile city-dwelling parents. Or the pastoralists who send their kids to boarding schools in Charters Towers, Toowoomba, Warwick or any of the other 'education hubs' for rural parents. Sure, their kids could be home schooled or educated over the airwaves, but they have little other opportunity to give their kids educational opportunities.

As for using the USA as evidence that the private school system is a failure, that is absurd. There is very little comparable about the American system and those adopted by Australian states. Certainly if tertiary entry scores are anything to go by, private schools hold their own. And I managed to get through uni, so they can't have done too bad a job.

OZandy,

As per your previous posts, your comments are grandiose, provocative, and generally factually incorrect. (I notice you offer no links)

The comparisons in the US, Europe, and overwhelmingly in Aus show that kids from independent schools get better scores. (see the link from the US) In NSW the top HSC results are overwhelmingly either selective or independent schools. The non selective public schools barely feature.

“Most uni tutors would agree that private school kids are *not* better educated” What absolute drivel. Where did you suck this one from? Don’t attribute your personal opinion to a group of people without some decent research.

The reason that labor continues the policy is that it cannot afford to saddle the state with the expense of the alternative. A point that the proponents of public only education don’t appear to have the maths wherewithal to comprehend. As far as the state is concerned it is spending less on independent pupils than public pupils and getting good education results.

The politics of envy can only make things worse for everyone.

“This "pro choice" nonsense applies to a tiny minority of rich, mobile, city dwelling parents” Rubbish 33% of children are independently schooled.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp
http://www.cis.org.au/issue_analysis/ia13/ia13.pdf
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/08/2134118.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/national/parents-abandoning-public-schools-20090129-7t2z.html

Education most definately should not be about choice.

But if we are going to have a voucher system (or any other sort of partially tax funded system providing "choice" in education), then I want my infrastructure, defense force, police, judicial system,and hospital vouchers as well.

I personally am not keen on spending my "choice" on Police or Defense as they stand, so I might just buy a personal bodyguard and leave everyone else to fend as they can.

Since I don't drive, I really don't see the need to spend my infrastrucure voucher on various tollways, but I will spend a bit on trains, and the balance on getting a killer push bike. Definitely none to be wasted on rural phone services that are useless to me.

I might just pocket as much of the judicial voucher as I can, or give it to a "registered justice provider" who is willing to provide that "personal" justice touch I deserve (clothing optional...).

As I'm pretty healthy, maybe my health voucher can be spent on day spas and beauty treatments (I need a fair few of those...).

As to education, my voucher can be spent on the school that is most willing to keep my kids out of my hair. That is a voucher well spent.

If I can get even more absurd, I might want to trade the voucher system for these new fangled vouchers called "dollars", and the government can give everyone the same amount, and we can let choice and market forces determine what institutions we promote.

That 50 inch plasma screen education device sitting on my entertainment unit sure looks like a good investment in the future to me.

Or perhaps we could allow education to be about ensuring all children are well educated, regardless of the "choices" of parents, lobby groups and newspaper editors. Sure, that makes these children more productive and is theoretically a step towards egalitarianism, but on the plus side it does help us indoctrinate them in our treasured judeo-christian, middle class Aussie values.