I think that on education neither Rudd or Gillard ever had the plot. Scandinavian countries, particularly Finland, are miles ahead of the USA and Australia.
In successful education systems room is found for Socratic discussion of open ended questions. From these discussions students learn to think and give consideration to alternative views.
Teaching for future employment is short sighted. Who knows what employment opportunities will be even ten years from now let alone in each student's mid life?
Students need maths and langage skills and an understanding of science as basics but they really need to be able to think clearly. But it seems that pollies, business people and religious people really believe that thinking by others is against their own narrow interests.

Not mentioned in this article is why?

Why does Dep. PM Gillard want to reform the school system?

Because it doesn't work for the major stakeholders right now - the parents.

You mention Parents associations are against it - which ones? Every parent I know finds the public school system lacking, and wants this system brought in.

The Unions are against it, and that's all, let's face it. If we left it to the unions and the status quo, nothing would change, ever. The voting block bullies each successive government.

the unions need to join the rest of the modern world where pay is for performance and you are a poor teacher, you are escorted out of the system.

Regardless of how many years you have tried to become a good teacher, so what, if you can't teach why should the nation's children suffer because you pay union dues.

Talk about a privileged society! You guys are like royalty, and we all want a republic.

Australia is riddled with groups who have a sense of entitlement, just like the British royal family.

I'm conservative (surprise!) but whole heartedly support the Dpe. PM on this, even though I would normally cross a street to avoid her.

"The Cambridge Primary Review is supported by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.

The Review, directed by Robin Alexander, is being undertaken by a team based at Cambridge University, supported by 70 research consultants and a 20-strong Advisory Committee. "

The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation is left wing organisation that would probably view the greens as centrist, and is far from the massive review that Mike Williss tries to punt.

It looks like a policy piece with a firm political agenda, and as such is not an unbiased review.

The easiest way to improve the score of your school is to enroll the brightest kids. What do the school rankings really show? How much is due to teaching and how much is the student's own ability.

Surely the purpose of a school is to get the best educational outcome for their students but nobody wants to know about the under achieving kids. What is the role of the Support Teachers in all this nonsense. Does anyone care if a talented support teacher is able to teach a struggling student to read? Presumably Gillard and co will rate them as dud teachers because the ATARs were below average.

Maybe we should fund schools on need rather than the pork barreling that we call school funding.

The author says “Almost to a person, teachers reject this type of performance pay, trusting in a collegiality and sharing of resources”. They say that, but the evidence says they will take what they can get. Victoria had performance bonuses for principals, assistant principals and leading teachers in the 1990s – yes, the 1990s. I am the only leading teacher of that era I know of who refused to sign up for them. Teachers will fall over each other to get their hands on the cash. The days of professional solidarity have long gone.

Well, Rudd sends his kid to an exclusive private school in the ACT, and Gillard has none, so has never had to try to fathom how schools work, or what they exist for.

The 'edumacation revolution' is a fizzer, even the buildings are imposed poor designs that cost far too much.

But schools are in need of dramatic change, although none will come their way.

One of the problems, is that expectations of what school can achieve is far too high, so, inevitably, they appear to fail.

Of course, if students cannot read or write by the time they get to high school and no one has noticed, there is soemthing wrong.

But now we have exported all the low skill jobs, apart from retail shoppo jobs and food joints serving ones, young people are being force fed rubbish in outdated edu-factories that are run along prison lines.

It's no wonder so many people find them terrible and resent being there.

I've had three children at state schools for 34 student-years. The schools have got worse, not better during that recent time.

The high school expels, bans, stands down students for marginal silliness, and prevents stduents from doing what subjects they want, to protect the 'standards' and keep results higher. The QCS (in Qld) test is practised for nearly 12 months, to ensure a high school, and better results for the school.

The whole edifice of 'education' is crumbling to fit Gillard-Howard type models of constant testing.

Pearson is hailed as a secular saint as he admonishes his own people for not trying hard enough, and insists that they all get shunted off to St. Peters type private schools in capital cities instead of demanding real schools be built where his people live.

And sadly, teachers are not required to do much by way of improving their own skills, even while they admonish students and tell them they'll need more than one degree to live, many teachers only have an aged Dip T to wave around.

Two more years to go, it cannot come fast enough.

Heart-felt congratulations to Mike Williss on this summary.
A quick response to rpg, who asks,
"Why...does Gillard want to reform the ... system. Because it doesn't work for the major stakeholders- the parents".
Firstly, why doesnt "it" work for these "major stakeholders" (these people obviously "own" their children the same as any other property they've acquired: back to the nineteenth century and Soames Forsyte)?
Is it because at a state school instead of some of the illywhacker religious schools, kids will actually get to learn about the real world- including sex education, evolution and any post-Euclidian maths that questions a common sense realisation of the flatness of our Aristotelian earth. Rather than have their very thoughts controlled by their narrow-minded Hansonist parents, as occurs in extremis with mobs like the Exclusive Brethren, that is?
No, the "main stake holders" are (actually!) the children.
And I'd hate to see any kid denied a fair education because of vigilante, US style so-called parent groups, anymore than I would want heart surgery conducted on them by a ditch digger rather than a trained professional. Otherwise I'd eventually have to listen to more more of the claptrap emanating from the coalition parties over climate change.

As a mum with a child with dyslexia, I can only rely on public schools as private schools do not cater for children with learning difficutlies. I wish there was a private school (not based on any religion) where the teachers were interested in the latest educational practices and cared for children from all backgrounds and achievement levels. Hasn't anyone out there got enough money to start up schools that are interested in children's learning in a positive and nurturing environment? I for one would be paying whatever it took to have my children enrolled there.

Public schools would be fine if funded properly and had a culture based on excellence rather than being dictated to by the teachers union. Nearly all teachers are "good" teachers, but we should reward the "great" teachers. Of course the union wouldn't agree to that.

Principals should be held more accountable for performance of teachers and the school. Their performance is not assessed at all.

One principal told me that a Catholic School was really only a public school with a cross out the front. I think he was right. However, the privelidged anglican schools certainly are not. I am amazed that the government funds these schools. I believe that it is unconstitutional to fund schools who exclude children on the basis of religion, or academic achievement.