ALP back-bencher, Craig Emerson is not afraid of dancing with wolves, or at least addressing the libertarian think-tank Centre for Independent Studies and pitching some ideas one might more associate with the right rather than the left of politics.

His latest excursion into the forest is this suggestion http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20528162-1702,00.html that all students should attend school to year 12. The proposal has been dismissed by the PM.

I'll admit to some misgivings. It's one thing to say that better education leads to higher wages, but if everyone goes to year 12 I doubt whether the relationship will hold as true. We'll still need labourers, and they'll still be paid relatively less than everyone else, even if they do have a year 12 leaving certificate.

One of my other reservations is that Emerson's argument appears to rest on the commonly held belief that education is something that only occurs formally. My father didn't really go beyond 8th grade, although he subsequently did night-school to get his marine engineering qualifications. Yet his curiosity about life, and the standard of education that you received in state schools in the 20s, meant that he knew more than enough to hold an educated conversation with anyone. Perhaps the answer is not how long you stay at school, but what you are taught and the expectations that you take with you beyond the school gate.

I reckon Emerson hasnt got a clue what skills shortage means.

Why? because he and his outfit have presided over the worst non-health crisis the bannanas republic has ever seen. All the funding in the world didnt stop it either. Despite the rhetoric of Labor states, the more they twiddle with the industrial relations sector, the more problems seem apparent. Just imagine what the strikes are going to be like after they take the Commonwealth in 2007.

I would like to explain the underlying principle behind Labors industrial outcomes, but perhaps next time.

Good topic GY!

Just for the sake of it heres a hypothetical, if we compare the life chances of two boys, one from a lower economic family, the other from a rich family who can send him to best private schools. Both are in 10th grade.

The well to do boy (lets call him John) is not overly bright, he's a nice boy but he's personally not interested in going to university or working in the family business. Nonetheless because of class consciousness, his parents are pushing him as hard as they can toward tertiary studies to do law, medicine, or one of the prestigious degrees at the local sandstone university. John loves cars and bikes- wants to be a mechanic.

The second boy is Mike. He's the eldest of 4 children and lives with his Mum who does shift work as a cleaner at the hospital. They all live on a tight weekly income that feeds and clothes them. They rent a house, have a 10 year old car, a dog and not much more.

Mike is doing well at school. In fact he regularly tops the class.
His mum would love for him to go on to university but she also needs him to help out with raising the other kids. There are no scholarship or government subsidies, no rich relatives to help out. Mike's father is a drifter who periodically returns to visit the family but only because he wants a loan to move on again.


Which of these two boys should go to year 12?

My point is that the current school system not geared toward understanding how the benefits of a good education. Schools and teaching are profoundly political in that they are focusing on turning out one kind citizen rather than understanding that kids already live in a social class that limits or privileges their opportunities from the word go. My answer is that both should go to year 12, but for very difference reasons. The trick is to get schools equipped to understand where kids like Mike and John are in their lives.

Raineir..wonderful hypothetical and how true for todays society..

Its not what you know but who you know and just a prime example of how its not always the brightest and best who get a break in this society based on outdated stratification principles left over from another era..

As outdated as those principles may be , the government uses them to keep themselves and the top end of town in the style they have become accustomed to by exploiting and oppressing the proletariat(working class)and fleecing them of ever rising taxes and ever decreasing human rights to keep them in their place so they may 'perform' at the governments pleasure..

To give working class and under priveidged kids affordable tertiary education would upset the status quo for the fatcats...knowledge is power and the government fears the day that proletariat ever rises above his 'station' to challenge the ever rising beuracratic wisdoms and laws that keeps him on his never spiral into nothingness..education in the 'wrong hands' is dangerous

Thanks for this thread, Graham. All posters have made some good points.

I agree with Ms Bishop that the quality of education needs to improve rather than merely forcing students to stay till year 12. Attractive schools and flexible educational programs may motivate pupils to attend school after year 10.

I wonder if there's any teacher who would be desperate to teach a bunch of teenagers that have no motivation to stay at school.
Teachers at highschools already have a difficult job as many pupils misbehave. Stress leave for teachers is high enough as-is; imagine the added stress of having to teach kids that loathe to be there!

First of all, teachers’ wages are not exactly attractive to teachers right now- why make the job even less attractive?

Tsskk! Govts cannot even keep up the maintenance of public schools right now- there will be a hell of a lot more door-slamming kids running around the schools if Mr Emerson gets his way!

Free TAFE courses might interest kids in taking up a trade or other course- this is just what Australia needs.

Celvia, Good points]

Here’s what I reckon -- The whole concept of school came from the industrial revolution and was created to service industrial/capitalist workforces. I think to some degree our children are asking

'is this all there is to who you want us to be, isn't there more to life that work'?

or for kids who see that their life chances as determined by their socio-economic status '

“why should I bother with year 12 when the cards are already stacked against me”

I think that the antiquated model we use to education our children that we call 'school' needs to be reconsidered.

Why is it that many from the immediate post war went on to become more literate than their grandchildren in many cases without completing senior school at all?

I seriously believe we need to review schooling models and methods to meet socio economic diversity. State schooling needs to diversify and provide choices. They cannot blame the private sector for doing what they fail to do themselves