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

The problem with forcing students to stay in school until Year 12 is that not all kids are in great schools, live in optimal learning environments and/or have been lucky enough to have been exposed to a stream of talented teachers.

How can you then expect kids from disadvantaged environments and schools to compete in academic competition against those from private schools, and even against those that are coached and/or from a better learning environment/school?

Some kids don’t achieve, not because they don’t have intelligence, but because they were not lucky enough to be born into a life where education is readily available to them at a high enough level for them to compete.

What is the point of making students stay at school when they are not going to be competitive or succeed in that environment? They are far better off getting a trade or getting a job, as experience is worth a lot more in the workforce than a piece of paper that shows that you didn’t do very well

Jolanda, Yes indeed, i do agree that it is futile at times for many kids in many schools. The social capital that advantaged kids are exposed to cannot be replicated in schools in low socio economic areas (especially remote areas).

But at the same time schools should not be relied to fulfill or fix the broader social problems that disadvantage brings.

Rainer I think you are wrong when you say "But at the same time schools should not be relied to fulfill or fix the broader social problems that disadvantage brings".

Unless of course I am not understanding what you mean?

I believe that Education/schooling is the only thing that has any hope of fixing the social problems in the future.

J, in an altruistic sense I too believe education is central to all good social change, but quite often I hear parents and citizens blaming schools for what are essentially social (not educational) responsibilities. Are they wrong? Yes and No.

I can understand parents wanting schools to take up the role modelling they can no longer provide (because they are too busy working to provide) but what I witness is an imbalance between home and school responsibilities. We no longer live in safe moral and ethical close knit communities and schools are increasingly being asked to fulfil this role for our kids (ie,provide a sense of community) which to a certain extent they do. But the world of a 14 year old is very different these days from a 14 year old twenty years ago. ( I mourn the disappearance of childhood for children)

So in my perspective education is itself going through profound change in terms of purposes, content and methods … [education] is both a symptom of and a contributor to the socio-cultural conditions we are witnessing. I believe many other critical choices we should make for all children but these are not addressed - instead we tend to throw all these choices into one basket and call it “education” or ‘schooling’.

Its just not good enough!

I for one believe we have outgrown the model of schooling we depend on but we need to critically understand what is failing before we move to other models of ‘education’.

I see no movement toward this critical exploration at all.

When I was a kid the law was that you had to go to school until you were 14. I think this was to protect kids against being exploited too early in the workforce, though some may say that it was to encourage the development of literacy and numeracy sufficient to provide an adequate workforce. But the compulsory age has been set at different levels from time to time. What we need is a sound educational rationale for whatever minimum age is set. Personally I think we need to do more to encourage the idea of continuing education. Perhaps make elementary education compulsory but then give people an option of 6 more years of publically funded education of whatever type at whatever stage of the life cycle that people chose.

Rainier, I do understand what you mean. I know that my youngest son has had some social problems (bullying) at school and he says that the teachers cannot cope and that it is the fault of the parents.

Whilst the parents have alot to answer for I still think that it shouldn’t matter what a students home life is like school should be an environment that is strict, supportive, encouraging and fair.

I appreciate that teachers have an impossible job with the range of abilities and the range of behavioural problems from children in their care.

Even my eldest daughter did work experience in a primary school and she felt sorry for the teachers and for the kids that went to school to learn. It’s like the whole environment was sabotaged by those that didn’t care.

Personally I think that students who create a negative learning environment for other students should be educated at home by Distance Education by their parents. They brought them up, they can deal with them.

This attitude seldom makes me many friends.

Jolanda, "They brought them up, they can deal with them." some merit in that but in many cases the issue is much more complex. Add in social workers, a family law system which favours sole parenting in single parent households, governments which pay teenagers to move out of home if they don't like the discipline, schools which are limited in options to deal with discipline problems (and resourcing for that seemingly being at the headmasters discression) and the issue can be much more than the parents choices. In the cases where it is just bad parenting then taking those kids away from other adult involvement might be shifting the problem to the courts.

Back to the original topic I suspect that instead of forcing kids to do seniour we might be better placed to look at how we help adults get back and further their education. I was fortunate as an adult when I went to Uni that I had an employer who helped both with some of the fee costs and some leave to attend lectures, exams etc. Many people don't get that and in many cases where people are just getting by the additional burden of out of hours study, text books, uni fees etc would make it an impossible dream. I'd done senior so I did not have to try and do that as an adult. Can we make that process easier for people?

R0bert

RObert..
the problem with retention rates at school seems to be one of relevancy..My daughter has just left highschool and I had a devil of a time trying to convince her to complete year 12..she pulled out 3 months prior to completion.
Schools make the mistake of not sufficiently explaining to students why and how there subjects relate to the real world..mostly they dont see the point in what their doing..

If they took the time to explain that this 'really boring subject' is very useful because..etc..they need to explain to them and treat them like adults, because at 15-18 they feel they ARE adults and they are.
I had exactly the same problem..i used to question 'why am i learning algebra? its useless, ill never use it'

If students see the relevancy of what there studying as being instrumental to where they ultimately want to go then I think we,d find far greater students completing yr 12 and follow thru to Uni etc.

Taurus, good points there I’d like to add some.

Good teaching (no matter what the content) should at the least captivate any high school student, at as I know it at all.
the most, should inspire.

My 14 year attends a school where the teachers 'lecture' instead of 'teach'. They stand up the front and preach - not . I have no idea where and why they do this because they don’t know what they are doing. Most of it I suspect is just big noting to students.

Its NOT teaching as I know it at all.

He loses interest their and then because he’s lost contact with the teacher (who is busily trying to be a university lecturer).

I suspect that they all do this in the school because they think this is preparing them for a university teaching and learning environment. But it does not!

Yes its ok if all you are wanting students to do is information gathering for regurgitation in exams, "but it aint teaching".

Interestingly, when I lecture I try to teach. My students are there because they want to be, high school students are there because schooling is mandatory. (in some states).

You be surprised how many first year university students are when they encounter a lecturer who can actually teach!

The competitive nature of schooling and curriculum has created teaching and learning environments across the education sector that are pedagogically inconsistent, ad hoc and industry focused rather than student centred. Let us teach them now, they will work soon enough.

Taurus, I believe your daughter is smarter than the system that tried to teach her.