There was a lot of excitement before Kevin Rudd's speech at the Press Club yesterday, but in the end it boiled down to not very much. This piece from The Australian has the details http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24253186-601,00.html.

It's a recycled Coalition policy that didn't actually make its way into practice because the former government couldn't get the cooperation of the states.

In principle transparency of school performance should be a good carrot to get schools performing better, and I have no problem with that. But the teachers' unions do, and it will be interesting to see exactly what happens there, but the time frame should be such as to get the government past the next election.

what fascinates me more is the stick part of this approach. Can anyone really imagine schools being closed on the basis of their outcomes? I can remember the squeals when Kennett closed school on efficiency grounds because there was no longer the demand in their area. Imagine trying to do the same thing to a school which under-performed, but where demand was extremely high.

Part of the increase in demand for private schools is driven by a perception that state schools are underperforming, and this policy, like the Coalition one, looks to be a reaction to it. Whether it ends up being more than a public relations ploy which pumps more money into the sector for no greater benefits, remains to be seen.

On Lateline Julia Gillard was saying it's about identifying under-performing schools to work out who needs more resources. Pre-election I might have believed that, but if the answer to truancy is to withdraw financial support, it logically follows that the answer to schools under-performing would also be withdrawal of funding. In which case the Rudd government should be imprisoned for impersonating a Labor government.

GrahamY

Paying teachers half a million a year will not lift the performance of some schools. They are simply adult child minding centres that try to manage out of control (often fatherless) kids. Better teachers will just end up frustrated and leaving the half collapsed system. It really is a society problem more than a school one. My kids did more work in 2 hours a day homes schooling than they ever did in the school system.

Runner, your kids performance is probably more about one on one attention and teacher dedication than a reflection on schools public or private. I was homeschooled for a number of years and thought it great that I oculd start at 10 and finish by 1, but thats also a reflection that given no classmates I could progress at my own pace. Homeschooling also provides for few social skills for kids and learning that yuo are not the centre of the world, and how to wait your turn for help or seek assistance from classmates is also a part of what the school environment provides.

Country Gal,

I actually agree with all you say here. My point was however that paying teachers higher wages (of which I have no problem with) will not address the social problems which greatly restrict learning in classrooms. Throwing resources at a problem does nothing if the main issues are not addressed. We have seen billions thrown at Indigenous issues with little change/ Why? Because the real issues are never addressed. The same goes for behavioral issues in schools. Give the kids a little speed for their ADD or whatever the latest term is and hope the problem goes away

I remain a proud trade unionist, forever.
But the teachers federation is more than left and trying to defend poor performances.
I do not see schools closing, but higher wages for higher effort and better outcomes is no threat.
Yes it was both party's policy.
That screams to me it is the right policy
Rudd however is going to do it not talk about it.

This is just another of Kevin's distractions.Intelligent children will learn come what ever.Our education system has failed because of the breakdown of the family unit,too many rights,the interference of the state in family life,lack of discipline,a unionised profession that focuses on the teacher,the legal disease and no real consequences for poor behaviour.Having a few highly paid role models will change nothing.

Unless the above issues are addressed,pumping more money into teacher's pockets will change nothing.

Arjay thanks for your one sided slant.
I almost feel my words should come from your side of the political fence.
But like it or not teachers for too long have tried to say what they will teach.
How they will teach it and when.
What employer would allow this?
In this case it is far to important to leave it in their hands.
I am confident we will get better outcomes from Rudd.
However I have a question for you.
No defense the policy is very like your fallen party's.
Would you be as cynical if it was your party implementing it?

Schools in NSW already have a ranking/comparison scale. Schools are divided into 3 groups- Rural, Metro high socio-economic and Metro low, and ranked against each other within these groups. The publication of these rankings is illegal under NSW legislation. Rudd needs the state govt. onside, the same mob who opposed Lib. attempts in this area.

Graham, how can Kevin sack non-performing principals if the principals don't first get hire and fire rights over their staff? The current rules re getting rid of bad teachers make it a long and troublesome process.

Talk of sackings, closures and kicking parents of truants off welfare is just populist rubbish.

What's all the fuss about...

Give the man a chance and judge him after
he's been in office for at least a few years.

It seems to me that what the PM is proposing
is a very reasonable education agenda.

It makes sense to have additional funding conditional
on schools providing performance reporting. It makes
sense to strive for and reward excellence among teachers
and principals, as well as have targeted bonus
payments for disadvantaged schools.

The PM is at least trying to do something for the
good of the country. Things don't happen over night.
Look at the previous
government - they had twelve years. The PM hasn't even
had one year.

Why is there this phobia to tear someone down,
before they have a chance to get a foot up?
Obviously, the PM's agenda and process must be
achieving something, otherwise there'd be no criticism.
(Tall poppy syndrome... a national trait).