The WA government is going to give 30 public schools the right to determine curriculum, hire whatever staff they like and impose whatever discipline they like: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/20/2691090.htm.

Seems like the right thing to do to me. But the teacher's union is threatening to strike.

Our polling a couple of years ago showed that over 50% of people would prefer to send their kids to private schools, and that included a large number of the state school teachers who completed our survey. When the people running the system wouldn't send their kids there you know something is wrong.

Surely an experiment like this can't hurt.

As long as the right people are doing the running.

Yes StG, as long as there are no people running the schools with strict religious agendas, there should be less problems.

If the schools are run with more consequences for the children who break school or societies laws than are currently allowed at public schools, then maybe things will improve.

The main difference between some private school's success, and most public schools, is the issue of discipline.

Less 'rights' for students and more 'rights' for teachers will lead to more respect for adults that the children will need to know for the rest of their lives.

I think this sort of devolution of power - within certain parameters - can only be a good thing. A school in Broome or Kununurra or elsewhere in regional WA has very different needs from a school in Perth; these are needs that policymakers in state capitals are unlikely to understand. Local governance has the potential to make schools more compatible with the communities they serve.

Of course, there need to be guidelines. A school in a remote community should not be allowed to adopt elitist policies that exclude all but the brightest kids; likewise, it should not be allowed to ditch all academic subjects in favour of vocational pathways. Schools need to suit their communities and, when parents are not afforded choice, schools must be 'everything to everyone'. Local governance done well would help this; local governance done badly would hinder it.

But what if any savings will there be in head office?

When federal departments devolved whole areas of operation to private industry the previous managers were retained and promoted through re-classifications as were their senior managers. In fact their Canberra based central offices managed to grow. The Department of Veterans' Affairs is a good example.

Devolution of responsibility should not lead to the distrust that results in more and more reporting, 'coordination' and 'policy' and an explosion in the number of senior managers in central office.

Why are school boards more likely to make bad decisions than a senior bureaucrat in the central office of the Dept of education? Ministers should be very wary of bureaucracies that cannot slim their central offices.

Wow Suze, nice. Off topic cross topic troll flaming. Genius.

GY
Otokonoko's comments have resonance with me.
One wonders what the objectives of the program are, funding, over sight and where the schools are. Clearly this is a Liberal Party ideological initiative. Based on the article posted I am yet to be convinced.

Being a graduate of both private and public schools and on the boards of quasi autonomous public schools in SA I can say with some conviction that it isn't always the best solution.
i.e. In one school an active minority chose a second language on the basis of their ethnicity, Polish, without any regard for future students and/or real world practicality.

In a leafy suburban I was a board member to a (Public) high school that had all facilities like rowing, a fully equipped workshop, robotic labs, and pedal pre, solar car entries. Lifts for wheel chairs, A theatre and their own basketball arena ($½ million then govt funded...contacts?). School trips were to Thailand etc. many of the extra facilities came from donations from past students but the govt maintained them. It was highly represented in the legal fraternity. Had we stayed in SA my son was promised an in to the legal community.
We were in their catchment and No1 son's marks were 'acceptable'.

The problem was....there were 12 people ran the board via the committees, 6 no longer had children at the school. At one time a young teacher upset one of the 12's child. The campaign and reason to sack that teacher were overblown and extraordinarily vicious. Dissenting members of the 'staffing committee' were 'moved' at the chairwoman's (ally of the 'aggrieved' mum) insistence. Hubby was a big contributor. (political mine field).

But the areas other public school was a disadvantaged school, with the expelled and not so goods etc.

I'm a firm believer of to each to their NEED.

PS Graham where do the not so good teacher go?..And wouldn't that simply move the problems to the poorer areas? Would the remote schools be able to pay enough to get top teachers anyway?

I and some other caregivers I know are often left doing respite care for children who are suspended.

They are out of control children and hugely difficult to discipline. They lash out at fellow students and their teachers, they know they cannot be touched by an adult or tolerate consequences in any way that would affect them to any behavior changing extent. They choose not to behave for the time honored reason children have always internalized “why should I”.

I should add that they stay with carers because they do in fact choose to behave in our homes, they are more than often lovely kids to have around. Us foster parents have no idea why they behave this way within the school environment.

Try anything, sit them down and teach them polish and a brush up on the bible, anything but keep them in schools and behaving in schools.

I have one suspended sod with me now, he is 6 years old. I find this nuts (big words escaped me there).

But I have a feeling that cutting a school loose is too similar to contracting out children to private companies for “care”.

This government seems to prefer to make others responsible?

I totally disagree with this.

Today Oz has the most mobile population it has ever had, with people, & their kids getting moved all over the country.

I had this problem in the 50s. Dad was used as a trouble shooter, so I went to 17 different schools, in 3 states. Each move, a different level of the cirriculum, & when it was interstate you found yourself up to a year in front, or behind. No kid should have to suffer this. One national cirriculum is the only way to go.

Then regional differences should be stopped.

My last 4 years were at Young. They only offered general science. 9 of the 14 students in my matriculation year wanted to do a B Sc, & needed a higher level of physics than offered. If we had not had a teacher who could not only teach the physics at that level, but was prepared to run 2 hour science honours classes, which gave us the phisics, 3 afternoons a week, we would have had no chance.

After the honours class 7 of us would then go to the oval for the senior football team coaching, or in summer, the cricket team coaching. Another of our teachers came back at 5.00 PM for this, because without us, there were no teams.

We even had to spend one lunch playing opposition to the girls hocky team, or they had no one to train with.

When there are only 20 boys in the senior school, you get to do a lot of stuff. Hell, I was even in the choir. That practiced one lunch time, & one evening, at 7.00 PM.

We always had one or 2 country kids staying with us, over night for some kind of training. Parents just did not drive 15 or so miles into town to pick up kids after these things. It was bus, or nothing.

I would love the teachers of today to see how good it can be, & how much respect our teachers got from us, & all the town, because they earned had it.

Suzionline writes

'as long as there are no people running the schools with strict religious agendas, there should be less problems.'

Are you blind Suzi? The reason private schools are flooded with non believers and politicians kids is because the secularist agenda has proven a major in (capital letters) flop. Year one students are not even safe going to the toilets in some secular state schools as the kids act out what our charming porn industry has flooded the market with. You really have got things back the front. About the only thing you seem to have right is the biblical belief of discipline to bring the adamic nature under control. Unfortunately the State schools will never address this issue adequately because secularism is based on lies (the inherit goodness of human nature). I think you have posted enough to emphasize this point

Hasbeen,
Good point and I agree one curriculum in the main academic subjects Aust wide works for me. Variations for regional interests in the choice of non core subjects

You make some interesting points Hasbeen. I wondered about curriculum because it does concern me that fringe groups could set back the advance of a significant part of the population by adopting eccentric curricula - for example, promoting creationism rather than evolution.

However, I am not sure that the curriculum issue is a simple one of uniformity being an unequivocal good. In Queensland we are seeing an increasing number of children undertaking the International Baccalaureate (IB). This appears to be as a result of state school curricula having been dumbed-down to the point where parents, students and employers (and perhaps even universities) have lost faith in them.

The IB presents as a rigorous curriculum with an independent marking system that gives entry to not just Australian universities, but those overseas as well.

So, even under the centralised curriculum we have in Queensland, we appear to be developing a dual curriculum approach, just at the time when the federal government is developing a national curriculum.

This would seem to me to be a bigger challenge in some respects than some schools adopting their own curricula. Bright and ambitious kids look increasingly likely to adopt the IB rather than the standard state or commonwealth one, and you might find some schools not being able to support them, causing trouble if their parents move around.

And there is always the issue of some schools offering subjects that others don't.

GY,
Who are taking the IB (demographics)? I suspect Private schools.

Are you suggesting that our system should be set up for the rich or The super smart both have options to go to private schools through scholarships etc. if that is where they need to go. Like everything it costs, providing IB at the expense of some disadvantaged school just trying to supply the basics is a farce.

My understanding is that just because one scores well in IB doesn't mean automatic entry to O/S universities. There is more to the SAT calculations. Then there's the issue who pays the O/S fees etc?

Is that what we want anyway to facilitate a brain drain earlier?

If bosses and universities have lost faith in the current curricular then surely that is an argument to improve the curriculum and perhaps
private industry pay towards better quality....user pays....capitalist mantra?

Is there any reason that the national curriculum couldn't be an equivalent if that is what the greater part of the voters want(referendum)? I don't think that's what the majority want.

Look at it this way the majority of average people don't want to pay for some rich kid to get a better education than they can or did for their children and why should they?

PS all 4 of mine went through tertiary largely in the public system
spanning 12 institutions in 3 states. The 'baby' 23 is doing a double science degree and on track for honours/master?

I think you're ignoring the impact of the home environment and the options available that most Aussies have and are likely to have...The issue is the priority, funding and addressing life options in the home.

There are some merits to this idea. But I would argue that there still needs to be a core curriculum to ensure uniformity across the states.

Extra-curricular subjects could still be added to suit a particular demographic which happens now in Victoria I believe with some high schools offering Trade type courses as opposed to being overly-academic.

Aboriginal schools would obviously benefit from the inclusion of relevant extra-curricular subjects.

As for hiring teachers I have no idea about how this is done. I thought that Principals could arleady recruit from a pool of applicants/graduates approved as certified by the various Education Departments.

Graham, I'm all for bringing the curriculum up to scratch, but you will have to find a way of getting teachers who can teach the science & math, & getting rid of many who hold the positions, but can't even do the work, let alone teach it.

Fixing the guidance officers would be a good start. I have not met one who has any idea of practical subjects, or careers. One we had for a while, told every kid they should do "something" artistic.

My kids went to one of the best state highs, at the time, south of Brisbane, but many kids got a rough deal there. If their parents did not have the education, or the savvy, to see what was happening. The lack of reporting seemed to me, to be designed to keep these parents in the dark.

Adding another level of cirriculum would, in my mind, disadvantage some very bright country kids, who just need good teachers. Our next bunch of physicists may not be from inner city, high rise living, parents.

Don't forget that just a few years back, little country Clifton high, produced the most OP1s of any state high school, for a couple of years. This was not just one bright bunch, one year. I'll bet those kids benefitted from one great math/physics teacher.

I know there would be union problems, but we really should be paying more money to those who can teach hard stuff. There would be quite a few ageing mechanical/electrical engineers who could cut the mustard, with a years Dip Ed, & some encouragement. Their real world experience would go down well with the senior kids, where subject knowledge is in such short supply.

Could I just ask what schools? Primary? High School?

I found this when I went to look up some information on schools in WA:

http://www.ais.wa.edu.au/about-aiswa/

So there is a whole lot of Independant schools already. What does it mean that the government is letting 30 more have a go?

I couldn't find which schools or why.

Examinator, the children I know who are doing the IB are at state high schools. One of them at a selective state high school and the others at normal state schools. I don't know any at private schools who are doing it, but I haven't done a comprehensive survey.

There's no basis for your class-envy-soak-the-rich diatribe in the facts about the IB, or what I was saying. My point was that if you allow the system to degrade, as we have, then people will find alternatives. The IB is one which is growing-up within the system.

Free universal education is one of the great liberal initiatives, and it is one to which I am very strongly attached. But that doesn't mean we should attach ourselves to some industrial era, one-size-fits-all model.

I personally think that we don't expect enough of our less-gifted students, and that we don't provide enough opportunities to our most-gifted, and that is largely due to this obsession with equality above everything else.

GY
My apologies,
The only IB students I know are at Private School different experience hence the question.

Class ridden envy etc diatribe you read me wrong. I simply critically analysed what you said... I blindly follow no party, in your parlance I'M "A POLITICAL PARTY SCEPTIC"

I also said that why can't the curriculum be upgraded? I pointed out the reality is that most people aren't in the intellectually superior category either as parents or children.

It was a Labor govt that introduced free tertiary education and a Liberal that ( afford it/effectiveness?) canned it. Liberal policy gave money to private and privileged schools (not necessarily synonymous) while other schools are struggling to provide the basics. Logically that the government should provide at least equal facilities for all govt schools before supporting the niceties, extras in “privileged” schools. Especially when the neighbouring catchment area school can have less than reasonably acceptable facilities.
(see my war stories)
My comments were actual issues and are facts, they also show interstate experience of the potential abuses by aggressive parents in self run schools ...I also suggested control being imperative.

The resentment was/is real and palpable in both all three states (Vic/SA/QLD.)

I'll give you more details off line if you want.

The facts are there are more bare basic schools (under privileged) than privileged ones.

There is limited available money that to be shared therefore it makes simple sense to give to schools to overall needs. FIRST get all public schools UP to an acceptable and accessibility. It's all about priorities of needs before political dogma/ideology.

If the private sector wants to go the next level then let it pay...basic capitalist theory business opportunity.

I also mentioned scholarships to deal with the disadvantaged bright children to even up their access.

I also pointed to the fact that children's environment also inhibit their opportunities. Government should be HELP to raise the opportunities for the majority of people ..bugger a free! ride I said help. Value all people....this is my version of Humanism.

Well said Examinator.

Two things that GY said give him away: "There's no basis for your class-envy-soak-the-rich diatribe" and "I personally think that we don't expect enough of our less-gifted students, and that we don't provide enough opportunities to our most-gifted".

I suspect that Examinator is just as middle class as is GY.

First off "less gifted students" ain't necessarily so - some of our most effective entrepreneurs were hopeless students.

Secondly many "most-gifted" hail from regional areas, low-income or otherwise disadvantaged backgrounds. That they may qualify for a scholarship is no answer. Ever been the poorest kid in a 'posh' school? - peer pressure alone is a huge hurdle - why not have quality education for all - where they live?

Here's a simple question I would like answered: Why have our state schools been neglected and continue to be neglected in favour of private schools?

Answer: So that vested interests may claim that public education doesn't work and favour private education.

Why does 'user-pays' economics only apply to those least able to pay?

If socialism is so bad, why are private schools given such largesse from the government? I won't mention the bank bail-out as it is not on topic, ooops I did. My point is simply that government subsidy for capitalism has gone too far.

Nor has Examinator suggested a 'one-size-fits-all' approach, given that quality public education would support those according to need and ability - something that is currently provided through private schooling, but not to all our children.

Examinator, it's not a good look to claim to be non-ideological while everything you say proclaims the opposite. If you really are interested in the make-up of the schools offering the IB you can find a current list at http://www.ibo.org/country/AU/. I didn't count up but looked to be a reasonably even split between state and private.

I didn't start this thread to have a fight. I was interested in a discussion on the moves in WA to loosen-up the state system. That has nothing to do with university education, or the federal government providing funding to private schools.

If you are going to argue about those things you should get your facts straight. For example before Gough Whitlam most people got their university education free via Commonwealth Scholarships. Gough expanded the number of uni places and paid students to attend.

It wasn't the Liberals that introduced uni fees, it was Labor.

Some of the most needy schools in the country are private schools, not state schools, and this has been the case for decades and was first acknowledged at a government level in the Carmel Report, commissioned by Gough Whitlam. It's the basis for the feds funding private schools to the extent that they do.

Howard introduced a scheme to direct greater federal government funding to those schools with a lower SES, a necessary and humanitarian reform.

If state schools are under-funded it is the fault of state governments. Federal government funding of private schools makes more money available to the states by making it viable for more children to leave the state system, meaning dollars available per head should increase.

But none of this has anything to do with the topic, so howabout we get back to it?

GY
Fair point,I got it wrong...sorry (very red face) I got my degree and all I paid was student union and books.

Thanks for the details. Oddly enough one school listed was one of my war stories (they joined the year after we left). Many of the public schools I recognise are in "better" suburbs not those like Logan, Broadmeadows, Elizabeth, etc.

Neither did I want a fight. I was following the thread about an Aust-wide curriculum as opposed to potentially 30 different ones as a result of autonomously run schools. I have reservations with autonomously run schools, based on my experiences and some similar to those faced by Hasbeen. But I wait to be convinced otherwise.

I still stand by my point that the unaccounted for gorilla in the corner of this discussion is the social demographics of the schools catchment. One has to also consider resources/facilities.

Perhaps I should have said I am party dogma independent not necessarily non-ideological sorry, confusion of terms.
Humanist is a non specific ideology.

Fractelle,
I did get some facts wrong but essentially most of what I said still stands.

The point I missed was the religious bit i.e. many of the needy schools ARE the religious (catholic is the largest group) run ones. But the key issue is the curriculum specifically the religious choice and who pays then.

To my mind discretionary choices (DC) like religion and perceptional curricula shouldn't be funded by governments. Choice is generally the provence of private enterprise. That doesn't mean that a private enterprise can't run a public school providing it runs the whole curriculum and facilities/teaching staff are up to scratch.
OPTIONAL/separated religious instruction could be permitted.
Current minimums need to be raised. But that is first read discussion and could be off the specific topic

GY & Examinator

I am so pleased that you have managed to reach a consensus and avoid a fight. Always good to see the doors of communication remain open, despite GY's tendency to personal judgement; Examinator having made very clear that he is not into "class-envy-soak-the-rich" diatribe.

Now is there further elucidation regarding the 30 WA Schools receiving autonomy?

Who will be governing these schools? What will the curriculum be?

Will the overriding philosophy be determined by those in whom the power has been invested?

Does this include religious schools or are these 30 schools to be truly independent and encouraging free-thinking rather than dogma of any creed?