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.