The website of the Federation of Parents and Citizens’ Associations of NSW (PANDC) states that it is
committed to public education
Why? Shouldn’t a parents’ organisation be expected to be “committed to education excellence” or something like that?
What’s so special about public education? Surely most parents want their children to have a good education?
It has struck me that this Federation – purporting to represent the interests of parents – has come out strongly against the My School website launched by Julia Gillard which is probably the best reform undertaken by the Rudd Government to date.
The President of the Federation, Dianne Giblin, writes on the website:
Our concern of course is that the information will be misused, not as a source of information and celebration, but as means to construct school league tables.
Such paternalism – does she and the officers of the Federation really think that they know better than parents?
Is it just coincidence that the Federation’s viewpoint matches almost exactly that of the Australian Education Union and the NSW Teachers’ Federation?
No, of course not. Just like those unions, the P&C Federation has been captured by teachers’ interests. And those interests are antithetical to the interests of students.
It is worth reading the Constitution of the Federation, the aims and objectives of which state:
3. Aims and Objectives
The objectives of the Federation shall be:
(a) To promote the cause of education and to facilitate community involvement in education.
(b) To co-operate with the DET and all community agencies interested in furthering education.
(c) To assist in the organisation of associations, district councils and regional councils and to assist any such association, district or regional councils by financial or other means in such circumstances and such manner as may seem proper to the association, district or regional council and the Federation.
(d) To carry out research into the problems of education and to co-operate with other recognised groups to achieve more effective solutions to these problems.
(e) To establish and expend funds both for the general conduct of the Federation and to enable the Federation to carry out its aims and objectives.
- The Federation shall be non-sectarian and non-party political.
Yet the policy of the Federation is clearly biased to public education. Here are two premises from its policy documents:
PREMISE 2A
P&C Federation believes that a strong and viable government school system is vital for the nation’s future. Australian society and its distinctive values depend on the practical expression of tolerance, fairness, egalitarianism and achievement of equitable outcomes provided by public schools.
POLICY
2.1 All parents and parent organisations should be encouraged to actively campaign to defend the public system and its schools against inaccurate statements and inferences. In particular, manufactured crises in literacy and numeracy and false and misleading reports of violence and substance abuse must be countered at all levels.
2.2 All parents and parent organisations should be encouraged to actively promote the value of their public school and the system generally, the values their schools represent and teach, the breadth and excellence of the outcomes they produce and their key role in the maintenance of a civil society.
B: CO-OPERATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS
PREMISE 2B
P&C Federation rejects the application of the theory and practice of markets to education. P&C Federation believes that market choice totally fails to provide equitable and appropriate diversity or to address the individual needs of students. P&C Federation believes that market competition between government schools is wholly destructive: it is inefficient, ineffective and wasteful, it destroys community value, it weakens comprehensive education and instead creates concentrations of advantage and disadvantage to the detriment of outcomes, and works against the interests of all students and their parents.
P&C Federation believes the individual needs of students can only be addressed:
by the application of the principles of equity;
by the participation and empowerment of parents and students;
by the active partnership of informed parents, professional teachers and confident students; and
by co-operation between schools and school communities in locally identified drawing areas or clusters to provide the widest possible subject choices and other appropriate diversities.
POLICY
2.3 The New South Wales Government must:
(a) abandon completely the competitive market model of school and system organisation, together with its values and language. The fact and image presented to parents and the public must be of a unified system committed to addressing parent and student needs through genuine and continuing participation and through equitable and appropriate diversity.
(b) enhance the ability of the system as a whole to provide for the individual needs of students by increasing participation and representation by parents and students, fostering partnerships between parents and teachers and throughout the community, and encouraging co-operation between schools and communities and between various schools themselves.
2.4 Differences between schools must not be used competitively to attract students away from other public schools, but must be planned in consultation with neighbouring schools so as to extend the complement of what is locally accessible for the benefit of all students.
So there we have it. The Constitution of the Federation doesn’t seek to promote public over private schools. Yet the policy has been captured by the public schools lobby.
Shameful. This is an organisation claiming to represent the interests of parents, yet its policies and actions are opposed to their interests. It should be disbanded and the NSW Government should cease providing taxpayers’ money to prop it up.
A parents’ organisation against more and better information for parents? What a bunch of rent-seeking sell-outs.
C.L.
1 Feb 10 at 6:55 pm
There is more to this than meets the eye – schools that are going thru a rough patch (like being burned down) get a low rating and then (extra) funds are withheld due to the low status
A school that has a relatively poor rating will receive less money thereby guaranteeing its status
Its not about excellence in schools its all about apportioning funds
rog
1 Feb 10 at 7:08 pm
Remember that [male] public school teachers also have kids. And those [male] public school teachers constitute the AEU vanguard that stacks P&C associations.
Peter Patton
1 Feb 10 at 7:14 pm
Rog,
If a school gets burned down it has fewer or no students. Does it get a negative test scores then? Does it not seek insurance? If it doesn’t get rebuilt, then it is about apportionment and also irrelevant.
“A school that has a relatively poor rating will receive less money thereby guaranteeing its status”
No, the principal gets off their butt and they do something about it. Kids in wealthier areas go better at school because their parents make them study. A poorly funded State school in an affluent area is likely to do well against a well funded State school in a poor area for that reason alone.
Semi Regular Libertarian
1 Feb 10 at 8:27 pm
P&C Federation rejects the application of the theory and practice of markets to education.
.
Case closed. They’re partisan.
daddy dave
1 Feb 10 at 8:32 pm
You should try reading the P&C Association magazine, which is not on the web, and only available from schools. It’s enough to make you vomit. It’s even worse than this dribble.
boy on a bike
1 Feb 10 at 8:32 pm
Two things, rog.
* First, you’re trying to debate the issue. Congrats! I applaud that. Note however that the P&C is not interested in debating the issue, it’s closed.
.
* second, it’s about telling the truth. whether a school performs well or performs poorly – for whatever reason – this is something that should not be a state secret. Let the sunshine in.
.
* third if a school is going through a rough patch, then that’s the truth! That’s reality and the community really have a right to know. Surely it’s better to expose such a fact rather than hide it.
daddy dave
1 Feb 10 at 8:36 pm
that was three things.
“amongst our weaponry”
daddy dave
1 Feb 10 at 8:36 pm
There are some school systems that are for profit, such as that enormously successful Sth. African franchise, of which Sydney’s Reddam House is a member, and Sweden’s export, Kunskapsskolan. But on the whole, I see no rush on the world’s bourses to go long “schools”!
Peter Patton
1 Feb 10 at 8:40 pm
The reasons for a poor rating are not given.
You can look at the staff/student ratio to get some idea of resources, if this is compared with academic achievements private schools are under performing.
rog
1 Feb 10 at 9:00 pm
rog
Whether or not this or that school is “underperforming” is in the eye of the beholder.
Peter Patton
1 Feb 10 at 9:06 pm
rog,
If a school has a reduction in student numbers by calamity or popular demand, the ratio will improve.
“The reasons for a poor rating are not given.”
Yes but that assumes you only rely on the site. Then again, rankings might act like prices – encapsulating information. You mightn’t know a school has a special needs and behavioural unit – that might explain it but the ranking might deter you from sending your kids there anyway.
Any problems resulting in a lack of equity can be solved by vouchers.
Semi Regular Libertarian
1 Feb 10 at 9:06 pm
I keep saying that I think this entire policy is misguided and could well end up doing more damage than good.
I don’t think simply comparing test scores across schools will achieve much other than possibly sending us down the wrong path.
Schools test scores need to be accompanied with aptitude tests to determine potential.
I can’t see how this can help.
The only way to reform schools is through vouchers and let parents decide what is best for their kids.
JC
1 Feb 10 at 9:08 pm
“lack of equity can be solved by vouchers?”
How do you determine lack of equity? not by this data, it is flawed.
A school could demand only high IQ kids and then get a high score with subsequent flow of $$$ whilst a school taking in refugees would struggle to get ratings and fall behind on funds.
Not all schools get the same money.
What these table lack is an estimate of value.
rog
1 Feb 10 at 9:46 pm
A school could demand only high IQ kids and then get a high score
Please… Don’t allow test scoring as entry condition then.
Parents don’t necessarily choose schools based on those criteria anyway.
In fact if little Homer or Rog is as thick as two planks you would tend to choose a nurturing type school that doesn’t focus on really smart kids as you would know little Homer or Rog wouldn’t be able to keep up. You would send the kids to a school that gets the best out them.
As I said you can’t assess schools on results only without knowing a kid’s aptitude. I’m going to christen you Roger-two-times, as everything has to be repeated several times before it freaking well sinks in.
JC
1 Feb 10 at 9:56 pm
Maybe you’re right, JC. I saw the first example of possible watering down yesterday with Rudd (or a spokesman) saying they’d tweak the new system to take into consideration such subjective factors as anti-bullying policies, “community engagement” etc. In other words, they’re already looking to throw a bone to under-achieving dumps. We could end up with schools rating well because the kids planted some trees to “combat global warming” or some such waffle.
C.L.
1 Feb 10 at 9:57 pm
Mmm:
‘Iran will deliver telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11′.
US raises stakes on Iran by sending in ships and missiles.
C.L.
1 Feb 10 at 10:09 pm
Oops, wrong thread.
C.L.
1 Feb 10 at 10:18 pm
How do you determine lack of equity? not by this data, it is flawed.
.
rog, it’s not that you’re not raising valid concerns. The problem is that all of these are solvable.
Surely, we can argue about the best way to measure it, but trying to assess the quality of education is fundamental to improving the quality of education.
daddy dave
1 Feb 10 at 10:42 pm
rog
I don’t give a crap about your silly word “equity”. I do give a crap about my kids going to a good school.
Peter Patton
1 Feb 10 at 10:46 pm
Feeling a tad liverish PP? – the dreaded “E” word was used by the supposed libertarian SRL
rog
1 Feb 10 at 11:06 pm
When CL refers to “under achieving dumps” he is referring to non Catholic schools
rog
1 Feb 10 at 11:07 pm
rog
I do not choose how to educate my children to satisfy somebody else’s ideological flights of fancy.
Peter Patton
1 Feb 10 at 11:08 pm
JC is burbling again, its a wonder he ever graduated into a high school let alone out of one.
rog
1 Feb 10 at 11:09 pm
rog
Where do you send your children to school?
Peter Patton
1 Feb 10 at 11:10 pm
What are you prattling on about PP? nobody is expected to “satisfy somebody else’s ideological flights of fancy.”
The problem here is that non educators are setting education policy.
rog
1 Feb 10 at 11:11 pm
If you don’t like it, take your kids out of public school. Also, I don’t want “educators” anywhere near my kids. “Educators” is postmodern left-wing code for “Critical Literacy”. I want “teachers”.
Peter Patton
1 Feb 10 at 11:16 pm
What are you prattling on about PP?
.
no, what are you prattling on about, rog? I don’t even understand what your angle is. Except, I guess, to give us random left-wing talking-points about the state of Australian education. Got an opinion on the P&C for instance? And do you think we should try to find out if education our kids are getting is effective? Do you think the P&C has a political bias (the actual topic of the thread).?
daddy dave
1 Feb 10 at 11:27 pm
Here’s Rog’s contribution to the thread so far. Can anyone make head of tail of this slop?
He inserts the Catholicism shtick in almost every freaking thread he’s posts. He could be talking about the GST and somehow he’d find a connection with Catholicism
There is more to this than meets the eye – schools that are going thru a rough patch (like being burned down) get a low rating and then (extra) funds are withheld due to the low status
A school that has a relatively poor rating will receive less money thereby guaranteeing its status
Its not about excellence in schools its all about apportioning funds
The reasons for a poor rating are not given.
You can look at the staff/student ratio to get some idea of resources, if this is compared with academic achievements private schools are under performing.
“lack of equity can be solved by vouchers?”
How do you determine lack of equity? not by this data, it is flawed.
A school could demand only high IQ kids and then get a high score with subsequent flow of $$$ whilst a school taking in refugees would struggle to get ratings and fall behind on funds.
Not all schools get the same money.
What these table lack is an estimate of value.
• Feeling a tad liverish PP? – the dreaded “E” word was used by the supposed libertarian SRL
Any problems resulting in a lack of equity can be solved by vouchers.
• When CL refers to “under achieving dumps” he is referring to non Catholic schools
• JC is burbling again, its a wonder he ever graduated into a high school let alone out of one.
What are you prattling on about PP? nobody is expected to “satisfy somebody else’s ideological flights of fancy.”
The problem here is that non educators are setting education policy.
It a veritable oasis of intellectual slop in an otherwise decent thread.
JC
1 Feb 10 at 11:29 pm
Sound reminder here, folks:
“Kevin Rudd well represents Latham’s Labo(u)r, whatever that is.”
- Rog, December 11, 2004.
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 2:42 am
“#
“lack of equity can be solved by vouchers?”
How do you determine lack of equity? not by this data, it is flawed.
A school could demand only high IQ kids and then get a high score with subsequent flow of $$$ whilst a school taking in refugees would struggle to get ratings and fall behind on funds.
Not all schools get the same money.
What these table lack is an estimate of value.”
Rog – you’re predicting calamity – what is going to happen? I suggest that schools will see enrolment changes. This is not a problem – poorer schools will see reductions in teaching ratios and principals will get a disincentive to let the slide continue. They have a financial incentive to increase enrolments under vouchers and anyone claiming they are left behind can make up for it with the value of voucher viz. transport, tutoring etc.
If we had vouchers there wouldn’t be an apportionment problem. The Swedish private schools that emerged from vouchers are so successful they’ve grown into multinational enterprise.
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 9:35 am
It doesnt surprise me that you guys dont understand the problems with MySchool website and its implications.
One minute you are ranting on about a free market in education next minute you rail against “somebody else’s ideological flights of fancy”
“Coupons” is hardly an educated response to problems in school funding – and that is what this is all about.
rog
2 Feb 10 at 9:35 am
CL – okay. You don’t have to keep quoting rog from past posts. Let’s move on.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 9:37 am
““Coupons” is hardly an educated response to problems in school funding – and that is what this is all about.”
Yes it is rog, unless you’d like to explain why. Cheapening the name doesn’t cheapen the merit of the system.
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 9:40 am
“Coupons” is hardly an educated response to problems in school funding – and that is what this is all about.
We’ve had 40 years of what you think constitutes an ‘educated’ response to education, rog. Sorry, but it has been an abject failure.
dover_beach
2 Feb 10 at 9:42 am
Coupons are a method of funding education – possibly the most efficient form.
In the case of Sweden they expanded the range of education giving students more choice in finding a school that may be more suited to their abilities.
Also in Sweden the kid is assessed for particular needs and this may increase the $value of the coupon.
There is more to it than just “coupons”
Problems with education are not resolved by MySchool types of sources, which is what the P&C said.
Developing arguments along partisan lines is ultimately self defeating.
rog
2 Feb 10 at 10:18 am
coupons are not used in Finland which has the best education outcomes.
Coupons only work if
1) there is a central Government controlling ALL policy
2) transport allows parents to transport their kiddies to those schools selected. In Sydney for example a parent in Windsor would find it nigh impossible to transport thrit children to schools on the Eastern seaboard.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
2 Feb 10 at 10:22 am
I am as right wing as the next man (unless the next man is JC), but I have to say that I am somewhat ambivalent about the idea that education should be left to market forces.
Little Homer or little Rog willl need to read, write and do sums in order to function in this big bright world of ours. If Homer or Rog senior make the wrong chaoice (or are bamboozeld by some new-fangled sounding hippy-school that believes in free learning) then the juniors will miss out on getting the basic skills expected in their first year. By the time that Rog and Homer wake up to the fact, vital time will have been lost, twe window will be closed and the juniors will have been disadvantaged for life.
But, you say, that’s Rog and Hopmer’s fault. And you’d be right. So maybe that’s the point where my ambivalence falls away. It should not be up to the State to enforce educational choaices on Homer and Rog.
What do others think?
Rococo Liberal
2 Feb 10 at 11:17 am
What do others think?
.
I’ve done 180 degrees on this; having once been a champion of public education. I think we can all agree that mass education is important and necessary. What I now see is that that does not entail the government doing it. For instance, “nutritious food” is also important and necessary for every single person in the land, yet the Government does not run Woolworths supermarkets.
.
It doesn’t have to be a big Evil Corporation; you could have community-run schools the way we have community-run child care right now; sole operators; the whole spectrum. Poor kids could get subsidised through the welfare system (e.g. vouchers); in fact you could subsidise every single child and you wouldn’t be spending a cent more than is spent today, since they’re all subsidised currently.
.
Let’s face it. The government sucks at delivering education. Teaching a child to read, write, and have basic numeracy skills is not that hard. How they fuck it up is beyond me.
.
Plus, if you’ve got a child for 25 hours a week for 12 years, that’s about 12,000 hours, enough time to get some seriously advanced skills going. See Malcolm Gladwell on the 10,000 hour rule, which the number of hours to achieve mastery at something (not proficiency – which is a fraction of that number – but true Mozart-style mastery). If you’re setting “homework” then you’ve admitted failure. What were they doing in school all day that was so important they didn’t have time to actually do the work they’re doing in the evening?
daddy dave
2 Feb 10 at 11:38 am
What do others think?
You are a bad speller
rog
2 Feb 10 at 11:49 am
“Problems with education are not resolved by MySchool types of sources”
Rubbish. Some are.
“Coupons only work if
1) there is a central Government controlling ALL policy
2) transport allows parents to transport their kiddies to those schools selected. In Sydney for example a parent in Windsor would find it nigh impossible to transport thrit children to schools on the Eastern seaboard.”
1. Totally unadulterated crap.
2. …someone in Tibooburra can’t send their kid as a day student to The King’s School either. If you want to be near a school in Coogee, then buy closer to Coogee. There are good private, selective schools all over the greater metropolitan region.
Just shut up Butters.
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 11:55 am
oh dear Mark another subject you have no homework on.
no coupons do not work all the time.
err a person in Windsor is unlikely to be in a position to buy in Bondi.
Only major landowners can afford to send kiddies to Kings and it seems their results are questionable.
Read a little bit before commenting Mark and you won’t make so many mistakes.
oh by the way they do not have coupons in Finland but they do have the best education standards!
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
2 Feb 10 at 12:03 pm
“no coupons do not work all the time.”
That is because they are not allowed to work. Not because the Government has total control over policy. Your description of how vouchers work is absolute rubbish. “The market for vegetables does not work unless Government has total control over policy”. It is equally valid. The public goods arguments for education do not revolve around Government requiring total control of educational policy of competitors. You are making this up as you go along.
That’s great Butters they also have about 8% unemployment. That might be due to something else, but the value of the education is either wasted or isn’t as valuable as you think.
But anyway – Butters thinks the Government needs “total control” of policy:
“Finnish teachers pick books and customize lessons as they shape students to national standards. “In most countries, education feels like a car factory. In Finland, the teachers are the entrepreneurs,” says Mr. Schleicher, of the Paris-based OECD, which began the international student test in 2000.”
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 12:10 pm
dd
I used to be a great supporter of mass public education funded from tax revenues as a legitimate form of wealth redistribution by the state, largely because little children are not in a position to make choices themselves.
I still support that redistribution role, but I no longer think it is necessary for the state to build, own, staff, and run schools. But even though it might not be necessary, it would be desirable, IF it were being so to mass satisfaction. It is not. In Sydney, 45% of high school students are enrolled in non-government schools.
My kids are currently in public schools. They are very happy there, I am impressed by their progress in the academic areas I think are vital, confirmed by their NAPLAN scores and the MySchool website. I have no doubt many parents and their children are not so fortunate. Yes, they are free to change schools, but they have to fork out quite a bit of cash. It does not have to be like that.
I would like to see a means by which dissatisfied parents can opt out. The best way of doing this is through a voucher. The current system whereby the government subsidizes the non-government school rather than the citizen is wrong.
However, my main concern with the system at present is the bureaucrats’ control of the curriculum. I am not sure what we will do from Year 5 onwards. But we definitely want schools that offer the most challenging subjects, and lots of opportunities in sports and the performing arts. It is really important to me that my kids are happy, and build real confidence by meeting real challenges, not by phony self-esteem shibboleths.
Peter Patton
2 Feb 10 at 12:10 pm
Mark/ Peter
for coupons/Vouchers to work you need ONE Government in charge and able to give the vouchers out. have a look at where vouchers have worked and where they haven’t.
In Asutralia you would need some agreement between the Federal and State governments. unlikely.
Yeah Mark you can get that with ONE Government in control of the money for education.
oops that is an own goal again.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
2 Feb 10 at 12:14 pm
However, my main concern with the system at present is the bureaucrats’ control of the curriculum
.
That’s my big concern too.
I went through the public system all the way, and my son has just enrolled at the local public school. I didn’t invent the system though; using public schools doesn’t prevent us from imagining better systems.
daddy dave
2 Feb 10 at 12:17 pm
BBB
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Peter Patton
2 Feb 10 at 12:18 pm
“for coupons/Vouchers to work you need ONE Government in charge and able to give the vouchers out. have a look at where vouchers have worked and where they haven’t.”
Please say this is the same as “total control over policy”.
“you can get that with ONE Government in control of the money for education”
Yes and not “total control” you illiterate embarrassment.
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 12:20 pm
for coupons/Vouchers to work you need ONE Government in charge and able to give the vouchers out.
.
fine with me.
.
What we have learned from Barack’s Excellent Health Adventure is that large-scale, one-hit disruptive policy changes are risky and possibly a really stupid idea. Incrementalism – with small or medium-sized changes – is better. Government currently runs the whole show; that isn’t changing much in the foreseeable future.
daddy dave
2 Feb 10 at 12:21 pm
Does the My School site have any stats for parents who are happy with a middling academic program, but demand excellence in extra-curricular activities such as sport and drama? I’ll be damned if my kids are going to any namby pamby school that can’t field a decent rugby or athletics team.
Infidel Tiger
2 Feb 10 at 12:25 pm
RL:
If you’re that concerned that say little Rog or Homer may end up with a hippie education then you could gradually introduce liberalization through stages /incrementalism.
Intervene on the minimum curriculum and then liberalize parts of it while maintaining some government supervision and see how that goes. Eventually you would end up seeing privatized accreditation and stuff like that.
This is the problem, which i see as similar in the health-care field.
We really don’t know what a fully liberalized education system looks like as we haven’t had one for the past 100 years. It’s a sovietized system based on command and control.
It could end heading in directions we never thought possible.
However instead of one shoe fits all approach you would end up seeing lots and lots of specialization occurring as schools begin to differentiate themselves from providing just a commodity product.
Here’s my point of reference.
There’s nothing the fucking state has touched over the past 50 years that it hasn’t fucked up royally. I’m not even suggesting marginal fuck ups. Everything they’ve basically touched has turned to complete shit.
You could see real savings being made with more of the money spent on education. There’s no real reason say a school needs a gym when the local privately owned gym down the road could more than provide high schoolers with gym instructors and the equipment. The local community park could suffice too. These resources could be leased.
I’m just thinking out loud here suggesting the way things could end up heading.
JC
2 Feb 10 at 12:26 pm
gosh Marky doesn’t understand that a government with total control over education means they have total control over the money.
He needs to a civics course at primary school through a voucher of course
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
2 Feb 10 at 12:28 pm
“doesn’t understand that a government with total control over education means they have total control over the money”
…not if it is a voucher system…they let people choose the best services…of which the service providers set their own policy.
“He needs to a civics course at primary school through a voucher of course”
You need a course in literacy, numeracy, the history of WWII and a whole new economics degree, you incoherent jabberer.
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 12:32 pm
Homer :
You really love this “total control” thing, don’t you? It answers many many questions about your psychological makeup,
JC
2 Feb 10 at 12:39 pm
BBB
All you are saying is that any change in government policy or institutions also require changes in, er, government policy and institutions. Your point being?
Peter Patton
2 Feb 10 at 12:41 pm
Infidel Tiger
No it doesn’t. At least not yet. I don’t know what state you live in, but I know at least in NSW that sort of information is easy to obtain.
Peter Patton
2 Feb 10 at 12:59 pm
JC – Somewhat relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Illich
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 1:00 pm
Oh, and I can agree on the middling academic program in favor of an emphasis on sports being the best choice for a lot of kids.
Peter Patton
2 Feb 10 at 1:01 pm
err Marky who hands out the vouchers?
Gosh didn’t think about that !
do the Civic course at least this time you might learn something.
They still have total control of the education system if there are vouchers!
Peter prattling on about vouchers which have only a fair to middling success rate is academic in Australia given the divides between Federal and State Governments in Education.
We should be attempting to emulate Finland!
gosh that is evidence based. Fancy Catallaxian crackpots putting theory ahead of evidence
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
2 Feb 10 at 1:11 pm
BBB
Of course the government gives out the vouchers. This is what we have been arguing all along. Of course, the government no more has to physically hand out vouchers than the Reserve Bank has to send out suitcases of currency every time it conducts open market operations.
And given voucher schemes have not even been tried in Australia, how can you say anything about “the evidence”?
Emulate Finland? How, by eating eel, reversing two generations of a huge multiracial immigration policy, getting rid of 15 million of our population including Aborigines?
Peter Patton
2 Feb 10 at 1:21 pm
“who hands out the vouchers?”
Does not equate to “total control” Twit.
Please shut up and go away you obtuse and grossly dishonest shill.
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 4:24 pm
if the govt hands out the vouchers
sets the system
provides the schools
trains the teachers
where is the “free market” in education?
rog
2 Feb 10 at 4:42 pm
rog,
Your 1. is not predicated by 2., 3. and 4.
However, even a system like you describe would be an improvement over the status quo. At least class sizes would be handled well unless you had a really bone headed principal.
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 4:46 pm
If you want a free market in education; the govt does not provide schools, funds or teachers – you shop around and hope some company will teach your kids and you pay for them for their services.
rog
2 Feb 10 at 4:47 pm
really Marky
who hands out the vouchers, ensures the curriculum, sets exams.
Twit
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
2 Feb 10 at 4:49 pm
This vouchers thing has you fixated. It is only a means to transfer of funds and does not change the system.
rog
2 Feb 10 at 4:49 pm
“who hands out the vouchers, ensures the curriculum, sets exams.”
Butters,
In a proper voucher system the Government gives out vouchers. That’s it. This does not require “total control”. The Australian school curriculum is a joke. The examinations are of little value.
“It is only a means to transfer of funds and does not change the system.”
Do you know how the funds get allocated now rog?
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 5:00 pm