Can someone tell me what Pynes message is?

[i-need-a-martini]

Here is Pynes piece in the Sydney Morning Herald this week. Not just an article but a whole body of work in his own words. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/politics-have-no-place-in-curriculum-review-christopher-pyne-20140119-...

Firstly, I am wondering how the heck he got as far as he did (particularly) as education minister when he writes so poorly. He can barely string a sentence together. He has grammar all mixed up. His writing is nothing but a confusing, convoluted mess.

Secondly, I would have thought the Coalition spin doctors would have reigned in the pre-election defensiveness, aggressiveness and negativity by now. But not in this case - Pyne is still droning on about Gillard and Rudd.

Thirdly, is he that stupid that he does not see any irony in what he writes? Describing Labors policies on education as rushed and ad-hoc? Hello Mr Pyne, have you not read your own press clippings from the last month? And if politics has no place in the education debate, then what of his entire article?

And lastly, what on earth is he even saying? Is he doing a review? Or is he rolling out a new curriculum? Why even write this? What is this?

After being able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, it looks like our children will be thrown into educational darkness again thanks to Pyne.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@boris1gary wrote:

Do you think its this

The Howard Coalition government introduced a new funding model in 2001 purporting to be based on the socio-economic status of students in a school. The SES model funded schools according to the postcode of each of its students, as if all students from a low socio-economic region or suburb are disadvantaged. In reality, wealth not postcode determines whether parents can afford $15,000 or $25,000 a year in fees for each child.

The SES score of a school determined the level of funding from the federal government. It ignored the actual socio-economic status of students whose parents could afford the top private schools. As a result, the wealthiest private primary schools enjoyed a boost of 80 percent or more in funding (80% more than what?) between 2001 and 2010 and elite private high schools by as much as 50 percent. (50% more than what?)_

Pyne has made it clear that he wants the Howard SES model, and not the Gonski/Labor funding formula which attaches a set amount per student, reduced for private schools according to the school’s ability to raise funding How would they determine how much a school can fundraise???? PLUS, why should they have to? Why should Private schools be subjected to a penalty for fundraising and not the public schools? and an extra amount for disadvantaged students.

If a school is to be penalized for fundraising, guess what? They won't bother. Can you see how screwy that is? to penalize a school for fundraising? Can you see how, with this in mind, that an allocated set cost per student will cost the government more money, because they will have to pay the same amount for a private and public student. ATM, they pay less for a child in Private than if that same child was in the public system.

Howard’s SES model has made a major contribution to the two-tier, two-class education system and the widening gap. So too has the diversion of millions of dollars from the public education system to private schools. The government committed to providing EVERY child with an education, regardless of their parents' incomes. Are you suggesting that all funding should go to public schools and none to private schools?

---

May I ask what you believe will happen if private schools become too expensive for most children to attend?

Think about what is happening with health insurance. The numbers of people with private health insurance are declining, simply because it has become too expensive.

The government made the committment to provide every child with an education.

Privavate school children receive less per head in funding than their public peers.

It costs the government less per child if they are in private school.

Now what happens if people start to leave the private system?

1) it will now cost the government more to provide an education for that child, or

  1a) the current money will just be spread out a little thinner to absorb the shortfall.

2) the government will have to build more schools, provide more infrastructure to cope with the additional children in the public system. As it is they've been selling off land for years, turning over school ovals etc to shared public use, so where and how are they going to build all these new schools?

.................................

and before you dismiss the SES model (and your "research" is inaccurate and your "statistics" incomplete (80% more funding than what? Even IF that figure is accurate,  the increase still did not excede what it cost the gov to educate those kids in the public system), think about how NAPLAN has been formulated. Think about how NAPLAN is reported. You can't merge two or three different incompatible models and expect it to work.

But basically, the government NEEDS to keep as many kids in private education as they can, because it is more cost effective for them to do so.

oh, BTW, wealth and postcode are generally synonymous. Someone who can afford to live on the Isle of Capri, is not very likely to live in Logan.

If anything, perhaps the gov should consider income testing for entry into puiblic schools. There are many people who can afford private schooling but choose the public system.

[catsnknots]

Christopher Pyne has children with a disability and knows very well the struggles we have.. he has been passionate about this subject for a long time. He has a personal interest which I think makes a person think on a deeper level. 

I totally get a lot of what he says. 

The school system totally failed one my children.... if I had to do it again I would home school him and would have kept him away from  our public school system. 

I was just lucky that my eldest seemed to just fit in and get through. If not for his school offering a cert 2 in IT he too would have been left wondering and possibly unemployed... He now works for himself... 

[boris1gary]

There are two other important and related developments contributing to Australia’s declining performance for which Labor must take responsibility, and have the backing of the Coalition.

The first of these is NAPLAN testing. It is no secret that many schools are now “teaching to the test” and spending hours and hours practising tests at the expense of other elements in the curriculum and broader development of life’s skills. The focus on narrow NAPLAN-style outcomes will see Australia slip even further backwards.

The second is the concept of competition and an education market with Labor’s MySchool website providing parents with a crude measure of school performance. Education is being commodified and so-called “parental choice” and rankings system carries with it the notion of large variations in quality and “failed schools”.

The OECD report, Education Policy Outlook: Australia 2013, (June 2013) noted: “Australia has a high degree of school choice which, if not well targeted, can contribute to segregation of students. Around 96 percent of students attend a school that competes for enrolments with at least one other school. Evidence shows that school choice, along with other factors, may undermine equity in the education system by segregating students into schools based on their socio-economic background. It is important to ensure that there are mechanisms to mitigate this negative effect.”

The concept of a universal, free secular education system is being undermined which prevailed with the establishment of public education systems in 1870s. Instead, segregation is being fostered, not just along socio-economic but also religious lines. There is little equity in the outcomes for students, those who entered the system disadvantaged, will exit it even more disadvantaged for life.

[***super_nova***]

Gonski has taken 5 years to design; it was done with cooperation of number of very capable committed people, but it has not started, so how can anybody say it failed.   It should go ahead and be evaluated later.  Messing around with the system is only creating total chaos, and it is the kids that will be the losers.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

Martini, by the time the effects of any new curriculum are realized, our children will be out of school. This sort of stuff takes years to roll out, then a few more to put it into practise and then a few more to tweak after which they will decide it doesn't work afterall.

So really, what's the point of getting so worked up about it?

From memory, you've accepted that the education your children receive is not in line with your expectations, so have taken responsibility to provide your kids with the access to the kind of education that you desire for them.

In their quest to improve their PISA rankings, they're trying to match an ineffective, irrelevant, agriculturally antiquated education system to the dynamic systems of the education leaders. The entire structure is ineffective. It worked well when we were preparing for an agricultural society, but times have changed.

It doesn't matter what any of them do, until they bite the bullet and start again, nothing is going to change.

It's sort of like when your car has 4 bald tires but you only have the money to replace one. So you replace the worst one, just to keep things plodding along and make do with the other three.

On top of all that this curriculum is formed around NAPLAN, with a view to seeing a positive reflection in those scores. Have a read around about NAPLAN, and surely even a politican wiould realize this system is designed to fail.

---

When I say "our children" I am not talking literally, I am talking about the children of this country and the state of the educational policy as a whole. My kids have only got 3/6 years left so I understand that whatever policies are put in place now will have no impact on my/or my childrens lives.

And yes I have taken steps to ensure my kids get the education I expect. But I am paying $20,000 each year x 2 in order to get that education. That is unacceptable. But I am not going to get into an argument about public vs private education in this country. Your views are different to mine  and we have said all that needs to be said.

My thread was about Pynes ridiculous article. 

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@catsnknots wrote:

Christopher Pyne has children with a disability and knows very well the struggles we have.. he has been passionate about this subject for a long time. He has a personal interest which I think makes a person think on a deeper level. 

I totally get a lot of what he says. 

The school system totally failed one my children.... if I had to do it again I would home school him and would have kept him away from  our public school system. 

I was just lucky that my eldest seemed to just fit in and get through. If not for his school offering a cert 2 in IT he too would have been left wondering and possibly unemployed... He now works for himself... 

---

But WHAT is he saying catmad?? And how would what he is saying help your child that was "failed by the system"? From what I can see the children that have been "failed" by the system are those children specifically highlighted through Gonski.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Martini, by the time the effects of any new curriculum are realized, our children will be out of school. This sort of stuff takes years to roll out, then a few more to put it into practise and then a few more to tweak after which they will decide it doesn't work afterall.

So really, what's the point of getting so worked up about it?

But won't our children or our children's children have children in school by then? Or are you saying our conerns should not stretch beyond one generation?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Martini, by the time the effects of any new curriculum are realized, our children will be out of school. This sort of stuff takes years to roll out, then a few more to put it into practise and then a few more to tweak after which they will decide it doesn't work afterall.

So really, what's the point of getting so worked up about it?

But won't our children or our children's children have children in school by then? Or are you saying our conerns should not stretch beyond one generation?

---

Nope, I have just accepted that with this model, we will never get a standard of education equitable with our international peers.

When I grew up we competed for jobs and uni places etc with kids in the next desk to us. So we were all getting the same education. These days, our kids are competing for jobs and uni places etc with kids from all over the world, but our horizontal education model is not comparable to the quality of our competitors. They've already tried and discarded the horizontal system 20 odd years ago and longer, but we're still using it.

If we want our kids to have opportunities equal to that of their peers, then we (parents/carers) are just going to have to provide it. We have to look to what the leading countries are doing and at least mimic them/follow their example. We have to be doing at least what our competitors are doing.

So, until our government is prepared to start over, then all this is just band aids, smioke and mirrors. Instead of fighting for bandaids to nurse through a broken system, if we really are concerned about future generations, we should be fighting for a system equivilent (if not better, but lets not get too ambitious) to that of the international leaders.

It's just wasted money, but it gives the politicians the opportunity to say "we care about education, look, we're doing something"

We don't have the money to overhaul the system, so we're just spebding little bits to patch it up.

The sad thing about this is people believe that these changes will make a difference, and whilstever they do that, they are not being proactive and ensuring their kids are getting the education they deserve. So more kids are just going to go by the wayside, and the gaps will widen further.

What people don't understand or refuse to acknowldge is that Australia is a Meritocracy and this education system IS NOT designed to create an equal and just education for every child.

If it were, then why do they use a bell curve?

[freakiness]

They've already tried and discarded the horizontal system 20 odd years ago and longer, but we're still using it.

Which countries would they be?