Keep your Gonski promise Mr Abbott

[donnashuggy]

If you give a gonski apparently there is a petition on the gonski site.

You can see what your school stands to gain on the site:

http://igiveagonski.com.au/whats-gonski/your-school/

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@my*favourite*poster wrote:

(4) Australian schooling will provide a high quality educational
experience with an environment and curriculum that supports all
school students to reach their full potential.

Spoiler

tempered by a bell Curve, of course *smirk*

---

ya know?

define "high quality experience" that is so subjective, how are they going to quantify that?

define "environment and curriculum that supports all to reach their full potential"

our overt curriculum is designed by the dominant discourse to produce what they value, what they deem important,  in 80% of students. How does that support all?

and if you read it, you will see that they've just atttached different names to funding models already in place, and in some places, the same things.

It's really kind of like the ACL, it just combines a lot of stuff in one place that was already there. We're really not getting anything different to what we already have.

and if Labor were going to use that Act as the framework for Gonski and the distriobution of funds, it's the same as what is being proposed now. It gives power to the states to spend as they want without restriction, and isn't that what you guys are cross at Pyne for? He's doing and saying exactly what the law says.

and I am laughing at their big tadoo about "we are giving more money" I'm betting that they did the figures based on that legislation and realized that if all schools did sign up, then that's how much more it would cost! so they have no choice.

just read the first 6 or 7 pages even, and do it objectively. Really read what it is and isn't saying, especially the preamble etc...

I dunno, but it surprises me that that legislation was bought up to support an anti labor discussion. because it contradicts everything that I have been reading here on CS about what people believe Gonski will do.

[*crikey*mate*]

oops - sorry, that should read anti liberal discussion, not anti labor discussion.

[lakeland27]

'I think you see that too, deep down, that this money won't be of any real benefit, otherwise you would have left your kids in the public system, wouldn't you have? I think you really do know what you need to dio to ensure your kids get the education to which you believe they are entitled, even if it does mean swallowing a bible or two LOL'

its not that i think the money would be of no benefit, its simply on form and consistent with LNP ideaology that i realised the public schools will miss out.

did you see the data that relates to how australian students rate in terms of international competitiveness ? the figures make pretty grim reading, so much so that pyne was out immediately saying 'see, school halls and laptops were a waste' without taking into account the differences between countries. Korean students leave school for the day and head for a cram session til around 10-11 pm at night.

he completely failed to appreciate that crucial difference, or to speculate how much worse it would be if the funding from previous years hadn't been increased. he's a fool.

[lakeland27]

and they can use ipods in chapel

[i-need-a-martini]

So I've listened to you waffle for a few day now and I still don't get what your point is. What I have managed to glean is that you have a (personal) opinion that amounts to:

The state education ssytem has failed your children.

So every parent should do what you did if they have an issue - move their kids to a less disadvantaged school.

That public schools should not get any general funding, let alone "extra" funding.

And that money should be put to schools that are 'successful'.

And generally that a parent should expect to pay if they want their kids to have a better education.

Because education is not an entitlement.

Ie. Education is for white, city dwelling children with parents who can afford private schooling. And if you don't fit into that category? Meh! Who cares? That's THEIR problem right?

[izabsmiling]

---

@my*favourite*poster wrote:

oops - sorry, that should read anti liberal discussion, not anti labor discussion.

---

It's sad that disccusion of the education of Australia's children is seen to be anti-liberal.

That some view OTHER Australians excercising their democratic rights and

discussing our Government and Education as anti-liberal 

That really makes our Government look like dictators 

[izabsmiling]

---

MFP wrote:The point is that the Federal Government is not allowed to get involved in education. It is written in our Cosnstitution. They have to be "invited" they can't just take over....

and did that not happen.I mean you didn't know about The Australian Education Act  2013 til a few posts ago .Now you know it was done uninvited ?

Would a GG do ?

AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION REGULATION 2013 (SLI NO 195 OF 2013) - NOTES

Select Legislative Instrument No. 195, 2013

I, Quentin Bryce AC CVO, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, make the following regulation under the Australian Education Act 2013.

Dated 25 July 2013

Quentin Bryce

Governor-General

By Her Excellency's Command

William Richard Shorten

Minister for Education

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/aer2013n195o2013384/notes.html

MFP wrote: I dunno, but it surprises me that that legislation was bought up to support an anti labor discussion. because it contradicts everything that I have been reading here on CS about what people believe Gonski will do.

I posted it in response to your comment seen at the top of this post .If you can show me where you found the information to support what you suggest in your post...that being that our Government did this Uninvited ,that they just 'took over'

please do so .

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

'I think you see that too, deep down, that this money won't be of any real benefit, otherwise you would have left your kids in the public system, wouldn't you have? I think you really do know what you need to dio to ensure your kids get the education to which you believe they are entitled, even if it does mean swallowing a bible or two LOL'

its not that i think the money would be of no benefit, its simply on form and consistent with LNP ideaology that i realised the public schools will miss out.

did you see the data that relates to how australian students rate in terms of international competitiveness ? the figures make pretty grim reading, so much so that pyne was out immediately saying 'see, school halls and laptops were a waste' without taking into account the differences between countries. Korean students leave school for the day and head for a cram session til around 10-11 pm at night.

he completely failed to appreciate that crucial difference, or to speculate how much worse it would be if the funding from previous years hadn't been increased. he's a fool.

---

I am not sure which data it is that you refer to, but yes, I am aware of that. I wrote about it back there somewhere.

And I do agree with what he said in the tiny excerpt you have given,

It goes back to what kind of curriculum we have.

Trying to explain why without a scroller, but here goes...

Our school day (including lunch, assembly, personal development classes, sport etc is 6(ish) hours a day, 5 days a week for 40 weeks of the year at 100% attendance. (two years ago, that attendance was actually 65%, but not sure now)

Now compare that to what the school day is in those countries which are leading the field.

In Australia (generally speaking here) we have a very different culture and thus different ideologies and values. When our kids finish school for the day, they go of to swimming and ballet lessons, football practise etc - in those countries, they go for extra tuition - that is their extra curricular activity. Their school day/year is much higher than ours and equivilent to their workforce requirements.

So it comes down to, a kid who goes swimming training twice a day, five times a day, will naturally become better at swimming than a child who puts in much less effort/time. (in most circumstances, excluding natural ability and disabilities etc)

and whilst the school halls and laptops may have benefioted some kids, the administration and distribution of those resources was not handled well and there was a lot of wasted money. That's just how it is, and yes, I accept that past governments have done similar things with similar results.

Because it doesn't matter how many school halls that we build or how many laptops etc we provide, if the entire system is not comparable, if our kids don't put in the same effort etc how can we expect the outcomes to be the same?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

So I've listened to you waffle for a few day now and I still don't get what your point is. Well, to be fair, I have "listened" to you waffle on in a biased manner for months about anything that wasn't pro labor, listened to you waffle on with no injection of objectivity or subjectivity whatsoever, just pure bias, most recently evidenced by the objection to a program that you had no idea if it was going to be better or worse than what we had.You seem unable to grasp the "big picture" and the real purpose of schooling and the real objectives that drive the covert curriculum. You seem unable to graps the reality that the government is not interested in equality, that it is just propaganda. You seem unable to grasp that we live in a capitalist society whose foundations rest on a meritocratic ideology. Equality would collapse that ideology and framework.

I ask again, Martini, if the government were genuinely interested in equality and equal and just education for ALL children (which is what you claim Gonski to be - and as revealed, not even the supporting framework legislation says that), but ask yourself Martini, use a bit of common sense - if the government were genuinely interested in an equal and just education for ALL students, then why do they use Bell Curves?

What I have managed to glean is that you have a (personal) opinion that amounts to: well, it is supported by fact and reality.

The state education ssytem has failed your children. That is indisputable fact, not an opinion.

So every parent should do what you did if they have an issue - move their kids to a less disadvantaged school. If they want different outcomes to what they are getting, then yes. If I don't like the food at one restaurant, I don't keep going back to it, I find one that suits me and my needs/wants.

That public schools should not get any general funding, let alone "extra" funding. I specifically said I had no problem with funding, that my problem was in the administration of the funding when we do not have an inexhaustible supply of money or resources but that the funding as it is administered is largely ineffective, so I object to the way in which the funding is being "sold" to us and that people don't seem to understand the true reasons for it, or the outcomes that are really expected from it. Because of how it is being sold, people believe that this money will make a difference. But the cause is far more deeper than where the money ie aimed.

And that money should be put to schools that are 'successful'. I never said that at all! I said quite the opposite, in fact!

And generally that a parent should expect to pay if they want their kids to have a better education. Well, not better, because that is subjective. What I value in an education is likely to be different to what other people value in an education and even believe an education to be, but if they are not getting for "free" what they believe suits their values and beliefs, or what they believe their child should have, then yes. We live in a capitalist society. User pays. If you want something different to what you are being given for "free" then yeah - you need to pay for it, not to, is only disadvantaging your own child. Why wouldn't a parent, who did value education (and I understand that many value different things, so this isn't wrong) do whatever they could to get their kids what they thought they needed/deserved?

It doesn't help our kids to do nothing and then blame the government when they can't get a job. That blame may be justified, but it doesn't help our kids.

Because education is not an entitlement. Now you have moved away from being rude to downright silly and argumentative.

Ie. Education is for white, city dwelling children with parents who can afford private schooling. And if you don't fit into that category? Meh! Who cares? That's THEIR problem right? Same. This is NOT how I believe it "should" be, but that is exactly how it is. That is the system, it is not going to change, whilstever we have a capitalist meritocratic country. It dioesn't matter how or what the government pretties it up and sells it to us, THAT is the reality.

They're just selling you what you want to hear to "keep the masses in line" in order to produce an amenable population. It makes running a country a whole lot easier, eh?

Wake up! You claim Gonski is to provide equal opportunity for ALL children. The supporting legislation does not even offer that. But logically Martini, without the legislation, if the government really were interested in equality, then why do they use Bell Curves? No one seems to be able to answer that.

---

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

MFP wrote:The point is that the Federal Government is not allowed to get involved in education. It is written in our Cosnstitution. They have to be "invited" they can't just take over....

and did that not happen.I mean you didn't know about The Australian Education Act  2013 til a few posts ago .Now you know it was done uninvited ?

Would a GG do ?

AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION REGULATION 2013 (SLI NO 195 OF 2013) - NOTES

Select Legislative Instrument No. 195, 2013

I, Quentin Bryce AC CVO, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, make the following regulation under the Australian Education Act 2013.

Dated 25 July 2013

Quentin Bryce

Governor-General

By Her Excellency's Command

William Richard Shorten

Minister for Education

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/aer2013n195o2013384/notes.html

MFP wrote: I dunno, but it surprises me that that legislation was bought up to support an anti labor discussion. because it contradicts everything that I have been reading here on CS about what people believe Gonski will do.

I posted it in response to your comment seen at the top of this post .If you can show me where you found the information to support what you suggest in your post...that being that our Government did this Uninvited ,that they just 'took over'

please do so .

---

ummmm, I was making the point that they DIDNT and Couldn't do it "uninvited" as per the Constitution, it was you that tried to argue otherwise.