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/

[i-need-a-martini]

I don't get what your point is about the SES model. Yes it is still in place. The point is that it would be phaseed out for those states who signed up for the more relevent funding model.

But that is neither here nor there - if you don't believe in the Gonski model and it is universally agreed (by everyone except Pyne) that the SES model didn't work then HOW do YOU think that schools should be funded exactly??

It would be good to hear something constructive rather than argument for the sake of argument.

[i-need-a-martini]

And WHO disregarded the IPP report? Which by the way is impossible to locate so if you couold link it here it would be appreciated.

[izabsmiling]

National Plan for
School Improvement
May 2013

Contents
A historic new investment in our schools 2
A partnership between governments 3
A once in a generation opportunity for a better, fairer schooling system 4
Ambitious 2025 goals for Australian kids 5
A Schooling Resource Standard based on need 6
Equitable and sustainable funding for every school 7
The National Plan for School Improvement 8
Quality teaching: the best teachers for every school 9
Quality learning: a world class education for every child 10
Empowered school leadership: leading by example 11
Meeting student need: delivering for the needs of each child 12
Transparency and accountability: more and better information for parents 13
Building on strong foundations 14
Fully funded reform 15
Sustainable education funding 16
Continued investment in skills and research 17

http://www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/glossy/gonski_policy/download/NPSI.pdf

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I don't get what your point is about the SES model. Yes it is still in place. The point is that it would be phaseed out for those states who signed up for the more relevent funding model.

But that is neither here nor there - if you don't believe in the Gonski model and it is universally agreed (by everyone except Pyne) that the SES model didn't work then HOW do YOU think that schools should be funded exactly??

It would be good to hear something constructive rather than argument for the sake of argument.

---

Hey, I am happy to learn, could you polease show me where the SES funding model is being phased out? According to that legislation it is the base and framework of Gonski

Gonski model is not universally accepted.

Hiow should schools be funded.

That is tricky, because I would have to consider what the overarching purposes of schooling in our country are and also the structure of our meritocratic and capitalistic society.

However, ideally, I would like to see EVERY kid get the education that they need to be the best that they can be, relevant to their circumstances. I would like to see EVERY kid get the curriculum that is important and valued to them and their cultural values. (Can you tell that I am a HUGE fan of Tom Calma? LOL)

What I think that we NEED, based on our desire to compete on a global scale (which I do believe is important) is a comparative education system. In short, I think we need to be doing what those who are in the top 5 (that's our goal according to AEA) are already doing as a BASE. and that is a vertical curriculum, plus a fair bit more culturally modified attitudes to education).

Then, we start giving the additional and supplementary funding to streamline and provide equitable access for all kids, if need be, on an individual basis. I do not believe in "the same amount for each kid"

Do away with the system that we have completely and start again, instead of trying to patch up what is proven to not work.

I also think that somehow the Federal gov should have more say in education if we are going to work on a global scale (remember our constitution was written when the next town was a long way away, and the rest of the world didn't really exist, so it was sensible to delegate responsibility at a state level) but I do think that the states and those even closer to the source of the kids should have the most say. It does look like the legislation is supporting this.

Of course there are many other sociocultural factors which affect an education than the curriculum, and I think these also need to be addressed and individually managed, funded and provided for.  But I do know that this is essentially impossible.

So, establish a strong comparable framework. Make sure that every child has the best chance at accessing that framework. Make that the minimum expectation and goal.

Then allow the meritocracy and capitalism to come into play for those who want it. (Remember that everybody values education and defines education differently, so what I deem acceptable, may not be what another deems acceptable iykwim)

By this I mean provide for the user pays sytem where those who want more can access it and support them to do so. Because I do understand that any curriculum is largely a cookie cutter system for 80% of the population and as such will have limitations for some, but we shouldn't expect those other 20% to conform, they deserve the right to reach their full potential if they choose to.;

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

And WHO disregarded the IPP report? Which by the way is impossible to locate so if you couold link it here it would be appreciated.

---

it might be gone by now, I have a paper copy as we studied it in negligence law

We just got it off google at the time. There is a bit in wiki *cringes*

[izabsmiling]

---

my*favourite*poster wrote:

---

izabsmiling wrote:

Nev:Education is in the hands of the States

It hasn't been since earlier this year when The Australian Education Act 2013 was passed .....the former system was failing 

---

Have you read that Act?

I'm in the process of doing it now, and so far cannot see where the Liberal Government has done anything wrong. I can however see how it doesn't apply in some situations to the perceptions of Gonski being "reported" here on CS though....

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello, My head hurts .Could you please  post on this thread what it is you see,that you think we should know about  the Australian Education Act 2013  ? 

and If there are obligations in the Act can those obligations be removed .Christopher Pyne has said (the money comes without strings) is that in compliance with the Act ?

.http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L01476

[izabsmiling]

Spot the difference in educational policy

Jennifer Buckingham | The Australian Financial Review | 20 August 2013

The Coalition’s most recent policy is to implement Better Schools funding for the first four years of the agreement. This is more pragmatic than their previous intentions to scrap the funding model, or to implement it for one year. It is also strategic. It provides schools with certainty after a long period of instability, has effectively neutralised school funding as an election issue, and yet avoids a commitment to the later and most expensive phase of the funding transition.

The Better Schools policy is not just a funding model. It attaches conditions to Commonwealth funding enforceable through the Australian Education Act 2013. These conditions include the creation of ‘Implementation Plans’ by the ‘approved authorities’ in charge of systems of schools – state governments and Catholic Education Offices – and the development of ‘School Improvement Plans’ by schools themselves, all of which must be regularly reviewed and updated. NAPLAN testing and the Australian Curriculum are required under the agreement, as are various other plans regarding teacher and principal performance management and school safety. Failure to comply with these conditions to the federal education minister’s satisfaction risks withdrawal or reduction of Commonwealth funds.

Some states have negotiated the accountability requirements and the right of intervention of federal government, but these ministerial powers remain in the legislation. The Coalition has pledged to amend the Act to weaken these powers, but Labor’s position on this is still not clear.

On the issue of school autonomy, Labor and the Coalition are united. Labor has encouraged the growth of independent public schools and decentralisation of school management and Liberal party policy concurs. Neither party has stated an intention to ‘privatise’ education, through either the non-profit or the for-profit sector. The Australian Education Act rules out public funding to for-profit schools.

http://www.cis.org.au/media-information/opinion-pieces/article/4891-spot-the-difference-in-education...

[izabsmiling]

Have a nice afternoon 

[*crikey*mate*]

You introduced the Act to support your position.

Therefore I suggest that you should know everything about it. As you have a copy of it, I cannot see the point in reproducing a huge copy/paste here, even though I know that you like those, but it is essential to consider the other posters as well.

of course sections of Acts or even entire Acts can be repealed. It happens all the time. ?????

Commonwealth of Australia Repealed Acts