As from today, all new materials will be posted by the Progressive Educator, South Australia, team at their website: http://www.progressiveeducators.com.au/index.php .
We hope the new format will be easier to access and navigate.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Stop the demands of the private school lobby!
A little over a week ago, Association of Independent Schools of South Australia Executive Director Gary Le Duff was given a spectacular front page ride into the arms of readers of the Murdoch daily monopoly, the aptly named Advertiser (see, appropriately, far right).
Le Duff was demanding that the private school and Catholic Education sectors get an even bigger handout from the state Government – on top of the $100 million they already get now, and in addition to the huge handouts from the federal Government.
For the record, non-government schools…..err, can’t really call them that these days – independent schools……….no, that doesn’t fit either……ummm…publicly- subsidized- but- closed- to- the- public- schools, get funding from the state Government under the following categories (these figures are for a so-called low-fee religious school in a country town):
Per capita primary 88,449.74
Per capita secondary 68,140.12
Needs entitlement 58,095.23
Interest subsidy 9,948.64
Index of rurality 10,720.55
School card primary 75,663.03
School card secondary 58,700.44
Special needs 15,332.75
Aboriginality 1,338.79
Fee remissions[1] 16,341.23
Total 402,730.52
This same school received the bulk of its taxpayer funding from the federal Government, as follows:
Federal funding
Est. general recurrent primary 786,654.00
Est. general recurrent secondary 569,472.80
Total 1,356,126.80
Grand total 1,758,857.30
(NB - these figures do not include other grants or assistance, such as the Premier’s Reading Challenge, the federal chaplaincy project, and the funding approved for capital works in 2005. The latter amount of $206,192.00 was for the construction of four general learning areas, a music/drama room, and a music tutorial area.)
The fee remissions are slightly higher than in some comparable Category C schools: XX Christian School, with 196.5 FTEs claimed $1,556.31 (or $7.92 per student), and metro YY College with 607 FTEs claimed $24,589.66 (or $40.51 per student). This one, by contrast, claimed $16,341.23 (or $65.90 per student).
It is on top of these combined state-federal funds that Le Duff preposterously proposes that the state Government now pick upall or part of the tab for private school capital works projects.
Le Duff is obviously worried that the fallout from the sub-prime crisis in the US, together with Kevin07’s crusade against inflation (fought through the agency of interest rate rises) will drive some of the working and middle class parents who have scrimped and saved to put their children into private schools, to return to the public education sector.
The Le Duff bluff also comes as private school fees rose by around 7 per cent on last year’s levels, and as a promised tax rebate on private school fees disappeared along with its sponsor, the reactionary and anti-public sector Howard Liberal Government.
Le Duff can sense a swing back to the public school system and is worried that the reckless plans for expansion that have characterized schools in the private sector might not be able to be paid for, or would need to be paid for through additional steep rises in fees.
And to further contextualize the issue, a report commissioned by the Howard Government into the so-called “socio-economic status” (SES) funding model that it has used to increase funding to the private sector shows that at the federal level, private schools have been overpaid more than $2 billion from a funding formula already rigged in favour of the wealthiest and most exclusive schools.
The outgoing Howard Government kept the report secret, but shamefully and to no-one’s great surprise, so did the incoming Rudd education “revolutionaries”!
They refused FOI applications to release the report, which has now been leaked to the media.
This Government foolishly went to the polls late last year with the promise that it would maintain Howard’s funding of the privates, and that “no school would get less than it does now”.
The main findings of the report were:
Cost of maintaining the existing SES system would be $26.5 billion over the next four-year cycle.
-Grants to half the private schools in the country are not assessed according to the SES formula.
-Over the last 4 years $2 billion in payments to schools which had their funding maintained at higher levels than they would get if the federal funding formula was strictly applied.
-60 per cent of mainstream Catholic schools and 25 per cent of independent schools are funded above what would be their SES entitlement
-At least half will continue to receive $2.7 billion in overpayments over the next four years.
-Some will be overpaid by as much as $23 million each in the next funding cycle
-Inequity lies in the guarantee from the inception of the SES formula in2001 that no school will receive less money than it did the previous year.
-Transitional arrangements made for Catholic schools to preserve their funding entitlements at 2000 levels, even if they qualified for less, when they joined the SES funding system in 2001havecontinued at artificially inflated levels for eight years, despite their transitional nature.
-Rejection of private school lobby's argument that the extra funding helps keep a lid on the fees parents pay. Points out that fees have continued to rise significantly.
-42 per cent of Funding Maintained schools (87) increased their fees by more than 40 per cent during the period 2000 to 2004 compared to 24 per cent of SES-funded schools (164).
-Number of Funding Maintained schools with annual fees below $2500 fell by 24 per cent (48) compared to a fall of 10 per cent (67) for SES-funded schools."
-Private schools identified as receiving an already too-generous share of government funding are exploiting a loophole to claim even more money from taxpayers - by calling new schools ‘campuses’ of an over-generously funded ‘parent’ school rather than new schools
Given the above, and Le Duff would have been a poor spokesperson for the private school lobby had he not known of the above, at least in broad outline, it makes even more reprehensible his demands for “more…more…more…” from the state Government.
Indeed the whole issue of the inequitable SES funding model, and of the rorting it has allowed, requires nothing less than a new version of the Whitlam-era Schools Commission, that is, a national enquiry into the scandalous running down of public education and the corrupt promotion of a tax-payer funded private alternative.
Such a commission should have the power to make Rudd’s superficial “Education Revolution” a genuinely transformative sweep of the whole field of public and private schooling, one that ensures that a free, secular and compulsory system of the highest quality is available to all, that schools catering to the particular needs of minority ethnic or religious communities are funded by the government, and regulated and registered for curriculum and learning accountability, but that parents who seek to place their offspring in exclusive elite schools for reasons of simple snobbery do so entirely at their own cost.
We don’t set up alternative systems of roads for the exclusive use of the drivers of luxury imported cars, and should the same ever come into existence, we would be outraged if a single cent of public money was expended on them.
The same principle should be brought to education.
Le Duff was demanding that the private school and Catholic Education sectors get an even bigger handout from the state Government – on top of the $100 million they already get now, and in addition to the huge handouts from the federal Government.
For the record, non-government schools…..err, can’t really call them that these days – independent schools……….no, that doesn’t fit either……ummm…publicly- subsidized- but- closed- to- the- public- schools, get funding from the state Government under the following categories (these figures are for a so-called low-fee religious school in a country town):
Per capita primary 88,449.74
Per capita secondary 68,140.12
Needs entitlement 58,095.23
Interest subsidy 9,948.64
Index of rurality 10,720.55
School card primary 75,663.03
School card secondary 58,700.44
Special needs 15,332.75
Aboriginality 1,338.79
Fee remissions[1] 16,341.23
Total 402,730.52
This same school received the bulk of its taxpayer funding from the federal Government, as follows:
Federal funding
Est. general recurrent primary 786,654.00
Est. general recurrent secondary 569,472.80
Total 1,356,126.80
Grand total 1,758,857.30
(NB - these figures do not include other grants or assistance, such as the Premier’s Reading Challenge, the federal chaplaincy project, and the funding approved for capital works in 2005. The latter amount of $206,192.00 was for the construction of four general learning areas, a music/drama room, and a music tutorial area.)
The fee remissions are slightly higher than in some comparable Category C schools: XX Christian School, with 196.5 FTEs claimed $1,556.31 (or $7.92 per student), and metro YY College with 607 FTEs claimed $24,589.66 (or $40.51 per student). This one, by contrast, claimed $16,341.23 (or $65.90 per student).
It is on top of these combined state-federal funds that Le Duff preposterously proposes that the state Government now pick upall or part of the tab for private school capital works projects.
Le Duff is obviously worried that the fallout from the sub-prime crisis in the US, together with Kevin07’s crusade against inflation (fought through the agency of interest rate rises) will drive some of the working and middle class parents who have scrimped and saved to put their children into private schools, to return to the public education sector.
The Le Duff bluff also comes as private school fees rose by around 7 per cent on last year’s levels, and as a promised tax rebate on private school fees disappeared along with its sponsor, the reactionary and anti-public sector Howard Liberal Government.
Le Duff can sense a swing back to the public school system and is worried that the reckless plans for expansion that have characterized schools in the private sector might not be able to be paid for, or would need to be paid for through additional steep rises in fees.
And to further contextualize the issue, a report commissioned by the Howard Government into the so-called “socio-economic status” (SES) funding model that it has used to increase funding to the private sector shows that at the federal level, private schools have been overpaid more than $2 billion from a funding formula already rigged in favour of the wealthiest and most exclusive schools.
The outgoing Howard Government kept the report secret, but shamefully and to no-one’s great surprise, so did the incoming Rudd education “revolutionaries”!
They refused FOI applications to release the report, which has now been leaked to the media.
This Government foolishly went to the polls late last year with the promise that it would maintain Howard’s funding of the privates, and that “no school would get less than it does now”.
The main findings of the report were:
Cost of maintaining the existing SES system would be $26.5 billion over the next four-year cycle.
-Grants to half the private schools in the country are not assessed according to the SES formula.
-Over the last 4 years $2 billion in payments to schools which had their funding maintained at higher levels than they would get if the federal funding formula was strictly applied.
-60 per cent of mainstream Catholic schools and 25 per cent of independent schools are funded above what would be their SES entitlement
-At least half will continue to receive $2.7 billion in overpayments over the next four years.
-Some will be overpaid by as much as $23 million each in the next funding cycle
-Inequity lies in the guarantee from the inception of the SES formula in2001 that no school will receive less money than it did the previous year.
-Transitional arrangements made for Catholic schools to preserve their funding entitlements at 2000 levels, even if they qualified for less, when they joined the SES funding system in 2001havecontinued at artificially inflated levels for eight years, despite their transitional nature.
-Rejection of private school lobby's argument that the extra funding helps keep a lid on the fees parents pay. Points out that fees have continued to rise significantly.
-42 per cent of Funding Maintained schools (87) increased their fees by more than 40 per cent during the period 2000 to 2004 compared to 24 per cent of SES-funded schools (164).
-Number of Funding Maintained schools with annual fees below $2500 fell by 24 per cent (48) compared to a fall of 10 per cent (67) for SES-funded schools."
-Private schools identified as receiving an already too-generous share of government funding are exploiting a loophole to claim even more money from taxpayers - by calling new schools ‘campuses’ of an over-generously funded ‘parent’ school rather than new schools
Given the above, and Le Duff would have been a poor spokesperson for the private school lobby had he not known of the above, at least in broad outline, it makes even more reprehensible his demands for “more…more…more…” from the state Government.
Indeed the whole issue of the inequitable SES funding model, and of the rorting it has allowed, requires nothing less than a new version of the Whitlam-era Schools Commission, that is, a national enquiry into the scandalous running down of public education and the corrupt promotion of a tax-payer funded private alternative.
Such a commission should have the power to make Rudd’s superficial “Education Revolution” a genuinely transformative sweep of the whole field of public and private schooling, one that ensures that a free, secular and compulsory system of the highest quality is available to all, that schools catering to the particular needs of minority ethnic or religious communities are funded by the government, and regulated and registered for curriculum and learning accountability, but that parents who seek to place their offspring in exclusive elite schools for reasons of simple snobbery do so entirely at their own cost.
We don’t set up alternative systems of roads for the exclusive use of the drivers of luxury imported cars, and should the same ever come into existence, we would be outraged if a single cent of public money was expended on them.
The same principle should be brought to education.
[1] This is designed to help schools to offset some of the loss of income arising from remissions given for economic hardship and as sibling concessions in a school year. In addition, income loss arising from written off unpaid fees/bad debts associated with the difficult economic circumstances of some families may also be claimed. School Card students are removed from this criterion, so the remissions only apply to non-School Card holders.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Stand and Deliver! Publicly Funded Private Schools to Share Facilities
Public Schools around the country should immediately begin to make contact with their local private schools and begin to make an assessment of the private school facilities that must be made available to public school students.
Ten years of the Howard Coalition Government and its outrageously private school biased funding formula has clearly generated an embarrassment of riches for private schools. Well, at least it seems the newly elected Rudd Labor Government and Minister Julia Gillard are embarrassed and are attempting redress the gluttonous private schools’ plunder.
Announced on Sunday 20 January, the Federal Government's $62.5 million Local Schools Working Together Program aims to encourage the creation of first-class shared facilities between government and non-government schools.
Undoubtedly the first class facilities already exist in private schools and the funds allocated by the Federal Government could be well spent in the transport of public school students to access the private school facilities.
The powerful private school lobby group South Australian Association of Independent Schools Executive Director Gary LeDuff stated in the Sunday Mail that "In principle I support the idea, but we would need to work through the complexities of the source of funds. In the independent schools sector, on average 85 per cent of funds for capital works comes from the parents. No state government funding is available for capital works.”
“How do you then share that sort of facility when the rest of the community may not be contributing a fair amount of the costs?"
While LeDuff omits that the funding formula established by the former Federal Government and maintained by the Rudd Government has been siphoning more public funding into private schools than they know what to do with, he goes onto hint at a backlash from private schools required to engage in the programme.
As for fairness, “the rest of the community” – the two thirds of Australian families who send their children to public schools have already contributed a “fair amount of the cost” through taxes paid to federal and state governments. The “rest of the community” have also paid the cost because students in public schools have gone without while private school facilities have flourished. Hard to put a dollar value on that!
This Rudd Labor Government initiative is useful in the short term to begin to address the inequities of funding but the Government is fully aware of the growing tide of public antagonism toward a funding formula that is exacerbating a growing cultural and educational divide between the haves and have nots.
The Rudd Government should immediately invest a small fraction of the budget surplus - a sum of $2.9 billion annually – into public schools across the nation to ensure all schools meet the MCEETYA determined National Resource Standard. Then it should develop an equitable and fair mechanism for the allocation of funds to public and private schools.
Now that would be a fiscally responsible, interest rate neutral, nation building education revolution.
In the meanwhile call your local private school and carry out your own audit. Oh and tell the kids to pack their bathers!
Ten years of the Howard Coalition Government and its outrageously private school biased funding formula has clearly generated an embarrassment of riches for private schools. Well, at least it seems the newly elected Rudd Labor Government and Minister Julia Gillard are embarrassed and are attempting redress the gluttonous private schools’ plunder.
Announced on Sunday 20 January, the Federal Government's $62.5 million Local Schools Working Together Program aims to encourage the creation of first-class shared facilities between government and non-government schools.
Undoubtedly the first class facilities already exist in private schools and the funds allocated by the Federal Government could be well spent in the transport of public school students to access the private school facilities.
The powerful private school lobby group South Australian Association of Independent Schools Executive Director Gary LeDuff stated in the Sunday Mail that "In principle I support the idea, but we would need to work through the complexities of the source of funds. In the independent schools sector, on average 85 per cent of funds for capital works comes from the parents. No state government funding is available for capital works.”
“How do you then share that sort of facility when the rest of the community may not be contributing a fair amount of the costs?"
While LeDuff omits that the funding formula established by the former Federal Government and maintained by the Rudd Government has been siphoning more public funding into private schools than they know what to do with, he goes onto hint at a backlash from private schools required to engage in the programme.
As for fairness, “the rest of the community” – the two thirds of Australian families who send their children to public schools have already contributed a “fair amount of the cost” through taxes paid to federal and state governments. The “rest of the community” have also paid the cost because students in public schools have gone without while private school facilities have flourished. Hard to put a dollar value on that!
This Rudd Labor Government initiative is useful in the short term to begin to address the inequities of funding but the Government is fully aware of the growing tide of public antagonism toward a funding formula that is exacerbating a growing cultural and educational divide between the haves and have nots.
The Rudd Government should immediately invest a small fraction of the budget surplus - a sum of $2.9 billion annually – into public schools across the nation to ensure all schools meet the MCEETYA determined National Resource Standard. Then it should develop an equitable and fair mechanism for the allocation of funds to public and private schools.
Now that would be a fiscally responsible, interest rate neutral, nation building education revolution.
In the meanwhile call your local private school and carry out your own audit. Oh and tell the kids to pack their bathers!
Thursday, January 17, 2008
On Pearson's "Teach for Australia"
The newsletter of the Noel Person Fan Club (aka the Australian), front pages a proposal for a scheme designed by Pearson to attract teachers to schools in Aboriginal communities.
Pearson proposes something called Teach for Australia, to be modeled on similar schemes in the US and Britain.
Under the scheme, existing teachers will be given tax-free incentives to spend four years in Aboriginal communities where they will mentor “associate teachers”. The latter are university graduates who are selected because they are outstanding academically and have leadership skills - but not teaching qualifications.
Both Teaching for America and Teaching First in Britain are flawed models.
They take predominantly white and bright yuppies (see British Teach First appointees - right) and place them in schools that are poor, black, Hispanic - generally hard to staff.
With no qualifications to teach, and relying on raw idealistic enthusiasm alone, they are expected to teach for two years - and complete basic teacher certification and/or business management courses.
Why the business management courses?
Because the funding for the two schemes comes largely from the private sector - both corporate financiers and private foundations.
Those who do not get burnt out in the whiteboard jungle (and the burn out rate is as high as 30%), are then fast-tracked into employment with the corporate sponsors.
The Teach First website explains: “Teach First supporters consistently identify communication skills as being the greatest weakness of the graduates they hire. As a result of a rigorous recruitment process and their time in the classroom, Teach First participants demonstrate strong communication skills, as well as planning, organisation and creativity. In addition, they have all excelled academically. The results show that they are making an (sic!) significant impact in England schools. What could they achieve in your business?”
Or as Wessex Scene Online puts it: “Teach First hopes to demonstrate to applicants how the skills they gain while teaching will enhance their careers in the long-term, as well as offering fast-track recruitment from the sponsors of the project.”
As they now operate (Teach for America has been going for 17 years), selection for the scheme is both a matter of selection (academic achievement) and self-selection (desire to be fast-tracked into employment with Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Deloitte etc). The altruism of empathy with the poor and the marginalised has been replaced with a commitment to self and the profit margin. Just what we want in remote Aboriginal schools!
But can’t these “teachers” improve things during their two-year stint in the ghetto?
The Australian repeats claims of “evidence from the Britain and the US…that the associate teachers produced comparable results or slightly better in reading and maths.”
But the study that produced evidence for this was flawed since many teachers in hard to staff schools are not credentialed (registered in our terms) anyway. Matched against properly credentialed professional teachers, they were shown not to do as well.
And then there is the specifically Australian problem of cross-cultural understandings. The Little Children Are Sacred Report was quite clear that non-Aboriginal teachers should have thorough induction in Aboriginal cultural studies and should develop cultural sensitivities in respect of Aboriginal children that they teach.
Indeed, many of the children in Aboriginal communities use English as a second language and require education that is bilingual and bicultural.
Just parachuting a future stockbroker into a remote Aboriginal school armed with an Accelerated Literacy (ie English literacy for urban residents) program is doing these students a grave disservice.
The merit of Pearson’s proposal is that it indicates quite clearly a level of financial remuneration that is appropriate for teachers making a commitment to work in remote communities for a specified period of time.
Indeed, that level of remuneration should be sufficient to ensure that teachers would be willing to learn about, and develop a basic fluency in, an Aboriginal language specific to a community into which they would be placed, and that they would be prepared to seek accreditation in Aboriginal cultural awareness as well.
Such properly qualified and accredited, experienced teachers – and not “associates” of the Teach First, or Teach for America, type – can be properly regarded as part of the answer.
The answer however, will remain fundamentally incomplete so long as Aboriginal people themselves are denied opportunities to achieve teacher qualifications and are kept (“kept” because of issues of structural inequality and remoteness) at the bottom rung of the education employment ladder as clerical staff and community workers.
As it stands, Pearson's importing of the Teach for America and British Teach First models is a recipe for the privatisation of social responsibility for poverty and disadvantage - a bit like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
Pearson proposes something called Teach for Australia, to be modeled on similar schemes in the US and Britain.
Under the scheme, existing teachers will be given tax-free incentives to spend four years in Aboriginal communities where they will mentor “associate teachers”. The latter are university graduates who are selected because they are outstanding academically and have leadership skills - but not teaching qualifications.
Both Teaching for America and Teaching First in Britain are flawed models.
They take predominantly white and bright yuppies (see British Teach First appointees - right) and place them in schools that are poor, black, Hispanic - generally hard to staff.
With no qualifications to teach, and relying on raw idealistic enthusiasm alone, they are expected to teach for two years - and complete basic teacher certification and/or business management courses.
Why the business management courses?
Because the funding for the two schemes comes largely from the private sector - both corporate financiers and private foundations.
Those who do not get burnt out in the whiteboard jungle (and the burn out rate is as high as 30%), are then fast-tracked into employment with the corporate sponsors.
The Teach First website explains: “Teach First supporters consistently identify communication skills as being the greatest weakness of the graduates they hire. As a result of a rigorous recruitment process and their time in the classroom, Teach First participants demonstrate strong communication skills, as well as planning, organisation and creativity. In addition, they have all excelled academically. The results show that they are making an (sic!) significant impact in England schools. What could they achieve in your business?”
Or as Wessex Scene Online puts it: “Teach First hopes to demonstrate to applicants how the skills they gain while teaching will enhance their careers in the long-term, as well as offering fast-track recruitment from the sponsors of the project.”
As they now operate (Teach for America has been going for 17 years), selection for the scheme is both a matter of selection (academic achievement) and self-selection (desire to be fast-tracked into employment with Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Deloitte etc). The altruism of empathy with the poor and the marginalised has been replaced with a commitment to self and the profit margin. Just what we want in remote Aboriginal schools!
But can’t these “teachers” improve things during their two-year stint in the ghetto?
The Australian repeats claims of “evidence from the Britain and the US…that the associate teachers produced comparable results or slightly better in reading and maths.”
But the study that produced evidence for this was flawed since many teachers in hard to staff schools are not credentialed (registered in our terms) anyway. Matched against properly credentialed professional teachers, they were shown not to do as well.
And then there is the specifically Australian problem of cross-cultural understandings. The Little Children Are Sacred Report was quite clear that non-Aboriginal teachers should have thorough induction in Aboriginal cultural studies and should develop cultural sensitivities in respect of Aboriginal children that they teach.
Indeed, many of the children in Aboriginal communities use English as a second language and require education that is bilingual and bicultural.
Just parachuting a future stockbroker into a remote Aboriginal school armed with an Accelerated Literacy (ie English literacy for urban residents) program is doing these students a grave disservice.
The merit of Pearson’s proposal is that it indicates quite clearly a level of financial remuneration that is appropriate for teachers making a commitment to work in remote communities for a specified period of time.
Indeed, that level of remuneration should be sufficient to ensure that teachers would be willing to learn about, and develop a basic fluency in, an Aboriginal language specific to a community into which they would be placed, and that they would be prepared to seek accreditation in Aboriginal cultural awareness as well.
Such properly qualified and accredited, experienced teachers – and not “associates” of the Teach First, or Teach for America, type – can be properly regarded as part of the answer.
The answer however, will remain fundamentally incomplete so long as Aboriginal people themselves are denied opportunities to achieve teacher qualifications and are kept (“kept” because of issues of structural inequality and remoteness) at the bottom rung of the education employment ladder as clerical staff and community workers.
As it stands, Pearson's importing of the Teach for America and British Teach First models is a recipe for the privatisation of social responsibility for poverty and disadvantage - a bit like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
School funding stopped being cricket long ago
We reprint today two articles from the Sydney Morning Herald on the scandalous over-funding of private schools, a situation that the new Federal Labor Government has pledged to maintain for at least another four years.
Author: Gerard Noonan
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald (11,Wed 09 Jan 2008)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australians like to consider themselves as belonging to one of the more egalitarian countries. Perhaps that's why this week's challenge to the sense of fairness on the cricket paddock has caused such ructions. What, Australians being boorish, pushy and sneaky? Come off the grass.
It's not only in the pampered professional cricketing circus arena where Australia simply doesn't get it. A far more fundamental, but important, example of how Australia has got it wrong - really wrong - has to do with the education of the nation's children and the way some get just about everything while many others get very little.
In October 2005, when he was a humble (of sorts) frontbencher in the Labor Opposition, Kevin Rudd gave a speech of unusual clarity, erudition and prescience to an eclectic audience at the University of NSW on the role of morals in the life of a politician. They had no reason then to believe they were listening to a bloke who would be leading the country in a little over two years. Certainly not one who has it in his sway to shape and remake a society, however conservative he might appear.
What Rudd said was interesting not simply because few leading Australian pollies dare stray into the potential graveyard of moral philosophy. He made a passionate case that the real role of religion (in his case a blend of liberal Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism) in secular politics was to challenge inequality wherever it emerged. This was especially so for the creation ofpublic policy that affected the less powerful in society.
As the Herald education editor, Anna Patty, has revealed today, Australia's educational funding model is under renewed scrutiny, and justifiably so. It is so flawed that even a hand-picked committee of federal government bureaucrats has produced a report that says that the system stinks. It recognises that the so-called Socio-Economic Status (SES) system of calculating a school's federal funding eligibility delivers up billions of dollars in a most unfair and discriminatory way.
The report, produced behind closed doors over the past 18 months, with only selected political hangers-on and lobbyists from the independent school sector getting a look-in, is not public. The Herald has been trying to obtain it, including through freedom of information laws for months, to no avail. Until now, that is. While Patty has only had a glimpse of this secret report's entire findings - access gained through the back door - its conclusions are stark.
At its simplest, the report recognises what every serious policy expert of good will and common sense in the education sector has known for nearly a decade. An education funding formula that rewards six out of every 10 private schools with far more than the formula says they should be paid is deeply flawed. These statistics include the vast Catholic network in which 20 per cent of all Australian children are educated. These are not just peanuts in overpayments. They are multimillion-dollar overpayments to schools, even by the lax standards of the SES formula, which the previous government had to adjust twice to accommodate the embarrassing largesse.
Rudd and his Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, must know this. The more honest senior players from the Catholic, Anglican and other private school groups acknowledge privately that it is unfair, even to grumpy curmudgeons like me. But to win the recent election Labor stamped out any possibility of a re-run of a feared "politics of envy" challenge by the Coalition, which had artfully used such a ploy in destroying the entirely reasonable, if culturally unacceptable, challenge to the status quo in 2004 by the former Labor leader Mark Latham.
Rudd and Gillard insisted they would keep the previous government's funding formula in place for the next four-year period, even though they had argued against it when it was imposed in 1999. That means that the system will, if Rudd's social conscience does not kick in, remain in place until at least 2012.
Few in this country seem to realise just how far out of whack Australia's school funding system is among the developed world.
The OECD places Australia in a category of its own in the way public funding is directed towards private school interests, which can then charge fees. Many industrialised countries provide funding through taxation to private and religious schools that meet national curriculum standards - some even provide 100 per cent of all costs - but the funding is cut off or severely curtailed if fees are charged by a school.
The policies are aimed at providing choice of educational type without distorting how much is directed from the public purse to well-endowed schools.
Here is one instance where those in power with a professed strong sense of social justice need to re-examine an election commitment - probably given in good faith - which has a big distorting impact on the development and legitimate aspirations of the nation's youth.
Author: Gerard Noonan
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald (11,Wed 09 Jan 2008)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australians like to consider themselves as belonging to one of the more egalitarian countries. Perhaps that's why this week's challenge to the sense of fairness on the cricket paddock has caused such ructions. What, Australians being boorish, pushy and sneaky? Come off the grass.
It's not only in the pampered professional cricketing circus arena where Australia simply doesn't get it. A far more fundamental, but important, example of how Australia has got it wrong - really wrong - has to do with the education of the nation's children and the way some get just about everything while many others get very little.
In October 2005, when he was a humble (of sorts) frontbencher in the Labor Opposition, Kevin Rudd gave a speech of unusual clarity, erudition and prescience to an eclectic audience at the University of NSW on the role of morals in the life of a politician. They had no reason then to believe they were listening to a bloke who would be leading the country in a little over two years. Certainly not one who has it in his sway to shape and remake a society, however conservative he might appear.
What Rudd said was interesting not simply because few leading Australian pollies dare stray into the potential graveyard of moral philosophy. He made a passionate case that the real role of religion (in his case a blend of liberal Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism) in secular politics was to challenge inequality wherever it emerged. This was especially so for the creation ofpublic policy that affected the less powerful in society.
As the Herald education editor, Anna Patty, has revealed today, Australia's educational funding model is under renewed scrutiny, and justifiably so. It is so flawed that even a hand-picked committee of federal government bureaucrats has produced a report that says that the system stinks. It recognises that the so-called Socio-Economic Status (SES) system of calculating a school's federal funding eligibility delivers up billions of dollars in a most unfair and discriminatory way.
The report, produced behind closed doors over the past 18 months, with only selected political hangers-on and lobbyists from the independent school sector getting a look-in, is not public. The Herald has been trying to obtain it, including through freedom of information laws for months, to no avail. Until now, that is. While Patty has only had a glimpse of this secret report's entire findings - access gained through the back door - its conclusions are stark.
At its simplest, the report recognises what every serious policy expert of good will and common sense in the education sector has known for nearly a decade. An education funding formula that rewards six out of every 10 private schools with far more than the formula says they should be paid is deeply flawed. These statistics include the vast Catholic network in which 20 per cent of all Australian children are educated. These are not just peanuts in overpayments. They are multimillion-dollar overpayments to schools, even by the lax standards of the SES formula, which the previous government had to adjust twice to accommodate the embarrassing largesse.
Rudd and his Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, must know this. The more honest senior players from the Catholic, Anglican and other private school groups acknowledge privately that it is unfair, even to grumpy curmudgeons like me. But to win the recent election Labor stamped out any possibility of a re-run of a feared "politics of envy" challenge by the Coalition, which had artfully used such a ploy in destroying the entirely reasonable, if culturally unacceptable, challenge to the status quo in 2004 by the former Labor leader Mark Latham.
Rudd and Gillard insisted they would keep the previous government's funding formula in place for the next four-year period, even though they had argued against it when it was imposed in 1999. That means that the system will, if Rudd's social conscience does not kick in, remain in place until at least 2012.
Few in this country seem to realise just how far out of whack Australia's school funding system is among the developed world.
The OECD places Australia in a category of its own in the way public funding is directed towards private school interests, which can then charge fees. Many industrialised countries provide funding through taxation to private and religious schools that meet national curriculum standards - some even provide 100 per cent of all costs - but the funding is cut off or severely curtailed if fees are charged by a school.
The policies are aimed at providing choice of educational type without distorting how much is directed from the public purse to well-endowed schools.
Here is one instance where those in power with a professed strong sense of social justice need to re-examine an election commitment - probably given in good faith - which has a big distorting impact on the development and legitimate aspirations of the nation's youth.
School funding flaws hidden
Author: Anna Patty Education Editor
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald (1,Wed 09 Jan 2008)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SECRET federal report into funding for private schools has found that many are receiving more than their fair share of taxpayers' money.
The Herald understands the federal Education Department's review of private school funding has identified entrenched inequity in the Commonwealth system. The report, which was completed last year but kept under wraps by the Howard government before the November election, recommends transitional arrangements to wean some schools off inflated levels of funding.
The Rudd Government - which made an election promise to maintain the existing system that delivers more than $6 billion in subsidies to private schools each year - is now faced with the department's own criticism of the funding system, which measures each school's entitlement according to the wealth of families who attend.
The report found that many schools are being overpaid as part of the Howard government's "no losers" policy which ensured no school would receive less money than it had in the past.
That was despite a review in 2004 that found the socio-economic status (SES) of some schools had improved, entitling them to less money.
About 60 per cent of independent and Catholic schools have had their funding maintained at artificially inflated levels and are exceptions to the rule of the funding formula.
The Australian Anglican Schools Network said new schools were not able to access the same levels of funding as older schools that have had their funding frozen at historic levels.
The network's president, Peta Smith, has said a review of inequities in the Commonwealth funding model was long overdue because some schools had government funding maintained at levels that new schools in the same area could not access.
In her confidential submission to the Commonwealth inquiry into the SES funding scheme, she said the system of funding schools at artificial levels was unsustainable.
"Funding maintenance is not sustainable in the long term as it ignores the logic of needs-based funding being assessed on the SES score that is at the core of the SES model," the submission, obtained under freedom of information laws, says.
However, Ms Smith said there were some schools that needed to have their funding maintained.
Christian Schools Australia has been arguing for a greater share of funding for its low-fee schools and hopes to strike a similar deal to that achieved by the Catholic school system, which will receive $12 billion in funding in the present four-year funding agreement, which runs to the end of this year.
The Greens NSW MP John Kaye said the department's review was bad news for the Rudd Government.
"In order to take the heat off the education issue in last year's federal election, they committed Labor to the SES funding model without worrying about its deep flaws," Dr Kaye said. "Now they will have to work their way out of trouble, probably by burying the report and papering over the massive cracks in private school subsidies."
Dr Kaye said it was outrageous the federal government review was conducted behind closed doors and that the final report had been buried.
"More than $6.2 billion is distributed each year to private schools under current arrangements and this is tipped to rise to more than $7.5 billion by the end of the next funding period," he said.
"With such large sums of money and such massive impacts on public education, the Government has an obligation to publish the results of the review."
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald (1,Wed 09 Jan 2008)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SECRET federal report into funding for private schools has found that many are receiving more than their fair share of taxpayers' money.
The Herald understands the federal Education Department's review of private school funding has identified entrenched inequity in the Commonwealth system. The report, which was completed last year but kept under wraps by the Howard government before the November election, recommends transitional arrangements to wean some schools off inflated levels of funding.
The Rudd Government - which made an election promise to maintain the existing system that delivers more than $6 billion in subsidies to private schools each year - is now faced with the department's own criticism of the funding system, which measures each school's entitlement according to the wealth of families who attend.
The report found that many schools are being overpaid as part of the Howard government's "no losers" policy which ensured no school would receive less money than it had in the past.
That was despite a review in 2004 that found the socio-economic status (SES) of some schools had improved, entitling them to less money.
About 60 per cent of independent and Catholic schools have had their funding maintained at artificially inflated levels and are exceptions to the rule of the funding formula.
The Australian Anglican Schools Network said new schools were not able to access the same levels of funding as older schools that have had their funding frozen at historic levels.
The network's president, Peta Smith, has said a review of inequities in the Commonwealth funding model was long overdue because some schools had government funding maintained at levels that new schools in the same area could not access.
In her confidential submission to the Commonwealth inquiry into the SES funding scheme, she said the system of funding schools at artificial levels was unsustainable.
"Funding maintenance is not sustainable in the long term as it ignores the logic of needs-based funding being assessed on the SES score that is at the core of the SES model," the submission, obtained under freedom of information laws, says.
However, Ms Smith said there were some schools that needed to have their funding maintained.
Christian Schools Australia has been arguing for a greater share of funding for its low-fee schools and hopes to strike a similar deal to that achieved by the Catholic school system, which will receive $12 billion in funding in the present four-year funding agreement, which runs to the end of this year.
The Greens NSW MP John Kaye said the department's review was bad news for the Rudd Government.
"In order to take the heat off the education issue in last year's federal election, they committed Labor to the SES funding model without worrying about its deep flaws," Dr Kaye said. "Now they will have to work their way out of trouble, probably by burying the report and papering over the massive cracks in private school subsidies."
Dr Kaye said it was outrageous the federal government review was conducted behind closed doors and that the final report had been buried.
"More than $6.2 billion is distributed each year to private schools under current arrangements and this is tipped to rise to more than $7.5 billion by the end of the next funding period," he said.
"With such large sums of money and such massive impacts on public education, the Government has an obligation to publish the results of the review."
Monday, December 3, 2007
Australian History: Gillard must listen to history teachers
Disappointingly, Julia Gillard has signaled that the “me too-ism” that saw Rudd successfully checkmate his way to the Prime Ministership is still very much alive in Labor ranks.
She is reported in the media today as saying that she believed Australia was “settled” rather than “invaded”.
“I would say that Australia was settled,” she said on television. “I can understand that many indigenous Australians would say that it was invaded….”
Why should it only be indigenous Australians who might want to use the word “invasion”? The wording of Gillard’s comment implies that no non-Aboriginal Australian would accept that an invasion began in 1788. There are a significant and growing number of non-Aboriginal Australians who are quite comfortable with the notion that an invasion took place. Or is it only in reference to the post-colonial era that we are meant to take offence should a phrase like “Japan’s plans to settle Australia during WWII” ever, God forbid, be uttered?
But leaving that aside, what is the future of History as an area of study in Australian schools?
We know that John Howard sought to narrowly define an Australian history curriculum for Years 9 and 10. The history of his attempt to control this process and its outcomes is well-documented on the NSW History Teachers Association website (here). Howard intervened over the top of Education Minister Bishop’s head and appointed a hand-picked group of right-wing cultural warriors to create a curriculum that corresponded to his ideological bent.
The resulting Guide to the teaching of Australian History in Years 9 and 10 has been widely criticized. It is structured around Topics, Milestone Events, and People. The Milestones are more like millstones around the necks of teachers and students: impossibly content rich and typically “mainstream”.
This Guide must be dumped by Gillard.
Hopefully she will read right-wing ideologue Kevin Donnelly’s piece in the Australian (Dec 4, 2007, p. 12) in which he gloats that Gillard’s comments are “evidence of the power and longevity of John Howard’s influence on Australian politics.”
The new Labor Government must refer a national History curriculum to its proposed National Curriculum Board, and the education “experts” on that Board must seek out and listen to the voice of the professional associations for the teaching of History in each State and Territory.
Never again must History teachers be excluded from the process for the development of their curriculum.
As progressive educators, we advocate a socially critical curriculum.
We advocate knowledge of the history of human occupation of this country and of the ability to understand sequential or narrative structures applying to that history.
Above all, we advocate the acknowledgement of multiple perspectives, and that such perspectives exist on the question of the history of human occupation, for it is embedded in the culture of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders that they have been here since “time immemorial”, that they have been here “from the start of time” and that concepts such as 50,000 years or 60,000 years are not part of their culture.
(Having said that, when students see a physical representation of time, it can be a humbling experience for some. I used to get them to count out 60 bricks along a section of our school’s Lecture Theatre, with each brick representing a thousand years in the human occupation of Australia. The last fifth of the very last brick always looks so tiny - the entire span of post-invasion Australia!)
We advocate that students be able to distinguish between a primary and a secondary source, and to recognize the value of each; that they can distinguish between fact and opinion, and be able to detect bias or prejudice.
We advocate exposing students to learning about family and local history so that they see themselves as part of history and understand that history can be investigated through artefacts as well as text books, and that artefacts can be classified and catalogued and exhibited for the sharing of historical information and insight.
We advocate students developing the understanding that values don't fall out of the sky but are created by people in different circumstances for particular purposes, and that while one set of values may lead to someone believing that “The story of Australia encompasses settlement and expansion…” (Howard’s The Guide…), another set of values might lead someone to believing that “The story of Australia encompasses unsettlement and encroachment…” Neither view should be forced down the throats of students, but they should be able to identify which of their own values encourages them to lean towards one belief rather than the other.
Gillard may be persuaded to abolish Howard’s History curriculum, for in the same article she also stated that she “supported students being exposed to different interpretations of Australian history and reaching their own conclusions”.
That, at least, is an improvement on the Howard model.
……………………
For an excellent article on the exposure of students to different perspectives, see the article by John DeRose in the Fall 2007 edition of Rethinking Schools magazine, called “History Textboooks: ‘Theirs’ and ‘Ours’”. Unfortunately, it is not yet linked to in the on-line version of the publication.
She is reported in the media today as saying that she believed Australia was “settled” rather than “invaded”.
“I would say that Australia was settled,” she said on television. “I can understand that many indigenous Australians would say that it was invaded….”
Why should it only be indigenous Australians who might want to use the word “invasion”? The wording of Gillard’s comment implies that no non-Aboriginal Australian would accept that an invasion began in 1788. There are a significant and growing number of non-Aboriginal Australians who are quite comfortable with the notion that an invasion took place. Or is it only in reference to the post-colonial era that we are meant to take offence should a phrase like “Japan’s plans to settle Australia during WWII” ever, God forbid, be uttered?
But leaving that aside, what is the future of History as an area of study in Australian schools?
We know that John Howard sought to narrowly define an Australian history curriculum for Years 9 and 10. The history of his attempt to control this process and its outcomes is well-documented on the NSW History Teachers Association website (here). Howard intervened over the top of Education Minister Bishop’s head and appointed a hand-picked group of right-wing cultural warriors to create a curriculum that corresponded to his ideological bent.
The resulting Guide to the teaching of Australian History in Years 9 and 10 has been widely criticized. It is structured around Topics, Milestone Events, and People. The Milestones are more like millstones around the necks of teachers and students: impossibly content rich and typically “mainstream”.
This Guide must be dumped by Gillard.
Hopefully she will read right-wing ideologue Kevin Donnelly’s piece in the Australian (Dec 4, 2007, p. 12) in which he gloats that Gillard’s comments are “evidence of the power and longevity of John Howard’s influence on Australian politics.”
The new Labor Government must refer a national History curriculum to its proposed National Curriculum Board, and the education “experts” on that Board must seek out and listen to the voice of the professional associations for the teaching of History in each State and Territory.
Never again must History teachers be excluded from the process for the development of their curriculum.
As progressive educators, we advocate a socially critical curriculum.
We advocate knowledge of the history of human occupation of this country and of the ability to understand sequential or narrative structures applying to that history.
Above all, we advocate the acknowledgement of multiple perspectives, and that such perspectives exist on the question of the history of human occupation, for it is embedded in the culture of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders that they have been here since “time immemorial”, that they have been here “from the start of time” and that concepts such as 50,000 years or 60,000 years are not part of their culture.
(Having said that, when students see a physical representation of time, it can be a humbling experience for some. I used to get them to count out 60 bricks along a section of our school’s Lecture Theatre, with each brick representing a thousand years in the human occupation of Australia. The last fifth of the very last brick always looks so tiny - the entire span of post-invasion Australia!)
We advocate that students be able to distinguish between a primary and a secondary source, and to recognize the value of each; that they can distinguish between fact and opinion, and be able to detect bias or prejudice.
We advocate exposing students to learning about family and local history so that they see themselves as part of history and understand that history can be investigated through artefacts as well as text books, and that artefacts can be classified and catalogued and exhibited for the sharing of historical information and insight.
We advocate students developing the understanding that values don't fall out of the sky but are created by people in different circumstances for particular purposes, and that while one set of values may lead to someone believing that “The story of Australia encompasses settlement and expansion…” (Howard’s The Guide…), another set of values might lead someone to believing that “The story of Australia encompasses unsettlement and encroachment…” Neither view should be forced down the throats of students, but they should be able to identify which of their own values encourages them to lean towards one belief rather than the other.
Gillard may be persuaded to abolish Howard’s History curriculum, for in the same article she also stated that she “supported students being exposed to different interpretations of Australian history and reaching their own conclusions”.
That, at least, is an improvement on the Howard model.
……………………
For an excellent article on the exposure of students to different perspectives, see the article by John DeRose in the Fall 2007 edition of Rethinking Schools magazine, called “History Textboooks: ‘Theirs’ and ‘Ours’”. Unfortunately, it is not yet linked to in the on-line version of the publication.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Prince Alfred College teachers fighting AWAs
This article is repeated without change from the Eastern Courier (21/11/07) an Adelaide suburban newspaper.
It is a warning to teachers in the public education system that un-Australian Workplace Agreements are infiltrating education, and that what private school teachers face now will be what we face in the future if the Howard regime is re-elected on the 24th of this month.
The article follows:
Workplace Disagreement
By Aaron Coultate
Teachers at one of Adelaide's most elite private schools are at loggerheads with management in a dispute over WorkChoices, which is likely to act as a test case for other independent schools.
Teachers at Prince Alfred College, Hackney, have overwhelmingly rejected a new pay deal in which union members were asked, for the first time, to sign Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). Staff voted 80-20 against the changes which, they said, would ban the Independent Education Union from meeting with members on school grounds, or discussing with them workplace issues.
They have previously accepted the school's offer on pay and conditions.
"The workplace is now in deep dispute over form rather than function," union secretary Glen Seidel (right) said.
"...There is a lot of resentment there."
Mr Seidel said the outcome could be a landmark ruling for SA independent schools, most of which were set to begin AWA negotiations in coming weeks.
"It will probably set the precedent for the rest of the state's non-Catholic private schools. PAC is the vanguard, everyone else is looking at them."
He said it was unlikely teachers would strike. "The most that may happen is some teachers boycott a Saturday morning game of school cricket.
"These are not your usual militant union members."
The teachers have gone back to management with a proposed "memorandum of understanding", which would bypass WorkChoices while maintaining the agreed working and pay conditions.
Mr Seidel said the need for the teachers to take this action made a "mockery" of the laws.
It is unclear whether the school will accept the teachers' position.
Contacted on Friday, PAC Headmaster Kevin Tutt refused to comment.
The issue could take a different tack if the ALP is elected on November 24, with leader Kevin Rudd promising to overhual industrial relations laws.
It is a warning to teachers in the public education system that un-Australian Workplace Agreements are infiltrating education, and that what private school teachers face now will be what we face in the future if the Howard regime is re-elected on the 24th of this month.
The article follows:
Workplace Disagreement
By Aaron Coultate
Teachers at one of Adelaide's most elite private schools are at loggerheads with management in a dispute over WorkChoices, which is likely to act as a test case for other independent schools.
Teachers at Prince Alfred College, Hackney, have overwhelmingly rejected a new pay deal in which union members were asked, for the first time, to sign Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). Staff voted 80-20 against the changes which, they said, would ban the Independent Education Union from meeting with members on school grounds, or discussing with them workplace issues.
They have previously accepted the school's offer on pay and conditions.
"The workplace is now in deep dispute over form rather than function," union secretary Glen Seidel (right) said.
"...There is a lot of resentment there."
Mr Seidel said the outcome could be a landmark ruling for SA independent schools, most of which were set to begin AWA negotiations in coming weeks.
"It will probably set the precedent for the rest of the state's non-Catholic private schools. PAC is the vanguard, everyone else is looking at them."
He said it was unlikely teachers would strike. "The most that may happen is some teachers boycott a Saturday morning game of school cricket.
"These are not your usual militant union members."
The teachers have gone back to management with a proposed "memorandum of understanding", which would bypass WorkChoices while maintaining the agreed working and pay conditions.
Mr Seidel said the need for the teachers to take this action made a "mockery" of the laws.
It is unclear whether the school will accept the teachers' position.
Contacted on Friday, PAC Headmaster Kevin Tutt refused to comment.
The issue could take a different tack if the ALP is elected on November 24, with leader Kevin Rudd promising to overhual industrial relations laws.
..............................................................................................
The situation at PAC (a Uniting Church elite college) mirrors that at Sydney Church of England Co-Ed Grammar School (SCESGS) which is also using the WorkChoices legislation to deny teachers basic industrial rights by refusing to negotiate with the IEU.
Staff at SCECGS have been offered a new enterprise agreement that varies the template agreement negotiated between the IEU and the Association of Independent Schools, to the disadvantage of staff.
"SCECGS senior personnel told staff that 'theoretically' the school could dismiss all the teachers if they voted 'no' to the agreement and hold a second vote of the new staff in order to get the agreement passed," said IEU General Secretary Dick Shearman.
"The School Principal and Board have ignored a petition by over 100 staff members...The school has flatly refused to negotiate...(and) is using WorkChoices to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation," he said.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Let them sell cake!!
Is this what it will come to - a lamington stall - to make up the funding shortfall for public education if the Howard government is re-elected after November 24?
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf5J-XB3BVA
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf5J-XB3BVA
More teachers and laptops needed - the education revolution must tackle the capitalist press!
One of the contributing factors to the growing psychological complexity of teaching in Australia is the continual denigration of, and hostility towards, teachers in the mass media.
These is particularly true of the print media, and of the Murdoch press above all others.
The Murdoch flagship, The Australian, is the worst of the lot.
Consider its editorial response to Rudd’s promise to provide each student in Years 9-12 with their own computer. The editorial was headed “MORE TEACHERS NEEDED, NOT MORE LAPTOPS – The education revolution must tackle union power” (16/11/07).
Let’s deal with its treatment of Rudd’s policy first.
The editorial states “Labor’s plan ignores the fact that OECD figures show that all Australian students already have access to computers at school.”
As any teacher or student would know, “having access” to a school computer doesn’t mean much when there is continual competition to book a class into a computer lab. It doesn’t mean much when computers are old and slow.
And “access” doesn’t equal equity across school systems: elite Scotch College in Adelaide requires each student to have a laptop, private Westminster School does well to have 500-plus computers for its 1100 students, but highly regarded Glenunga International High, a state school, has only 250 for 1250 students. Rudd’s promise of high-speed broadband and a computer for each Year 9-12 student will solve the problem of competition for access and ensure equity across school systems. In state schools in particular, it will free funds to target other resource requirements.
The editorial also states: “We question also whether parents may not ultimately be more persuaded by Mr Howard’s pledge to fix the core curriculum and get the basics right than Mr Rudd’s promise to promote computer use as a time when a pressing issue is to get children to switch the computer off and take some real exercise.”
To advance a populist argument that kids need to get off computers and get some exercise denies the OECD finding that “School students who are established computer users tend to perform better in key school subjects…” (OECD, “Are students ready for a technology-rich world’, 2006). I doubt that ACHPER, as the peak body promoting healthy exercise, would target the use of computers in classrooms in its advocacy for increased levels of fitness.
And really, this sentence should read “We hope that parents will be more persuaded…” because the intention clearly is to mould public opinion into support for the Howard Government.
But note the insidious teacher-bashing behind the claim that the core curriculum needs “fixing” and that the basics of education are “wrong”. This is where the sub-title about tackling “union power” comes into its own.
The editorial states: “A big obstacle (to lifting the quality of teaching staff) is the socialist collective bent of the teacher unions, which remain hostile to any system that links teacher pay to performance outcomes or even different skills sets.”
And it is the lack of performance pay that is keeping the young away from teaching: “…university students considering a career are reluctant to choose teaching because it has a rigid pay system, based on tenure rather than performance.”
However, as careers counselors know, the lack of a performance pay system is not what is keeping students from becoming teachers. Poor pay compared to comparable professions certainly is. The stress of teaching (workload, class size, behaviour management) certainly is. The lack of respect for teachers compounded by continually negative media reportage certainly is. Or at least, this is what senior students have repeatedly told me for many years. None have cited the lack of a performance pay system. Nor has one been adopted in Finland where “the profession of teacher is now the most popular among upper-secondary students, even more popular than careers in IT, medicine or business” (Phi Delta Kappan Oct 2007 p. 109). Finns are very protective of the high status of teachers and provide small classes and decent conditions. They don’t stand for their teachers being continually disrespected in the media.
The editorial closes with a call to “Anyone who is going to fix Australia’s education problem (to) be brave enough to stand up to the teachers’ unions…”
Regardless of which party wins office after November 24, we will need to remain strong and united, defending the very high standards of education in Australia (confirmed in the OECD’s 2006: Education at a Glance), and challenging the continuing denigration of our profession by media hacks tied to the Business Council of Australia and its cronies.
These is particularly true of the print media, and of the Murdoch press above all others.
The Murdoch flagship, The Australian, is the worst of the lot.
Consider its editorial response to Rudd’s promise to provide each student in Years 9-12 with their own computer. The editorial was headed “MORE TEACHERS NEEDED, NOT MORE LAPTOPS – The education revolution must tackle union power” (16/11/07).
Let’s deal with its treatment of Rudd’s policy first.
The editorial states “Labor’s plan ignores the fact that OECD figures show that all Australian students already have access to computers at school.”
As any teacher or student would know, “having access” to a school computer doesn’t mean much when there is continual competition to book a class into a computer lab. It doesn’t mean much when computers are old and slow.
And “access” doesn’t equal equity across school systems: elite Scotch College in Adelaide requires each student to have a laptop, private Westminster School does well to have 500-plus computers for its 1100 students, but highly regarded Glenunga International High, a state school, has only 250 for 1250 students. Rudd’s promise of high-speed broadband and a computer for each Year 9-12 student will solve the problem of competition for access and ensure equity across school systems. In state schools in particular, it will free funds to target other resource requirements.
The editorial also states: “We question also whether parents may not ultimately be more persuaded by Mr Howard’s pledge to fix the core curriculum and get the basics right than Mr Rudd’s promise to promote computer use as a time when a pressing issue is to get children to switch the computer off and take some real exercise.”
To advance a populist argument that kids need to get off computers and get some exercise denies the OECD finding that “School students who are established computer users tend to perform better in key school subjects…” (OECD, “Are students ready for a technology-rich world’, 2006). I doubt that ACHPER, as the peak body promoting healthy exercise, would target the use of computers in classrooms in its advocacy for increased levels of fitness.
And really, this sentence should read “We hope that parents will be more persuaded…” because the intention clearly is to mould public opinion into support for the Howard Government.
But note the insidious teacher-bashing behind the claim that the core curriculum needs “fixing” and that the basics of education are “wrong”. This is where the sub-title about tackling “union power” comes into its own.
The editorial states: “A big obstacle (to lifting the quality of teaching staff) is the socialist collective bent of the teacher unions, which remain hostile to any system that links teacher pay to performance outcomes or even different skills sets.”
And it is the lack of performance pay that is keeping the young away from teaching: “…university students considering a career are reluctant to choose teaching because it has a rigid pay system, based on tenure rather than performance.”
However, as careers counselors know, the lack of a performance pay system is not what is keeping students from becoming teachers. Poor pay compared to comparable professions certainly is. The stress of teaching (workload, class size, behaviour management) certainly is. The lack of respect for teachers compounded by continually negative media reportage certainly is. Or at least, this is what senior students have repeatedly told me for many years. None have cited the lack of a performance pay system. Nor has one been adopted in Finland where “the profession of teacher is now the most popular among upper-secondary students, even more popular than careers in IT, medicine or business” (Phi Delta Kappan Oct 2007 p. 109). Finns are very protective of the high status of teachers and provide small classes and decent conditions. They don’t stand for their teachers being continually disrespected in the media.
The editorial closes with a call to “Anyone who is going to fix Australia’s education problem (to) be brave enough to stand up to the teachers’ unions…”
Regardless of which party wins office after November 24, we will need to remain strong and united, defending the very high standards of education in Australia (confirmed in the OECD’s 2006: Education at a Glance), and challenging the continuing denigration of our profession by media hacks tied to the Business Council of Australia and its cronies.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Military intimidation backfires in Chicago
By George N. Schmidt (CHICAGO)
More than a dozen active duty United States Marines and Army formed a perimeter around the meeting room of the Chicago Board of Education prior to the Board's November 14, 2007, meeting, apparently prepared to raise objections to a Board Report which would restrict military recruiters' access to Chicago's high schools.
The soldiers and Marines, who have been confirmed by military officials as members of the armed forces on active duty, were present at the beginning of the meeting, standing along the walls of the meeting room and posted at the two public entrances to the room.
The military people remained standing during the early parts of the Board's meeting, but departed soon after a female Iraq War veteran, Patricia McCann, began speaking describing her experiences with recruiting fraud while she was a high school student and her subsequent treatment while in the Army, both in Iraq, during her term of service, and subsequently. Those of us who arrived at the Board before the official beginning of the meeting noticed that more than a dozen uniformed Marines and soldiers were standing along the walls inside the Board chambers. One of them was wearing desert combat fatigues and combat boots. Another dozen or so Marines (most in uniform) were sitting in the Board chambers near Alderman James Balcer (D-11th Ward, Bridgeport, etc), who sat a few rows behind the Press section.
Seven individuals (including Balcer) were signed up to speak on military recruiting, and five of those identified themselves in the public participation agenda as members of the military (three National Guard and two Marine Corps). There were enough empty seats in the Board chambers for all of the standing Marines (and one Army person) to have seated themselves, so it was clear that they had either chosen to stand deployed around the perimeter of the room (with one at each of the entrances) or had been ordered to do so (remember: these are active duty military people: they are under orders and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- which is very different from the way the law works for you, me, and Arne Duncan).
By 10:30 a.m. on November 14, there were more than 50 people seated in the "holding room" on the 19th floor watching the Board meeting on closed circuit TV, even though many of them were part of groups signed up to speak (the largest I saw was from UNO Charter Schools). Typically, the Chicago Board of Education holds its meetings in a room which is too small for all those who wish to attend, so the remaining people are placed in what has been called the "holding room" on the 19th floor of the same building at 125 S. Clark St. in Chicago. The Board meets in a special meeting room on the 5th floor.
The Board's monthly meetings generally consist of three parts. First, the Board honors various individuals and groups. Second, the Board listens to "Public Participation" from people who wish to bring their concerns democratically before the Board. Each person wishing to participate in public participation signs in between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. on the day of the meeting. Their names are then printed in a "Public Participation" list before the Board convenes at approximately 10:30. After public participation ends, the Board convenes its regular meeting, which usually hears executive reports before going into executive session. The Board comes out of executive session to vote on its agenda items (or, in the case of the most controversial one on the November 14 agenda, table them) by dinner time, then adjourns for the month.
Since the Chicago Board of Education was reorganized in 1995 under the complete control of Mayor Richard M. Daley, the Board has abolished all committees and ended all public meetings except the monthly meeting. For more than eight years, the Board has approved every item on its public agenda--more than 5,000 pieces of business--without discussion or debate. The members of the Board and the school system's CEO (currently Arne Duncan) are both appointed by the mayor. Although the opening of the public participation portion of the meeting was again delayed by various honoraria and the usual VIP speaking (Alderman Balcer was placed in front of all the other signed in speakers, as is traditional with the Board when elected officials show up), it had begun by 11:00 (when Board President Rufus Williams called on Ald. Balcer). Balcer didn't mention any Board Report on recruitment policy in his remarks. He was merely repeating what he has already made clear to the public on hundreds of occasions -- that he feels that his service in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War changed his life for the better, and that he is glad he was recruited.
The regular public participation then began. During that time, I generally try to photograph all of the people speaking and rarely leave the space where photographers are confined. The fourth or fifth person to speak (Number 5 on the Public Participation Agenda, which is often adjusted during the meeting) was Patricia McCann, who was identified at being with "Iraq Veterans Against War, Coalition Against Militarization of Schools."
McCann spoke about how she was recruited while still a student in high school, how she served in Iraq, and her experiences as a woman in the Army and since. A report on McCann's comments aired on Chicago's WBBM "newsradio" station (the local CBS radio station) the day of her comments and covered fairly her public remarks and the comments she made to reporters (from at least five media outlets, including Channel 2 and the Tribune) in back of the Board chambers after she spoke. During both her remarks and press comments she was accompanied by two people from the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).
But by the time McCann had finished speaking, all of the uniformed military people in the room had left the Board chambers and (apparently) Board headquarters. And when they were called to speak, they weren't there. Only a young man named David Askew, wearing a suit and introducing himself as an attorney, spoke in favor of military recruiting in the schools (in addition to Balcer). None of the five men identified as Marines and soldiers spoke or was present by the time they were reached on the agenda. During the time this was taking place, I was photographing the speakers (generally) as I usually do, so I didn't even see the uniformed military people leaving. However, I did see Patrick Rocks, the Board's attorney, and he did not leave his place during that time. Two hours later, he reported that the recruiting policy would not be voted on that day.
A spokesman for the military told me later that the uniformed military people had left when they were informed that the agenda item was not going to be voted on that day. When I asked him how they could know that the item had been tabled, he said he didn't know. (Rocks had placed the item on the agenda, and the item was still on the agenda when I picked up the full agenda on the Sixth Floor early that morning).
After trying to learn why the military people had left so abruptly, I was finally called by Lt. Col. Brian Redmon, Commander of the Recruiting Batallion, Illinois National Guard. My question, left earlier with the Guardâ's press office, was why the military people had signed up to speak and then left. "Alderman Balcer had spoken and the issue [we were concerned about] was tabled," Redmon told Substance. "I got word that it was tabled." The question of who told the military people that the issue had been tabled was not answered.
I'm still reporting what happened and why, and am only sad that I didn't turn from Patricia McCann to see the Marines and soldiers leaving the Board chambers during her powerful remarks (accurately reflected in John Cody's report). The uniformed people were clearly not available to be interviewed by the press by the time McCann completed her mini-press conference behind the Board chambers at about 11:30 a.m. and were nowhere to be found. At that point, there were still dozens of people up in the "holding room" on the 19th floor, while more than two dozen seats in the main chambers were empty, including all of those that had been occupied by military personnel.
One of the things I'm trying to report is why uniformed active duty military personnel had shown up at a meeting of the Chicago Board of Education in force on November 14, 2007, and why they redeployed out of the Board chambers prior to 11:30 that morning.
All of these questions are still relevant to any complete report (in context) of these matters.
Men and women on active duty in the military are not free agents. They go where ordered, they leave when ordered, and they do as ordered. I've gotten some answers from spokesmen for the recruiting people in Illinois, and have received other information from others. I'd be glad to hear from anyone who knows the answer to my three main questions now.
Usually, as friends know, I downplay the importance of the "Why" question in the big five for news reports. "If you've got the who, what, when and where you can leave the why to a priest or psychiatrist..." But in the case of this story, the "Why" is the biggest questions. (That's a deliberate plural). Why did CPS withdraw a Board Report it had placed on its public agenda and which remained on that agenda the morning of the November 14, 2007, meeting. Why were more than a dozen active duty Marines and soldiers ordered to attend the November 14, 2007 meeting of the Chicago Board of Education and stand around the perimeter of the meeting room (when seats were available) rather than seating themselves as everyone else does? Why did all of the uniformed military personnel at the November 14, 2007 meeting of the Chicago Board of Education retreat from the meeting during the remarks of a young woman who said that she had been recruited out of high school into the Army and had served in Iraq during the Iraq War?
I just spent two days reporting what should have been a simple story. Out of context, the story would have been that CPS withdrew a new policy on recruiter access to Chicago high schools and will consider the policy again at its December 19 meeting. But context is everything, and the bland report on Iraq War veteran Patty McCann's comments on WBBM (the Trib and Sun-Times ignored the story completely) only touches what was in play in and around the Board Wednesday.
George N. Schmidt Substance Nov. 17, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Bishop announces soup kitchens for elite private colleges
(Scotch College, Adelaide, above - one of the beneficiaries of Education Minister Bishop's soup kitchen initiative. The college exists to train young entrants to the ruling class, not the workforce, hence this proud proclamation on its website: "While a number of Australian schools have abandoned the Three R's for general studies aimed at "occupational competency", Scotch College has added two more R's: Responsibility and Relevance." Puke!!!)
The Federal Coalition Education Minister Julie Bishop today announced funding for the establishment of soup kitchens at the entrances to some of Australia’s wealthiest private schools.
The move comes days after the Prime Minister, John Howard, announced tax rebates for school fees.
In announcing the soup kitchens, which had their origins in the Great Depression of the 1930s, Ms Bishop said that “welfare for the rich” was a core value of the Coalition Government.
“Maintaining the privileges of the wealthy is an essential component of developing aspiration in the poor,” she said.
“We showed, with the Prime Minister’s tax rebate scheme for school fees that we are determined to help elite private schools survive.”
Ms Bishop said she was disappointed that many in the community were unaware that a number of elite privates were struggling to retain enrolments.
“We have been pumping money into them in an effort to compensate for the lack of students,” she revealed.
Annesley College, with the biggest enrolment decline during the years of the Howard Government, a drop of 38 per cent, has seen its Federal funding increase by 61 per cent in constant dollar terms. In nominal dollar terms (i.e. without adjusting the 1996 figures for inflation) the increase in funding was exactly 100 per cent!
Scotch College, with the second-largest enrolment decline of 14 per cent has had its Federal funding increased by 146 per cent (see below), whilst Prince Alfred College, which lost 8 per cent of its students over the eleven year period, had its funding from the public purse increased by 237 per cent!
“Obviously, the wealthy need our compassion and support,” said the Minister.
“Soup kitchens at the entrances of Scotch, St Peters, Annesley and other elite privates will also be available to parents as they drop their children off at school.”
“No-one driving a child to college in a Beemer or a Merc should be doing so on an empty stomach,” she said.
The move comes days after the Prime Minister, John Howard, announced tax rebates for school fees.
In announcing the soup kitchens, which had their origins in the Great Depression of the 1930s, Ms Bishop said that “welfare for the rich” was a core value of the Coalition Government.
“Maintaining the privileges of the wealthy is an essential component of developing aspiration in the poor,” she said.
“We showed, with the Prime Minister’s tax rebate scheme for school fees that we are determined to help elite private schools survive.”
Ms Bishop said she was disappointed that many in the community were unaware that a number of elite privates were struggling to retain enrolments.
“We have been pumping money into them in an effort to compensate for the lack of students,” she revealed.
Annesley College, with the biggest enrolment decline during the years of the Howard Government, a drop of 38 per cent, has seen its Federal funding increase by 61 per cent in constant dollar terms. In nominal dollar terms (i.e. without adjusting the 1996 figures for inflation) the increase in funding was exactly 100 per cent!
Scotch College, with the second-largest enrolment decline of 14 per cent has had its Federal funding increased by 146 per cent (see below), whilst Prince Alfred College, which lost 8 per cent of its students over the eleven year period, had its funding from the public purse increased by 237 per cent!
“Obviously, the wealthy need our compassion and support,” said the Minister.
“Soup kitchens at the entrances of Scotch, St Peters, Annesley and other elite privates will also be available to parents as they drop their children off at school.”
“No-one driving a child to college in a Beemer or a Merc should be doing so on an empty stomach,” she said.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Fundraiser: Unley High Refugee Support Group
The Unley High School Refugee Support Group is showing
"Elizabeth the Golden Age"
with Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush and Clive Owen
at Wallis Cinemas, Mitcham Shopping Centre, Belair Road, Torrens Park, on Monday December 3rd at 6.00pm.
Cost $15 per head and lucky door prizes.
If you'd like to buy a ticket (or even sell some- we hope to fill the cinema which seats 200) please call Peter on 0409 804 192 and I can get tickets to you.
Hope you can come.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
So who – or what – is Mark Lopez?
The Australian on 30th October carried an article by one Mark Lopez, under the heading PC warriors serve up a slanted education, with the sub-heading Examples abound of students trying to survive ideological bias in the classroom.
In case you missed it, you can still read it here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22668464-7583,00.html
That will save me having to regurgitate and summarise the rubbish that the Australian’s editors found so compelling as to gave it prime centre space on their Opinion page.
What they don’t say is that the article is largely lifted from the October 27 issue of Newsweekly, that desperate little publication of the late Bob Santamaria’s National Civic Council. Lopez has been a regular contributor since 2000.
So who – or what – is Mark Lopez?
According to the article’s by-line he “is an educational consultant who was a participant in the Howard Government’s History Summit in August 2006.”
That’s part of the “who”.
The “what” is that he’s rapidly emerging as the replacement for Kevin Donnelly who seems to have fallen somewhat out of favour in reactionary circles.
Donnelly always waved the flag for the Right on education issues, particularly in the Australian and in the Institute for Public Affairs’ magazine IPA Review.
However, Donnelly lost favour with Bishop and other reactionaries when he distanced himself from her proposals for a national curriculum, and then went public with his observation that Labor was winning the education debate.
If you don’t stick to the straight and narrow then you’re on the outer. It sort of makes a mockery of Lopez’s “growing desire among Australians for greater intellectual diversity and freedom”.
Nevertheless, Lopez is emerging as the new Donnelly.
His credentials began with the publication of his The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics in 2000.
This was one of a new wave of right wing publications that ascribed every progressive development in any field to the work of “elites” and “lobbyists”. A tiny group of such persons developed the “ideology of multiculturalism” and foisted it on ministers in both the Whitlam and Fraser governments.
He has summarized the politics of the “multiculturalist” push and its victory over “public opinion” here: http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv8n4/v8n4_3Lopez.pdf
Then the IPA picked him up - at about the same time that Donnelly began to disappear from its pages.
Lopez contributed a four-page critique of The left wing domination of Year 12 English to the December 2006 edition, and reviewed Donnelly’s Dumbing Down: Outcomes-based and Politically Correct - The Impact of the Culture Wars on our Schools for the July 2007 edition.
The day after his latest piece in the Australian, Lopez was published in Melbourne’s Herald Sun (also part of the Murdoch empire). This piece was another teacher-bashing exercise timed to coincide with the Victorian branch of the AEU’s push for a new enterprise agreement and wage structure.
Lopez’s credential for this piece (also referenced in the Australian article) was his work as a private tutor: “As a private tutor…I have an insight into what is really going on…I have the rare opportunity to observe what is good about the system and what the teachers’ unions would rather Australian families not consider.”
This dismal diatribe can be found here: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22668399-5000117,00.html
Perhaps we can suggest that the good Dr Lopez gets a job in a secondary school teaching Year 12 English or History to a class of 30 students, and compare that experience to the luxury of one-on-one tutoring before he throws any more slurs on the professionalism of Australian teachers.
It is unlikely that he will.
But keep in mind who - and what – he is the next time he graces the pages of a newspaper near you.
In case you missed it, you can still read it here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22668464-7583,00.html
That will save me having to regurgitate and summarise the rubbish that the Australian’s editors found so compelling as to gave it prime centre space on their Opinion page.
What they don’t say is that the article is largely lifted from the October 27 issue of Newsweekly, that desperate little publication of the late Bob Santamaria’s National Civic Council. Lopez has been a regular contributor since 2000.
So who – or what – is Mark Lopez?
According to the article’s by-line he “is an educational consultant who was a participant in the Howard Government’s History Summit in August 2006.”
That’s part of the “who”.
The “what” is that he’s rapidly emerging as the replacement for Kevin Donnelly who seems to have fallen somewhat out of favour in reactionary circles.
Donnelly always waved the flag for the Right on education issues, particularly in the Australian and in the Institute for Public Affairs’ magazine IPA Review.
However, Donnelly lost favour with Bishop and other reactionaries when he distanced himself from her proposals for a national curriculum, and then went public with his observation that Labor was winning the education debate.
If you don’t stick to the straight and narrow then you’re on the outer. It sort of makes a mockery of Lopez’s “growing desire among Australians for greater intellectual diversity and freedom”.
Nevertheless, Lopez is emerging as the new Donnelly.
His credentials began with the publication of his The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics in 2000.
This was one of a new wave of right wing publications that ascribed every progressive development in any field to the work of “elites” and “lobbyists”. A tiny group of such persons developed the “ideology of multiculturalism” and foisted it on ministers in both the Whitlam and Fraser governments.
He has summarized the politics of the “multiculturalist” push and its victory over “public opinion” here: http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv8n4/v8n4_3Lopez.pdf
Then the IPA picked him up - at about the same time that Donnelly began to disappear from its pages.
Lopez contributed a four-page critique of The left wing domination of Year 12 English to the December 2006 edition, and reviewed Donnelly’s Dumbing Down: Outcomes-based and Politically Correct - The Impact of the Culture Wars on our Schools for the July 2007 edition.
The day after his latest piece in the Australian, Lopez was published in Melbourne’s Herald Sun (also part of the Murdoch empire). This piece was another teacher-bashing exercise timed to coincide with the Victorian branch of the AEU’s push for a new enterprise agreement and wage structure.
Lopez’s credential for this piece (also referenced in the Australian article) was his work as a private tutor: “As a private tutor…I have an insight into what is really going on…I have the rare opportunity to observe what is good about the system and what the teachers’ unions would rather Australian families not consider.”
This dismal diatribe can be found here: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22668399-5000117,00.html
Perhaps we can suggest that the good Dr Lopez gets a job in a secondary school teaching Year 12 English or History to a class of 30 students, and compare that experience to the luxury of one-on-one tutoring before he throws any more slurs on the professionalism of Australian teachers.
It is unlikely that he will.
But keep in mind who - and what – he is the next time he graces the pages of a newspaper near you.
Education progresses in China and Finland
Two articles in the October 2007 issue of Phi Delta Kappan make interesting reading as Australia’s education system is pushed inexorably towards the US model: privatization of services, standardized testing, conservative political control, vouchers, expansion of private schools, performance pay, teacher bashing as a media art form.
The first article compares the US and Finnish education systems.
It can be accessed at: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v89/k0710gru.htm
The second compares schooling in the US and China, and how each system seems to be moving towards what the other once was. It notes that “The Chinese system is making every effort to reduce the emphasis on exams because it is believed that China must foster creativity and innovation to compete in the global economy…American policy has identified accountability as the key to creating such a workforce, whereas Chinese policy has identified creativity as the key.”
This article can be accessed at: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v89/k0710pre.htm
The first article compares the US and Finnish education systems.
It can be accessed at: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v89/k0710gru.htm
The second compares schooling in the US and China, and how each system seems to be moving towards what the other once was. It notes that “The Chinese system is making every effort to reduce the emphasis on exams because it is believed that China must foster creativity and innovation to compete in the global economy…American policy has identified accountability as the key to creating such a workforce, whereas Chinese policy has identified creativity as the key.”
This article can be accessed at: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v89/k0710pre.htm
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Progressive Educator ticket in AEU election win
The Progressive Educator ticket, representing the interests of all education workers, has won an impressive victory in the AEU SA branch elections.
Correna Haythorpe was successful in the contest for the Presidency, winning against Jan Webber, backed by the principal associations.
Marcus Knill has been re-elected Male Vice-President.
(Two other Progressive Educator candidates – Jack Major, who stood for reelection as General Secretary, and Anne Crawford who stood as Female Vice-President - were elected unopposed.)
In order of votes gained, the new Executive (with Progressive Educator candidates in bold face) consists of:
Andrew Gohl
Jan Webber
David Smith
Lara Kelly
Jackie Bone-George
Lesley Lindsay-Taylor
Chris Waugh
Peter Trethewey
Ray Marino
Kelvin Jeanes
Richard Baxter
Lorraine Young
Members are to be congratulated for responding to the call to keep the leadership of the union in the hands of a broadly representative progressive group.
Correna Haythorpe was successful in the contest for the Presidency, winning against Jan Webber, backed by the principal associations.
Marcus Knill has been re-elected Male Vice-President.
(Two other Progressive Educator candidates – Jack Major, who stood for reelection as General Secretary, and Anne Crawford who stood as Female Vice-President - were elected unopposed.)
In order of votes gained, the new Executive (with Progressive Educator candidates in bold face) consists of:
Andrew Gohl
Jan Webber
David Smith
Lara Kelly
Jackie Bone-George
Lesley Lindsay-Taylor
Chris Waugh
Peter Trethewey
Ray Marino
Kelvin Jeanes
Richard Baxter
Lorraine Young
Members are to be congratulated for responding to the call to keep the leadership of the union in the hands of a broadly representative progressive group.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
For a union that represents ALL members!
OK, it’s the dying days of the AEU elections in South Australia and most votes are in.
However, the grumbling and complaining continues to bounce along on the Principal Association chatlines.
Latest is this piece from Aberfoyle Park High PC08 Wendy Teasdale-Smith:
“Colleagues
Was I the only person who found it annoying and offensive to receive sent to my home address a letter from AEU candidates saying something to the effect of "whatever you do don't vote for any principals at the next election"? And, to have included in the letter references to what was implied as underhanded or inappropriate behaviour by the Associations?
Wendy “
For the record, this is the letter sent to members and signed by all Past Presidents with the exception of local Liberal party luminary Bob Jackson:
Dear……
Past AEU Presidents are taking the unprecedented step to write to you to provide some important information about this year’s AEU Elections.
Since the eighties, AEU leadership and executive have represented a balance of all members’ interests regardless of classification. The voices of SSOs, classroom teachers, Aboriginal educators, early years educators and of course principals have all been represented equally, fairly and in the best interests of all AEU members and Public Education.
This year, however, a group or “ticket”, consisting predominantly of principals is running for President, Vice-President and Executive positions.
This is an unprecedented attempt by a specific interest group to take control of the AEU to progress the interests of principals.
Such a ticket, particularly if supported by Principal Associations, will encourage a vote en bloc by Principals across South Australia, as evidenced by the outcome of the last AEU election in 2005.
A low participation rate in AEU voting by the broad membership will almost certainly see this narrow interest group elected.
That is why past AEU Presidents are calling upon you to make sure your vote counts this election and elect members of executive and of course a president and vice presidents who truly represent all members.
A progressive union that represents the interests of all members is the key to a strong and active union that has a proven track record of successfully promoting public education and improving all members’ working conditions.
(Signed by the following):
Andrew Gohl 2004-2007
John Gregory 1978-1981, 2000-2003
Janet Giles 1996-1999
Clare McCarty 1992-1995
David Tonkin 1988-1991
Leonie Ebert 1982-1983
Really, it’s a bit naughty of Wendy to word her gripe so sloppily, and to include a deliberate fabrication in quotation marks as though it really represented the views of six past Presidents from 1978 to the present (excluding the Liberal Jackson).
“Whatever you do, don’t vote for any principals at the nest election”????
Then why would we stand primary principal Marcus Knill as Male Vice-President and Area School principal Mick Braham for Executive on our ticket?
So people won’t vote for them?
Sloppy, Wendy, sloppy!
Teasdale-Smith’s piece followed on from a similar gripe by current executive member and primary principal Katrina Spencer that was pasted onto the Secondary Principals Association chatline by Phil Goldman.
Here is principal Mick Braham’s considered response to Spencer:
The email from Katrina Spencer and posted by Philip Goldman regarding the AEU elections cannot go without a response.
I understood that SASPA Executive determined they would not support any group in the AEU elections. I commend that stance. The AEU does not involve itself in anyway in Association elections and nor should Associations in AEU elections (I make a clear distinction here between associations and members of those associations). However, since a one-sided point of view has been posted on the chat-line, I felt it was important to respond to the email to give an alternative insight.
Firstly, to Katrina's comments, supported by Phil:
1) I do not concur that leaders are poorly represented in the AEU. It's easy to sit back and criticise, but as an active member of the AEU Band 3 Consultative Committee, it has been evident to me that the AEU is highly committed at improving the conditions for its leaders. As our Association can attest to, achieving "wins" with the employer (with the might of a State Government) is not easy. Marcus Knill as Vice President and Ken Drury as Band 3 Organiser are highly committed to AEU leaders in schools.
2) The letter sent to members by past AEU Presidents does not in any way "speak against" Principals. Three of the five past presidents who signed the letter were principals, one still is and another was recently thanked by the Secondary Principals Association for working pro bono in retirement to resist the education cuts. All were teachers, and proud of it. Together, they offer a wide range of perspectives. This group of past presidents is not against Principals and school leaders. They have a history of effective advocacy in the interests of all members, including principals and school leaders. They do not in their letter say who they endorse. They encourage a vote in the interests of ALL members. As one, they are merely making a point that there are two groups or "tickets" seeking election. One ticket is comprised almost totally of principals and deputies, predominantly primary, and the other represents all AEU members, including primary, including leaders, including secondary, and reflects that in its make up.
Privately, they may endorse a range of candidates representing all members, including principals and school leaders. That is why, amongst a group including a primary teacher for President, Correna Haythorpe, and Marcus Knill for Vice President, I have been endorsed for Executive. Marcus was Principal at Kimba Area School and Assistant Principal at Roxby Downs Area School before becoming AEU Vice President. I am currently the Principal at Cleve Area School and have spent the last 13 years in leadership positions.
In the previous two years, Marcus Knill has convened the AEU Secondary Education Committee to develop papers on the future of public senior secondary schooling in SA and response to the SACE Review. He has formed an AEU/DECS Future SACE Implementation Group and has held several AEU Future SACE forums, including one here in Whyalla. Who will provide this leadership in the AEU from the principals' ticket for Secondary curriculum?
Correna Haythorpe is currently the AEU Women's Officer. She addressed the Band 3 Committee earlier in the year and it was clear that she is committed to representing all members including school leaders.
Finally, I agree with Phil's concluding statement, I believe it is important to have leaders representing ALL AEU members. That's why I will be supporting Correna Haythorpe, Marcus Knill and the Progressive Educators ticket for the next crucial two years as we enter a new enterprise bargaining period.
However, the grumbling and complaining continues to bounce along on the Principal Association chatlines.
Latest is this piece from Aberfoyle Park High PC08 Wendy Teasdale-Smith:
“Colleagues
Was I the only person who found it annoying and offensive to receive sent to my home address a letter from AEU candidates saying something to the effect of "whatever you do don't vote for any principals at the next election"? And, to have included in the letter references to what was implied as underhanded or inappropriate behaviour by the Associations?
Wendy “
For the record, this is the letter sent to members and signed by all Past Presidents with the exception of local Liberal party luminary Bob Jackson:
Dear……
Past AEU Presidents are taking the unprecedented step to write to you to provide some important information about this year’s AEU Elections.
Since the eighties, AEU leadership and executive have represented a balance of all members’ interests regardless of classification. The voices of SSOs, classroom teachers, Aboriginal educators, early years educators and of course principals have all been represented equally, fairly and in the best interests of all AEU members and Public Education.
This year, however, a group or “ticket”, consisting predominantly of principals is running for President, Vice-President and Executive positions.
This is an unprecedented attempt by a specific interest group to take control of the AEU to progress the interests of principals.
Such a ticket, particularly if supported by Principal Associations, will encourage a vote en bloc by Principals across South Australia, as evidenced by the outcome of the last AEU election in 2005.
A low participation rate in AEU voting by the broad membership will almost certainly see this narrow interest group elected.
That is why past AEU Presidents are calling upon you to make sure your vote counts this election and elect members of executive and of course a president and vice presidents who truly represent all members.
A progressive union that represents the interests of all members is the key to a strong and active union that has a proven track record of successfully promoting public education and improving all members’ working conditions.
(Signed by the following):
Andrew Gohl 2004-2007
John Gregory 1978-1981, 2000-2003
Janet Giles 1996-1999
Clare McCarty 1992-1995
David Tonkin 1988-1991
Leonie Ebert 1982-1983
Really, it’s a bit naughty of Wendy to word her gripe so sloppily, and to include a deliberate fabrication in quotation marks as though it really represented the views of six past Presidents from 1978 to the present (excluding the Liberal Jackson).
“Whatever you do, don’t vote for any principals at the nest election”????
Then why would we stand primary principal Marcus Knill as Male Vice-President and Area School principal Mick Braham for Executive on our ticket?
So people won’t vote for them?
Sloppy, Wendy, sloppy!
Teasdale-Smith’s piece followed on from a similar gripe by current executive member and primary principal Katrina Spencer that was pasted onto the Secondary Principals Association chatline by Phil Goldman.
Here is principal Mick Braham’s considered response to Spencer:
The email from Katrina Spencer and posted by Philip Goldman regarding the AEU elections cannot go without a response.
I understood that SASPA Executive determined they would not support any group in the AEU elections. I commend that stance. The AEU does not involve itself in anyway in Association elections and nor should Associations in AEU elections (I make a clear distinction here between associations and members of those associations). However, since a one-sided point of view has been posted on the chat-line, I felt it was important to respond to the email to give an alternative insight.
Firstly, to Katrina's comments, supported by Phil:
1) I do not concur that leaders are poorly represented in the AEU. It's easy to sit back and criticise, but as an active member of the AEU Band 3 Consultative Committee, it has been evident to me that the AEU is highly committed at improving the conditions for its leaders. As our Association can attest to, achieving "wins" with the employer (with the might of a State Government) is not easy. Marcus Knill as Vice President and Ken Drury as Band 3 Organiser are highly committed to AEU leaders in schools.
2) The letter sent to members by past AEU Presidents does not in any way "speak against" Principals. Three of the five past presidents who signed the letter were principals, one still is and another was recently thanked by the Secondary Principals Association for working pro bono in retirement to resist the education cuts. All were teachers, and proud of it. Together, they offer a wide range of perspectives. This group of past presidents is not against Principals and school leaders. They have a history of effective advocacy in the interests of all members, including principals and school leaders. They do not in their letter say who they endorse. They encourage a vote in the interests of ALL members. As one, they are merely making a point that there are two groups or "tickets" seeking election. One ticket is comprised almost totally of principals and deputies, predominantly primary, and the other represents all AEU members, including primary, including leaders, including secondary, and reflects that in its make up.
Privately, they may endorse a range of candidates representing all members, including principals and school leaders. That is why, amongst a group including a primary teacher for President, Correna Haythorpe, and Marcus Knill for Vice President, I have been endorsed for Executive. Marcus was Principal at Kimba Area School and Assistant Principal at Roxby Downs Area School before becoming AEU Vice President. I am currently the Principal at Cleve Area School and have spent the last 13 years in leadership positions.
In the previous two years, Marcus Knill has convened the AEU Secondary Education Committee to develop papers on the future of public senior secondary schooling in SA and response to the SACE Review. He has formed an AEU/DECS Future SACE Implementation Group and has held several AEU Future SACE forums, including one here in Whyalla. Who will provide this leadership in the AEU from the principals' ticket for Secondary curriculum?
Correna Haythorpe is currently the AEU Women's Officer. She addressed the Band 3 Committee earlier in the year and it was clear that she is committed to representing all members including school leaders.
Finally, I agree with Phil's concluding statement, I believe it is important to have leaders representing ALL AEU members. That's why I will be supporting Correna Haythorpe, Marcus Knill and the Progressive Educators ticket for the next crucial two years as we enter a new enterprise bargaining period.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Where Has Katrina Spencer Been?
The Statement
A quote from Executive member and Primary Principal Katrina Spencer which has infiltrated Principal Association chat-lines: “Ensuring better representation for leaders was begun by the formation of the Band 3 Committee but still needs active support by leaders at the Executive level. In my years with Band 3 and now on Exec I am still to see a regular report from Band 3 presented or their recommendations forwarded to Exec and then tabled for action.”
Reports from Committees to Executive?
Executive hears reports from Principal Officers from committees on a needs basis. In fact, the President’s report, to which the Vice Presidents contribute, usually comprises the bulk of Executive meetings. “Regular” reports do not exist at Executive from any committee, although reports covering issues of the day from Principal Officers are comprehensive.
The Inconvenient Truth - Executive Consideration of Band 3 Issues
Katrina has insinuated that the Band 3 Committee and Principal Officer of this committee has not brought issues pertaining to Band 3 members to the attention and discussion of Executive.
Here’s a trail of items raised at Executive by Principal Officer Marcus Knill on behalf of this committee:
13/02/06 - Watervale Trial
08/05/06 - Band 3 Classifications
14/08/06 - Band 3 Classifications
11/09/06 - Principal Classifications – Operational Guidelines
23/10/06 - Student Reports: Advice to Principals
13/11/06 - Implementation of the New SACE
27/11/06 - Part-Time Principal Arrangements
11/12/06 - Part-time Principal Arrangements
12/02/07 - Open Advertisement of Leadership Positions
26/02/07 - Open Advertisement of Leadership Positions
25/06/07 - Watervale Project
President Andrew Gohl has also raised a number of Band 3 issues. The Band 3 CC was also highly influential in supporting the defeat of the BTIT model as presented by DECS in mid-06.
Katrina has been an Executive member for the past two years. The question needs to be asked, “Where has she been?”
Why now?
It is troubling that an Executive member would choose to air personal frustrations of the AEU Band 3 Consultative Committee and its Principal Officer, via a Principal Association chat-line, right in the smack of an AEU election. Katrina has had two years as an Executive member to raise these concerns, either at Executive, with Marcus Knill as Vice President directly, or with Ray Marino as Chair of the Committee.
A quote from Executive member and Primary Principal Katrina Spencer which has infiltrated Principal Association chat-lines: “Ensuring better representation for leaders was begun by the formation of the Band 3 Committee but still needs active support by leaders at the Executive level. In my years with Band 3 and now on Exec I am still to see a regular report from Band 3 presented or their recommendations forwarded to Exec and then tabled for action.”
Reports from Committees to Executive?
Executive hears reports from Principal Officers from committees on a needs basis. In fact, the President’s report, to which the Vice Presidents contribute, usually comprises the bulk of Executive meetings. “Regular” reports do not exist at Executive from any committee, although reports covering issues of the day from Principal Officers are comprehensive.
The Inconvenient Truth - Executive Consideration of Band 3 Issues
Katrina has insinuated that the Band 3 Committee and Principal Officer of this committee has not brought issues pertaining to Band 3 members to the attention and discussion of Executive.
Here’s a trail of items raised at Executive by Principal Officer Marcus Knill on behalf of this committee:
13/02/06 - Watervale Trial
08/05/06 - Band 3 Classifications
14/08/06 - Band 3 Classifications
11/09/06 - Principal Classifications – Operational Guidelines
23/10/06 - Student Reports: Advice to Principals
13/11/06 - Implementation of the New SACE
27/11/06 - Part-Time Principal Arrangements
11/12/06 - Part-time Principal Arrangements
12/02/07 - Open Advertisement of Leadership Positions
26/02/07 - Open Advertisement of Leadership Positions
25/06/07 - Watervale Project
President Andrew Gohl has also raised a number of Band 3 issues. The Band 3 CC was also highly influential in supporting the defeat of the BTIT model as presented by DECS in mid-06.
Katrina has been an Executive member for the past two years. The question needs to be asked, “Where has she been?”
Why now?
It is troubling that an Executive member would choose to air personal frustrations of the AEU Band 3 Consultative Committee and its Principal Officer, via a Principal Association chat-line, right in the smack of an AEU election. Katrina has had two years as an Executive member to raise these concerns, either at Executive, with Marcus Knill as Vice President directly, or with Ray Marino as Chair of the Committee.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Newsletter Sept 25, 2007
Instrumental Music – AEU members take industrial action to support AEU colleagues
Just prior to the successful 1000+ gathering at the Capri Cinema, Goodwood on 12 August 2007, DECS CEO sent the AEU a letter that backed away from the proposed model with a range of concessions. These are:
- No changes to Instrumental music in 2008 for primary or secondary schools or students.
- Instrumental music teachers to remain part of the Instrumental Music service, north, south and country and will not be forced into schools.
- Trials to commence in 2008 of a range of different instrumental music delivery styles, including the original Year 5 whole class approach.
- Trials will be paid for by DECS and from outside the Instrumental Music Service budget.
- Trials will be voluntary for both school and Instrumental music teachers. That is; no school or teacher can be compelled to participate.
AEU members have always supported quality teaching and excellence in the Public Education system. AEU members support the critical evaluation of teaching methodology and pedagogy. On this basis the AEU also supports the trials where the following preconditions are met:
All staff involved, including Instrumental Music Teachers, are provided with appropriate Professional Development that meet identified needs.
- All staff participation is on a voluntary basis.
- Trials will not contribute an additional workload impost upon those who volunteer, that is; trials will be fully resourced; e.g. to allow for any release time required for planning and evaluation.
- Trials are conducted within an action research framework and outcomes are critically evaluated by a centrally established “Trial Review Committee’ consisting of representatives from Instrumental Music Service, primary and secondary classroom teachers and the AEU.
However, since then, the situation for the Instrumental Music sub branch has become much more complex. 2 staff members have been informed that they are under investigation by DECS for alleged complaints of bullying. These members have been outspoken activists in the IMS campaign and have the support of their sub branch. In question is the process used by DECS for the investigation. The DECS Special Investigation Unit has been instructed to conduct a “preliminary investigation”. This process is in breach of DECS policy which specifies that the DECS Grievance Procedures be used to investigate bullying allegations.
The IMS sub branch has voted unanimously to engage in a further campaign in support of their colleagues. Last Tuesday and Wednesday, members gathered at 31 Flinders St for a rally. This was followed by the withdrawal of goodwill and the refusal to use private vehicles to travel to schools.
On Wednesday 26th September, IMS AEU members will take a one hour stop work from 2pm – 3pm.
Members are calling for:
· an immediate reinstatement of the employees to their positions; and
· a commitment by DECS to act within agreed procedures and specifically the DECS Grievance Procedures.
The Progressive Educator team supports the IMS sub branch in taking strong action to resolve this matter.
AEU elections - make your vote count!
AEU ballot papers will be sent out to you on Friday 5th October, 2007. The ballot will remain open until Friday 26th, October, 2007.
Please talk to members at your worksite about the importance of voting.
Make sure you vote as soon as you receive your election papers in the post. Less than a third of AEU members voted in the last election.
We are very pleased to announce that 2 members of our team have been elected unopposed. Anne Crawford will be AEU Female Vice President and Jack Major continues in his role as AEU Branch Secretary. Congratulations to both Anne and Jack.
To complete the AEU leadership team, we ask that you vote 1 Correna Haythorpe, Branch President and vote 1 Marcus Knill, Male Vice President.
"I believe that this team has the experience and ability to deliver strong outcomes for all members and for public education".
Andrew Gohl, current Branch President
Please vote for the following Branch Executive candidates:
Andrew Gohl, David Smith, Lesley Lindsay Taylor, Peter Trethewey
Correna Haythorpe, Lara Kelly, Daniel Pereira, Mick Braham
Marcus Knill, Jackie Bone-George, Lyn Waller, Chris Champion
Anne Crawford, Kelvin Jeanes, Carmen Kowalski
Film Screening:
Time: To Be Advised
Palace Cinema, Rundle St., City
Tickets: $15 full, $11 concession
BOOKINGS ESSENTIAL
Bookings Call: 0412 231 011, 0423 213 690, 0418 894 366
Monday, September 24, 2007
Howard Haters Art Exhibition
This is an invitation to attend the opening of Matt Walker's brand new art exhibition, featuring commentary on the Howard regime. Matt’s art is very popular with Howard haters and he also puts it onto T-Shirts on request.
This exhibition opening is a timely artistic contribution on the eve of a watershed election.
Free entry.
The exhibition opening is 7.30 pm Thursday October 4th at the Wheatsheaf Hotel (a striking piece of his work is on the invitation above).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)