# Forum More Stuff Debate & Technical Discussion  Gonski

## Marc

The current laboral government led by Kevin Turnbull has passed Gonski.
Good for you! Another act of treason  by a false conservative government that is a virtual labour lobby acting to save their skin. 
Disgusting. There is no one to vote for.

----------


## PhilT2

You'll have to explain that one a bit more, we've got no idea what you're on about this time. Perhaps you could cut and paste something?

----------


## r3nov8or

Uber made them do it

----------


## chrisp

> Perhaps you could cut and paste something?

  Marc, 
No, No, No, No, please don't cut and paste! I beg you, No, please no. 
if you haven't got anyone with an extreme right wing view on things to vote for, you could vote for PHON. Ooops, no, they voted for it too!   :Smilie:

----------


## PhilT2

> Marc, No, No, No, No, please don't cut and paste! I beg you, No, please no.

  C'mon how else are we going to learn about this latest conspiracy to take away our freedom and install a one world, UN socialist, Agenda 21 govt?

----------


## johnc

Relax Marc, after your hero Donald has finished making America great again he might come over here and remove our healthcare system, cut taxes for the rich and make those sponging bastards on benefits get to work. That will be by removing the NDIS, dole, pensions, sickness benefits and Gonski. Hope you feel better now but really what on earth are you whining about this time, don't want to see kids educated, would you rather they fail and spend their lives applying for the dole? No cut and pastes though the deep state use them to track subversives, we don't want to be eliminated by a reactionary hit squad.

----------


## joynz

> Relax Marc, after your hero Donald has finished making America great again he might come over here and remove our healthcare system, cut taxes for the rich and make those sponging bastards on benefits get to work. That will be by removing the NDIS, dole, pensions, sickness benefits and Gonski. Hope you feel better now but really what on earth are you whining about this time, don't want to see kids educated, would you rather they fail and spend their lives applying for the dole? No cut and pastes though the deep state use them to track subversives, we don't want to be eliminated by a reactionary hit squad.

   :2thumbsup:

----------


## Marc

Really funny. I whinge because it is well known that money does not educate people, (Education revolution anyone?) it makes middle man richer and kids stay dumb. Look at how other countries educate with a fraction of our money and how we are doing whilst spending billions. No one can be against education, everyone should be against open check book.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Really funny. I whinge because it is well known that money does not educate people, (Education revolution anyone?) it makes middle man richer and kids stay dumb. Look at how other countries educate with a fraction of our money and how we are doing whilst spending billions. No one can be against education, everyone should be against open check book.

  Which countries educate to at least our level (not high) or better for a fraction of the coin? As someone genetically and legally charged with brainwashing sorry educating a developing human, I'm dead set curious...

----------


## Marc

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproduc...s/49685503.pdf https://www.businessinsider.com.au/p...6-12?r=US&IR=T

----------


## DavoSyd

> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproduc...s/49685503.pdf https://www.businessinsider.com.au/p...6-12?r=US&IR=T

  You sure that's the correct link?

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproduc...s/49685503.pdf https://www.businessinsider.com.au/p...6-12?r=US&IR=T

  Ok thought so... somewhere in the middle. And the argument is much the same as I've seen elsewhere. And yet it's not the one you r selling. You're only talking about the cash. Your linked doc talks about culture being as much if not more important than that. Culture can not be imposed or legislated by government. They can only do coin. 
One complaint about that linked doc and one I've noted in other oecd missives is that comparisons by GDP in this sort of space don't help because education costs reflect the costs of society...our society is expensive by comparison to most 2nd tier economies.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> One complaint about that linked doc and one I've noted in other oecd missives is that comparisons by GDP in this sort of space don't help because education costs reflect the costs of society...our society is expensive by comparison to most 2nd tier economies.

  its like healthcare, it should always be expressed as spend as a percentage of GDP. 
cat amongst the pidgeons though, I really feel that the teachers federation are the enemies of good education outcomes and well regarded (and paid) teachers. 
besides, averages are important, but really it's what you can achieve with the top few percent that makes a difference to the economic prosperity of a country over the long term.  Eg it doesn't matter if you  r taxi driver is in the top 10% of world taxi drivers, it does matter though that your top research scientists are well above world average.

----------


## PhilT2

One of the recent changes made here in Qld is to put a full time teacher aide in all prep year classes. The idea being to pick up any kids with problems early and help them before they fall too far behind. There has also been moves to increase the aide time for kids with disabilities in mainstream classes. And there's also extra money for programs for gifted and talented kids. This all costs money. Hard to find the "treason" suggested in the OP. Judging education by just one metric, percentage of GDP, is a bit limited I think.

----------


## pharmaboy2

Sorry Phil, %of GDP just been far better than x$'s per student, because a teacher in one country might be 100,000, in India a teacher is $5000.  Then you put it against outcomes. 
the money being spent on teachers aids for poor students is part of the problem.   Someone's decided it's about fairness, when really it's about educational returns for society.  We seem to concentrate on getting the average up by helping the below average, the other way is to push the smart kids along for societies benefit. 
if you are running a business, you don't spend training dollars on the poor performers, you spend it on the top performers, that's where the investment makes most sense

----------


## sol381

Maybe they should spend the money on giving every child a pair of glasses.. Nearly all asian kids wear them and look at the results.7 asian countries on top in maths.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Sorry Phil, %of GDP just been far better than x$'s per student, because a teacher in one country might be 100,000, in India a teacher is $5000.  Then you put it against outcomes. 
> the money being spent on teachers aids for poor students is part of the problem.   Someone's decided it's about fairness, when really it's about educational returns for society.  We seem to concentrate on getting the average up by helping the below average, the other way is to push the smart kids along for societies benefit. 
> if you are running a business, you don't spend training dollars on the poor performers, you spend it on the top performers, that's where the investment makes most sense

  There's a social cost if there's a lack of equity in education whichever way you go. 
Invest primarily on the smart and capable and you'll allow the majority to fall or at best drift backwards into mediocrity and disfunction. And there'd be more there than there are now. 
Personally I'd prefer to live in a universally and equitably educated society rather than what you are suggesting.

----------


## PhilT2

> Sorry Phil, %of GDP just been far better than x$'s per student, because a teacher in one country might be 100,000, in India a teacher is $5000.  Then you put it against outcomes. 
> the money being spent on teachers aids for poor students is part of the problem.   Someone's decided it's about fairness, when really it's about educational returns for society.  We seem to concentrate on getting the average up by helping the below average, the other way is to push the smart kids along for societies benefit. 
> if you are running a business, you don't spend training dollars on the poor performers, you spend it on the top performers, that's where the investment makes most sense

  What I said, or at least what I meant, was that judging by one metric (%GDP) is a bit limiting and may not give you the full picture. Here for example is a graph of the number of hours kids in different countries spend in class; quite a difference. But by itself perhaps not directly related to outcomes. After it's only one metric. http://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indi...D1%20(eng).pdf 
I hope our system helps both disadvantaged and gifted kids but if you want to take an economic rationalist approach then isn't it more advantageous for society to help those on the lower end of the scale? They are the ones most likely to end up on welfare.  
If I was running a business I would spend money to lift up the under performers; if I was handing out research grants I would look for the top performers. I think that some of the success a country has in innovation and development is dictated by how well it identifies and supports its top performers. A nations success in minimising inequality and welfare costs is dictated by how well it supports ifs disadvantaged.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> There's a social cost if there's a lack of equity in education whichever way you go. 
> Invest primarily on the smart and capable and you'll allow the majority to fall or at best drift backwards into mediocrity and disfunction. And there'd be more there than there are now. 
> Personally I'd prefer to live in a universally and equitably educated society rather than what you are suggesting.

  It is equitable if everyone gets the same opportunity and the same funding. 
all I'm saying is the concept that you throw extra money at the poor performers in an equitable system maybe doesnt create the greatest return. 
you still have universal free and equitable education, you just flip the extra money to get the most for society as a whole.  The UK did is in the 50's, 60's etc with the grammar schools - the aim was to find the smart kids in the public schools, and push them with better funded selective schools - it meant that the poor had the same opportunities as the rich, but the outcome was better for society.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> It is equitable if everyone gets the same opportunity and the same funding. 
> all I'm saying is the concept that you throw extra money at the poor performers in an equitable system maybe doesnt create the greatest return. 
> you still have universal free and equitable education, you just flip the extra money to get the most for society as a whole.  The UK did is in the 50's, 60's etc with the grammar schools - the aim was to find the smart kids in the public schools, and push them with better funded selective schools - it meant that the poor had the same opportunities as the rich, but the outcome was better for society.

  NSW has that style of system already. As does SA to some extent I think. Metropolitan areas only of course.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> What I said, or at least what I meant, was that judging by one metric (%GDP) is a bit limiting and may not give you the full picture. Here for example is a graph of the number of hours kids in different countries spend in class; quite a difference. But by itself perhaps not directly related to outcomes. After it's only one metric. http://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indi...D1%20(eng).pdf 
> I hope our system helps both disadvantaged and gifted kids but if you want to take an economic rationalist approach then isn't it more advantageous for society to help those on the lower end of the scale? They are the ones most likely to end up on welfare.  
> If I was running a business I would spend money to lift up the under performers; if I was handing out research grants I would look for the top performers. I think that some of the success a country has in innovation and development is dictated by how well it identifies and supports its top performers. A nations success in minimising inequality and welfare costs is dictated by how well it supports ifs disadvantaged.

  yes Phil, it's only one metric and of course you must look at a number, and hours in education is indeed another good one. 
lower end versus upper end?  It's a cliche but good money after bad, cut your losses, let your winners ride etc - it's glib but there is plenty of truth in it as well - if you have someone unmotivated or incapable, then it takes lots of resources to bring them up to average even, but a good student that's bored,  can easily be stretched as long as the system they are in is not constrained by a learning pace. 
from a management perspective you are always better off matching the skills of a person to a job than trying to upskill a poor performer into a job.  It's tough but that's capitalism

----------


## pharmaboy2

> NSW has that style of system already. As does SA to some extent I think. Metropolitan areas only of course.

  yes, except it just separates the students into streamed schools, I'm not aware that there is any funding or concerted effort to increase teaching talent in those schools.  The lack in regional centres is a problem.  Just last week I was talking to a guy who is moving out of a regional town to a capital city because of education lacking for his children (child bored at school).  Not only does that town lose a hard to get specialist, but the children will also probably become based in the metro town as well. 
thats a microcosm as well - intelligent hard working parents tend to beget intelligent hard working students, and that creates a whole new level of complexities in schooling and socio economic considerations

----------


## pharmaboy2

All I'm saying, is that "needs based funding" is assumed that the bottom must be lifted up, but there's also rational reasons to provide extra funding to accelerate your top performers. 
(wasn't uncommon for the U.K. To have 16 year olds in university back in the day - kids who had completed schooling but missed 2 or 3 years along the way.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> All I'm saying, is that "needs based funding" is assumed that the bottom must be lifted up, but there's also rational reasons to provide extra funding to accelerate your top performers. 
> (wasn't uncommon for the U.K. To have 16 year olds in university back in the day - kids who had completed schooling but missed 2 or 3 years along the way.

  Agree. How to strike the balance is the key...

----------


## Jon

> if you are running a business, you don't spend training dollars on the poor performers, you spend it on the top performers, that's where the investment makes most sense

  But childhood education is not a business, it an Essential Service 
You need as many people in society as possible with a good well rounded education.  A small intelligentsia ruling for the rest of us is a recipe for disaster.

----------


## phild01

You go girl, gotta smarten up the remainder :Biggrin:  Low IQ people don't all vote Labor: York

----------


## pharmaboy2

> But childhood education is not a business, it an Essential Service 
> You need as many people in society as possible with a good well rounded education.  A small intelligentsia ruling for the rest of us is a recipe for disaster.

  education is a business - it gets funding and it needs to produce outputs and standards.  The parts of the system are entrusted to do the best with their resources as they can. So it's an essential service AND a business 
Is there really a need for a tradesperson to have a university degree?  And rest assured, the elite scientists, engineers that add to society don't rule society?  As it is, most of your leading politicians, public company CEOs, heads of department are already very well educated top 1% ers anyway, I'm not sure I see the disaster from that already.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Agree. How to strike the balance is the key...

  Yeah, well, I've got no idea how to do that. 
I'm all for just questioning the assumtion that money should always go to where it's needed because of poor performance rather than also to maximize the return on those resources  
a good teacher with a classroom of smart kids has so much potential.

----------


## Jon

I also agree that balance is the key, and I also agree that not everyone requires a university degree.
Personally I think there is too much emphasis on university qualifications and not enough workspace based learning but that is another subject.
"The state" should fund education on an equal basis, no special deals for certain sectors or postcodes, but some postcodes may need a bit of short term extra assistance to bring their infrastructure up to date.  
And I will out myself as a parent that sends my children to the local Catholic school and I expect that my children are funded by "the state" at the same level as the children down the road.  If the Catholic Education system needs extra funding then I will contribute that out of my pocket, but I will also take an interest in how they spend that money to see that it is going into classroom related areas rather than gold plating head office. 
I don't know what the solution is for rewarding teacher performance (and I am including negative rewards) but teachers should not be a protected species.  If a teacher is not performing there should be repercussions, but some way of factoring in the attitudes of the students must be found and included.  Any half decent teacher should be able to teach people that want to learn, the gold class teachers are the ones that can turn ambivalent students into ones that thirst for knowledge, and they should be recognised and rewarded.

----------

