It doesn’t matter what education level teachers have, they are still teachers taught in the same system that stinks. The longer they have been in the system the worse they are probably going to be.

If you have “faith” in the system then you might think the top of the pile is the way to go, and pluck Finland, based on some irrelevant test as the model.

It would be better to look at what education should be trying to achieve and what resources are available to to achieve it. Formal education served its purpose of training workers for the new technology. It seems that the expectations of education have moved beyond that however. But under this system it is not possible.  Consequently students are bored, and most of the time they spend at school is a total waste and they know it!!!

You could teach in 3-4 years what students learn in 12 years. 

Education today helps some, but rather than stimulate it stifles most. I would be happier talking about an alternative to formal education, and promoting a revolution to achieve it.

Unlikely. Business and religious groups are best placed to take over the running of schools and that is what is they are doing in the US and UK under the academy and charter systems. They use this opportunity to mould curriculum to suit their agenda and distribute lucrative cleaning, maintenance and other contracts as they see fit and, in the case or religions, employ their activists. What do you do if creationists win the ‘charter’ to run the school nearest to where you live? Parents, teachers or Friedman’s ‘activists’ don’t have the time after completing their work duties in today’s flexible labour market.

“Voucher money not spent on fees would be available…” The full voucher fee will be the minimum cost of schooling. Private schools will charge more. Any attempt to stop this would be an attack on the freedom of parents with more money. That is the evidence anyway. In Chile subsidised schools charge up to 4x the voucher amount.

“Innovation”. This is probably overrated in education (reading and algebra haven’t changed that much) and anyway is not encouraged in voucher systems. This is because all schools are subject to high stakes testing and ranked in league tables, based on these, concentrating teaching time on the test subjects. This is consistent with Friedman’s sneering contempt for schools thinking they should teach arts, humanities and have pastoral care duties. I’ll wager however that he sent his own kids to private schools with well developed extra-curricular activities, counsellors etc.

There is evidence in the latest PISA report that some competition can have a positive effect on school systems. A sensible suggestion might be allowing open enrolment of high school students. This would allow them to pursue specific interests, or flee school environments they don’t like at an age when they are able to travel to school by themselves. No need for ‘vouchers’. Other neo-liberal education ideas like performance pay and cutting funds to schools which perform badly in tests correlate very negatively with performance. Sorry but it’s true.
 
There is no need to create a deregulated market in elementary schooling, or indeed at any level. This will only result in education opportunities being differentiated according to wealth with ‘educational capital’ being concentrated among the rich. That’s basic Marxism, vindicated by the Chile experience.

If you are really interested in improving education you would look more closely at Finland. They guarantee every child the same high quality comprehensive education, all learning materials are provided (pens, rulers etc.) and there is such a thing as a free lunch: a healthy hot one every day. All while spending less than the OECD average on education!

Class bias in schooling is largely eliminated and the results are outstanding. Not only is the Finnish system more equitable it is more efficient at creating human capital as witnessed by the PISA results and the economic strength built on high tech. industries. A real clever country.

I think I get why the people with a little groupthink thing going on around this site support Friedmanite ideas. It is to further the development of capitalism to a stage at which Marx said the takeover by the working class would be inevitable.

That doesn’t explain the support for vouchers however, which it is claimed will improve learning in bourgeois society. They won’t. They will reinforce class divisions. Therefore if you don’t think the revolution will come before your kid finishes school you would be a fool to support them as a socialist or worker.

Unlike you however, Marx supported class struggle and didn’t suggest sitting idly by while the position of the working class went backwards. Presumably you accept that is the result of unregulated capitalism, the concentration of wealth. That is why big business finances the Cato institute. To fund some window dressing for policies that enrich them while their paid mouthpieces spout rubbish about wanting these things for the benefit of the workers.

Attacking the freedoms of union members and determining education opportunities on wealth are anti-working class measures and if you get around supporting them you are not fit to call yourself socialist or Marxist regardless of whether or not you sprayed a few slogans on the walls of Monash Uni. 40 years ago.

BOTH are enemies of working class kids trying to learn

It’s true that Australian education is very much regulated compared to some other countries. But if say Charter schools were setup in Australia then that would only benefit those who go to those schools. It would enable some creativity and experimentation from the norm, but it wouldn’t solve the problem for everyone. ie. the more creative and innovative teachers would end up in the Charter schools – but possibly the main problem in Australian education is residualisation, the long tail of under achievement. Vouchers won’t solve that unless you do something else to increase the overall quality of teachers in the pool or some other measure that requires direct targetting of disadvantage.

Did you know that  many Australian Primary teachers can’t do Grade 5 maths? Professor Louden from the University of Western Australia notes that a “very large proportion of students [doing combined education degrees] cannot do grade 5 maths, because they have not learnt maths at school and they became primary teachers because it is something you can do without being any good at maths”http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2008/02/curriculum-reform-will-not-improve.htmlSo, if the main problem is teacher quality then why not approach that problem directly rather than in a roundabout way of vouchers?

Based on PISA test scores, which I understand do test more than just recall, some now claim that the world’s best education system is Finland. What do they do in Finland? Well, for one, you need a Masters Degree to become a teacher there. I hasten to add that that is not the only way to improve teacher quality – but they are addressing that issue directly.

I did analyse some of these issues earlier wrt the McKinsey reporthttp://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2008/01/mckinsey-run-schools-as-you-would-run.html

Family driven education works well for families with “cultural capital”. To shop around effectively you need to know quality, and that is far from obvious in some of those long streets in disadvantaged suburbs, where no one has worked for a generation. I can’t see any reference to social class in your analysis.

The idea is to develop an education system in which many different approaches are on offer – and can be tested.  Some would succeed and others  wouldn’t.  But we’d want to rip education away from the government, and since children are brought up by families (however defined), it would be families who drove it.Yes, some groups would go ahead and establish wacko schools.  I’d be in favour of just letting this happen and waiting patiently for such approaches to demonstrate their bankruptcy and lose support.  I assume that David’s “minimal regulations relating to child protection and standards” would rule out schools which were  clearly  just indoctrination centres  (eg schools which took active measures to isolate children from society at large.).

I don’t think that empowering families in this way would have the regressive effect of moving us back toward the notion that children are the property of their parents.   I think that would continue breaking down.

Anita, you’d have to tolerate religious schools along with Montessori ones, but the religious schools would have a bit more competition.  All we can do is to let religion die a natural death as it becomes more and more irrelevant.  Any attempt to prevent people engaging in religious practices, or introducing their children to them, would be counter productive.

Actually the answer is extremely obvious. Just begin an information campaign showing that this so-called “draining away” is an outrageous lie peddled shamelessly by the completely innumerate AEU for years now. Just present the actual data to the nation.