Comments on Glenn C. Savage "Give a Gonski? Funding myths and politicking derail schools debate", 9/07/2015
While the Gonski funding model presents an excellent approach to funding schools in Australia, it may also have some deficiencies, that is, the accountability of individual schools including both school staff and students.
Funding is only one side or part of the school education. If the staff in a school do not put enough efforts, or some students in that school do not study hard enough as others, why should that school get more funding for its poor result?
We should have all the stakeholder work together to achieve the best result. If some do not work or study hard enough, they should bear at least some consequences of their poor behaviour or irresponsibility.
We need to see improvement over time in schools which get more per capita funding than other schools, that is, accountability of both school staff and students.
Does the Gonski funding model address this? I am afraid not.
In summary, we need a more dynamic and close-loop school funding model, perhaps based on the current Gonski.
Showing posts with label education reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education reform. Show all posts
2013-04-17
Federal should offer a better approach to Gonski
Comments on Paul Kelly “PM needs
magic to get a Gonski”, 17/04/2013,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/pm-needs-magic-to-get-a-gonski/story-e6frg74x-1226622025078
While the offer of 2 for 1 is appealing
to the states in general, it is not on an equitable basis between the
states and some states like WA and the ACT are so much disadvantaged
by such an offer. Besides, it is so much short of the Gonski
recommended amount and who know in how many years the total amount
will reach the Gonski amount.
Further, the government approach will
create the undesirable effect of undue federal influence on state
role and responsibility of school education.
Such a policy by the federal
government, if implemented, is very undesirable and will not be a
good public policy.
I think a better policy for any federal
government on increasing school funding and to implement Gonski would
be to offer an package of matching at least on a one to one basis in
increased school funding with the states to a set amount in a future
year with few strings attached by the federal government. The total
amount should be divided among the states on a national Gonski
formula basis based on student numbers and on those disadvantaged
students numbers. When a state has already have a higher school
funding, the matching should be higher by the federal government.
That should be the best policy for a
federal government needs to follow in future in any areas where
states have the responsibility to provide the services but the
federal government wants to contribute to those services to achieve a
better outcome.
The principle is to for the federal to
help but with little interference in the running of those state
services.
2013-04-11
Gonski's moral needs to be rational
Comments on Julian Savulescu and William Isdale "An ethical education: why Gonski is a moral issue", 11/04/2013, https://theconversation.com/an-ethical-education-why-gonski-is-a-moral-issue-12849
While I totally agree with the importance of education and the importance of increasing equity in education, I was less than fully satisfied by the article due to its lack of comparative analysis of the cost and benefit of the investment in education between Australia and other countries which the author mentioned in the article.
More specifically, the article unquestionably endorsement of the Gonski recommendation of amount of increased funding by governments is questionable without those comparatives.
The question is: some other countries achieved better results, are they all the results of greater investment per student than Australia's or not? Such information would be helpful to proper judgement or analysis/evaluation of the increased amount recommended by Gonski.
Another question is the relative decline in performance of Australia's education compared with some others. What are the reasons? It is not the right approach if it is based on the model that there is a problem then there must be more investment.
While I totally agree with the importance of education and the importance of increasing equity in education, I was less than fully satisfied by the article due to its lack of comparative analysis of the cost and benefit of the investment in education between Australia and other countries which the author mentioned in the article.
More specifically, the article unquestionably endorsement of the Gonski recommendation of amount of increased funding by governments is questionable without those comparatives.
The question is: some other countries achieved better results, are they all the results of greater investment per student than Australia's or not? Such information would be helpful to proper judgement or analysis/evaluation of the increased amount recommended by Gonski.
Another question is the relative decline in performance of Australia's education compared with some others. What are the reasons? It is not the right approach if it is based on the model that there is a problem then there must be more investment.
2012-12-19
Adverse selection in choosing schools
Comments on KEVIN DONNELLY “Schools forced to dance to Canberra's centralist tune”, 19/12/2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/schools-forced-to-dance-to-canberras-centralist-tune/story-e6frgd0x-1226539986534
Let's accept the argument that Australia's Catholic and private schools have performed well internationally and this is not the case for government schools.
Apart from differences in freedom in areas of decision making by schools mentioned in the article, another possible reason could be the so called adverse selection problem, in which wealth and family backgrounds may play a role in selecting going to government or non-government schools.
This should only need to be interpreted as on average, rather than a rule applies to all individual cases.
Let's accept the argument that Australia's Catholic and private schools have performed well internationally and this is not the case for government schools.
Apart from differences in freedom in areas of decision making by schools mentioned in the article, another possible reason could be the so called adverse selection problem, in which wealth and family backgrounds may play a role in selecting going to government or non-government schools.
This should only need to be interpreted as on average, rather than a rule applies to all individual cases.
Funding policy for education in Australia
Comments on Kevin Donnelly “Writing is on the wall as standards trend down”, 14/12/2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/writing-is-on-the-wall-as-standards-trend-down/story-e6frg6zo-1226536451971
There should be some distinctions between government funding for government and non-government schools, given that government schools are open to all without requiring to pay (the purpose of government schools to provide education for all).
However, a modified vouchers system may work, though.
There should be 3 types of vouchers - for government, Catholic and private schools students respectively.
Firstly, give vouchers to students who go to government schools at the average level of funding for government students, so they can choose among government schools.
Secondly, give vouchers to those who go to Catholic schools at a certain level, so they can choose which Catholic schools to go to.
Thirdly give vouchers to those who go to private schools another certain level, so they can choose to which school they go.
Such a funding system is more likely to result in better choices and better education outcomes for all students, whichever types of schools they choose to go.
If the levels of funding for the 3 types of schools are designed properly, such a system will work better than the current one.
There should be some distinctions between government funding for government and non-government schools, given that government schools are open to all without requiring to pay (the purpose of government schools to provide education for all).
However, a modified vouchers system may work, though.
There should be 3 types of vouchers - for government, Catholic and private schools students respectively.
Firstly, give vouchers to students who go to government schools at the average level of funding for government students, so they can choose among government schools.
Secondly, give vouchers to those who go to Catholic schools at a certain level, so they can choose which Catholic schools to go to.
Thirdly give vouchers to those who go to private schools another certain level, so they can choose to which school they go.
Such a funding system is more likely to result in better choices and better education outcomes for all students, whichever types of schools they choose to go.
If the levels of funding for the 3 types of schools are designed properly, such a system will work better than the current one.
2012-02-28
School funding - Gonski Review
Comments on Judith Sloan "It would be fairer and cheaper for some rich schools to lose funds", 28/02/2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/it-would-be-fairer-and-cheaper-for-some-rich-schools-to-lose-funds/story-fnbkvnk7-1226283265715
I think the second last paragraph is the key for this review to work and be adopted in 2014 finding.
The reconciliation of the government proposition of no loss of $1 per student and the percentage funding of non-government schools can only be done by transitional arrangements.
Further, total $ amount per student recommended in the review report should and must be state specific, given the huge differences in costs of education between the states.
Lastly, the percentage funding should be different for catholic and independent schools in general and should be adjusted by the relative resources of schools accordingly. Maybe a floor per student percentage should be considered.
2011-12-23
All schools have a degree of a public good
Comments on Scott Prasser “Private schools a public good“ 22/12/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/private-schools-a-public-good/story-e6frgd0x-1226227945644
While Prasser made a god point in terms of the differences in the share of public/non-public students when criticising the AEU's claim that the share of public school funding in Australia is lower than the OECD average, he, however, has not made a more comparable comparison along the line of the AEU's argument and that is a bit of pity in terms of information and the debate of education funding in Australia.
Presumably, it is possible to get a figure of government funding per student for public schools versus government funding per student for non-public schools. By using that ratio one can compare the relative funding of government for public school versus non-public schools with other countries.
One has to wonder why didn’t the professor present such figures?
Prasser argues that “The Gonski review is a lost opportunity to shift the school funding debate into an informed discussion of policies.”
Hasn’t he lost a good opportunity to inform the debate?
While Prasser made a god point in terms of the differences in the share of public/non-public students when criticising the AEU's claim that the share of public school funding in Australia is lower than the OECD average, he, however, has not made a more comparable comparison along the line of the AEU's argument and that is a bit of pity in terms of information and the debate of education funding in Australia.
Presumably, it is possible to get a figure of government funding per student for public schools versus government funding per student for non-public schools. By using that ratio one can compare the relative funding of government for public school versus non-public schools with other countries.
One has to wonder why didn’t the professor present such figures?
Prasser argues that “The Gonski review is a lost opportunity to shift the school funding debate into an informed discussion of policies.”
Hasn’t he lost a good opportunity to inform the debate?
PS: a compromise deal could be that a garranteed fixed proportion of funding per government student for non-government school student. If there is a need to make a difference between Catholic and private schools, then a higher proportion for the former could be more appropriate.
2010-10-10
National guideline for curriculum versus national curriculum
Comments on Justine Ferrari “A curriculum at the crossroads”, 9/10/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-curriculum-at-the-crossroads/story-e6frg6zo-1225936206830
The current national curriculum attempt, while having its merits, has been wrong from the start.
It is an attempt of centralisation by Canberra, or the federal government.
With that in mind, it is difficult to leave enough flexibility to suit different circumstances across the nation.
What it should have been doing is a high level guideline of curriculum rather than a uniform national curriculum.
The current national curriculum attempt, while having its merits, has been wrong from the start.
It is an attempt of centralisation by Canberra, or the federal government.
With that in mind, it is difficult to leave enough flexibility to suit different circumstances across the nation.
What it should have been doing is a high level guideline of curriculum rather than a uniform national curriculum.
2010-07-01
School funding issues
Comments on Jack Keating “Funding key to school reform”, 1/07/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/funding-key-to-school-reform/story-e6frg6zo-1225886406917
A funding model fair to all people and students must be fundamentally guarantee total funding for public schools first, that is why they are public or government schools. They are open to every student who wants to attend and every student have the same option to or not to attend.
To attend a non-public school is a choice.
On top of that, funding for other types of schools should be based on the needs of each type of schools and their selections of students. The needier the schools are (the less other funding resources they can get) and fewer restrictions on selection, the higher the funding should be.
Of course the government should consider the best mix of public and other types of schools and make the choices available for students and parents to choose.
A funding model fair to all people and students must be fundamentally guarantee total funding for public schools first, that is why they are public or government schools. They are open to every student who wants to attend and every student have the same option to or not to attend.
To attend a non-public school is a choice.
On top of that, funding for other types of schools should be based on the needs of each type of schools and their selections of students. The needier the schools are (the less other funding resources they can get) and fewer restrictions on selection, the higher the funding should be.
Of course the government should consider the best mix of public and other types of schools and make the choices available for students and parents to choose.
2010-02-26
MySchool website and closing gaps
Comments on Andrew Penfold “Gillard's schools site should be used to help close the gap”, 26/02/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gillards-schools-site-should-be-used-to-help-close-the-gap/story-e6frg6zo-1225834524594
It is not an issue as clear cut as Penfold thinks it is.
It is a dilemma: should the government put more resources for places you have better strengths or the areas where it has been revealed that you don't do well?
If you are a private operator with the overall outcome in mind, what would you do?
What Penfold’s logic is no different to throwing good money onto bad.
It is an issue that many people easily fall over into a trap.
But it is an difficult issue: how to treat public schools where there are significant gaps in performance? A closed related issue is: how to close the gap between Indigenous and non Ingineous students? It that just a funding issue?
It is not an issue as clear cut as Penfold thinks it is.
It is a dilemma: should the government put more resources for places you have better strengths or the areas where it has been revealed that you don't do well?
If you are a private operator with the overall outcome in mind, what would you do?
What Penfold’s logic is no different to throwing good money onto bad.
It is an issue that many people easily fall over into a trap.
But it is an difficult issue: how to treat public schools where there are significant gaps in performance? A closed related issue is: how to close the gap between Indigenous and non Ingineous students? It that just a funding issue?
2009-08-12
Rudd / Gillard's education revolution unsuccessful so far
Comments on Kevin Donnelly “They said we want an education revolution”, 12/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25916618-7583,00.html
Rudd/Gillard have copied British approach to school revolution/intervention so far, it is likely that they will also equally capable of leading that revolution to nothing but a waste of taxpayers' money.
There is nothing wrong in copying others’ formula, but it needs to be done in the right way. First, what is copied should be generally a success that others have achieved or demonstrated. Second, one needs to adapt it to local conditions and circumstances.
From what we have seen so far, the Rudd / Gillard education revolution approach to school halls and libraries has been a wrong priority, and is being done very hastily, and has resulted in a lot of waste. In another word, it has been a failure so far.
A better way is to set aside whatever amount of additional government funding for schools and entitle every student's family the same amount of money per capita for them to decide how to spend that on schools. Every school can organise discussions and vote for how to use that money in their schools.
Rudd and Gillard like micromanaging. But that is unlikely to achieve any desired results and outcomes.
Working hard is a good virtue and should be commended. But one has to pay attention to effectiveness and outcomes. That is the key to judge success or failure of one's actions. Unfortunately, that has been demonstrated as the area where the Rudd government has failed miserably.
Rudd/Gillard have copied British approach to school revolution/intervention so far, it is likely that they will also equally capable of leading that revolution to nothing but a waste of taxpayers' money.
There is nothing wrong in copying others’ formula, but it needs to be done in the right way. First, what is copied should be generally a success that others have achieved or demonstrated. Second, one needs to adapt it to local conditions and circumstances.
From what we have seen so far, the Rudd / Gillard education revolution approach to school halls and libraries has been a wrong priority, and is being done very hastily, and has resulted in a lot of waste. In another word, it has been a failure so far.
A better way is to set aside whatever amount of additional government funding for schools and entitle every student's family the same amount of money per capita for them to decide how to spend that on schools. Every school can organise discussions and vote for how to use that money in their schools.
Rudd and Gillard like micromanaging. But that is unlikely to achieve any desired results and outcomes.
Working hard is a good virtue and should be commended. But one has to pay attention to effectiveness and outcomes. That is the key to judge success or failure of one's actions. Unfortunately, that has been demonstrated as the area where the Rudd government has failed miserably.
2009-07-22
Complexity of high quality and inequality education in Australia
Comments on Glyn Davis “Fix school performance or poor won't get into uni”, 22/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25816657-5013480,00.html
The "high quality education and low equality" issue sounds very disturbing. But what its real causes are remains an important question but unclear. It is important to provide a truly equal opportunity for every kid or student to go to university, or higher education in an environment of limited resources.
The ability of State, or government is limited and government alone cannot solve all social issues existed. We need efforts from all walks of life or society. Parents have an important and irreplaceable role in their children education and the outcomes. Students themselves also have an important role.
I have not read the new book of “A New Federalism in Australian Education” by Jack Keating for the Education Foundation. I hope the book can provide some new insights into the issue of inequality of education in Australia.
However, from this article, some proposals of Keating seem to run the risk of introducing new inequality. For example, “strengthening of upper secondary pathways to further education and training that do not rely solely on academic results” would undoubtedly put down some students with better academic results and would be unfair to those students. One would ask the question: why aren’t their efforts recognised?
Inequality in education is an issue and that needs to be fixed. It is, however, important to introduce new inequality when fixing inequality.
The "high quality education and low equality" issue sounds very disturbing. But what its real causes are remains an important question but unclear. It is important to provide a truly equal opportunity for every kid or student to go to university, or higher education in an environment of limited resources.
The ability of State, or government is limited and government alone cannot solve all social issues existed. We need efforts from all walks of life or society. Parents have an important and irreplaceable role in their children education and the outcomes. Students themselves also have an important role.
I have not read the new book of “A New Federalism in Australian Education” by Jack Keating for the Education Foundation. I hope the book can provide some new insights into the issue of inequality of education in Australia.
However, from this article, some proposals of Keating seem to run the risk of introducing new inequality. For example, “strengthening of upper secondary pathways to further education and training that do not rely solely on academic results” would undoubtedly put down some students with better academic results and would be unfair to those students. One would ask the question: why aren’t their efforts recognised?
Inequality in education is an issue and that needs to be fixed. It is, however, important to introduce new inequality when fixing inequality.
2009-06-12
Fair to all students
Comments on Justine Ferrari “Revolution shapes tale of contrasts”, 12/06/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25623569-5013480,00.html
We really need a truly fairer system, fair to all, needy or wealthy! But it can mean differential criteria.
I think a dual criteria incorporating both the need and the number of students should be better than either extreme. Maybe the needy should be given a larger weight, say, a student in a needy school is equivalent to 3 or 4, or more students in wealthy schools.
But we should not adopt policy of envy and jealous, or extreme Robin Hood approach. That is too unfair to those who contributed so much to government money as taxpayers.
Essentially, what I mean is a multi criteria, based on mainly needs, but also have wealthy schools included. After all, the government governs for all and the parents and families of wealthy school students contribute to more to government money through tax.
We really need a truly fairer system, fair to all, needy or wealthy! But it can mean differential criteria.
I think a dual criteria incorporating both the need and the number of students should be better than either extreme. Maybe the needy should be given a larger weight, say, a student in a needy school is equivalent to 3 or 4, or more students in wealthy schools.
But we should not adopt policy of envy and jealous, or extreme Robin Hood approach. That is too unfair to those who contributed so much to government money as taxpayers.
Essentially, what I mean is a multi criteria, based on mainly needs, but also have wealthy schools included. After all, the government governs for all and the parents and families of wealthy school students contribute to more to government money through tax.
2009-05-19
An excellent idea to reform pre-tertiary education system
Comments on Greg Melleuish "Better early than late", 19/05/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25502850-5013480,00.html
It is good to have one piece of good news in a day, but even better to have two in a row. Greg Melleuish's proposal is so wonderful that it deserves to be a "2020 idea" for the nation.
I think there is a point in rethinking about how to deliver education in the most effective and efficient way. We have so sued to the existing system that we seldom question it. But the real question in the sense of lateral thinking is: are there any better ways to do this?
Greg Melleuish has asked this question now. Whether his proposed ways are the best alternative or not is a secondary issue. The most important issue is to get people think on this issue.
A saving of one year in the secondary education will be enormous. Then there is also the question whether there is any scope to reduce the number of years in the current six-year primary education. However, I am not sure about the trimester proposal. Many university students work part time. Also university education requires a lot of self readings/learning on the students' part. How much room to squeeze 50% of loading in a year needs to be answered.
I congratulate Greg Melleuish for his excellent ideas.
It is good to have one piece of good news in a day, but even better to have two in a row. Greg Melleuish's proposal is so wonderful that it deserves to be a "2020 idea" for the nation.
I think there is a point in rethinking about how to deliver education in the most effective and efficient way. We have so sued to the existing system that we seldom question it. But the real question in the sense of lateral thinking is: are there any better ways to do this?
Greg Melleuish has asked this question now. Whether his proposed ways are the best alternative or not is a secondary issue. The most important issue is to get people think on this issue.
A saving of one year in the secondary education will be enormous. Then there is also the question whether there is any scope to reduce the number of years in the current six-year primary education. However, I am not sure about the trimester proposal. Many university students work part time. Also university education requires a lot of self readings/learning on the students' part. How much room to squeeze 50% of loading in a year needs to be answered.
I congratulate Greg Melleuish for his excellent ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
