Comments on: Should public schools be privatised? Day 3

By: Adrien

Adrien — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:38:45 +0000

The first is that it was published about 120 years after education became free and compulsory, yet neither attribute had yielded much political knowledge. The second is that was published about 140 years after democratic institutions were established in Australia, and 90 years after universal suffrage. Australia is a long-term successful democracy despite the absence or failure of civics education in our public schools.

I don’t know whether this is an indictment of public schooling per se or the curriculum. I think the issue is often confused. This is especially highlighted when you consider all the ‘cultural wars’ fuss re ‘left-wing propaganda’ taught in state schools.

From my experience of several schools, private and public, in different countries according to different systems, practical philosophy (politics, economics, ethics) is not taught much and not taught well. Anywhere.

In the greater private schools there are skills taught which prepare students for power-wielding roles in life (eg debating) these are absent or extracurricular in state schools. But the fundamentals of economics, politics and ethics are not taught until high school. I feel the basics could be (and should be) imparted much earlier. I’ve met people in their early 20s who have no idea that there’s such a thing as recession. These things are curricula issues. Not ones of public/private divide.

I’m broadly supportive of initiatives that precipitate diversity and innovation but criticizing an inadequate curricula or pointing out the failures of an under-funded public system are not arguments for privatization. Practically speaking, if you give people a choice between revitalizing the public system - which, contrary to current rhetoric - is not an abject failure, and overhauling the system because of the ‘market fundamentalist’ doctrine they will choose the former.

Those advocating a voucher system need to show how it will work, who will own the schools and most especially that it won’t exclude people who are socio-economically encumbered. The one thing about a voucher system is it seem to allow parents to send their kids to a good school if the local one is poor. That would be broadly supported. But to win the policy debate more pragmatic design-based stuff, less ideology.

As Lennon says:

You say you got a real solution, Well you know, We’d all love to see the plan

By: International valuation of our state schools « Balneus

International valuation of our state schools « Balneus — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:57:17 +0000

[...] Day 3 Norton’s following comment makes me skeptical, because I do not think our education system [...]

By: Andrew vs. Andrew (continued) at John Barrdear

Andrew vs. Andrew (continued) at John Barrdear — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:06:42 +0000

[...] on from yesterday, Andrew Norton has his second piece up [A.N., A.L.]. He continues on the early topic of teaching civics, concluding with: In my view, [...]

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:33:42 +0000

Bryon - Andrew L and I will get to this.

By: Wotever

Wotever — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:04:09 +0000

All those rabid lefties that currently swarm throughout our public system let loose into privatised education? Bring it on! Schools for Greemies. Schools for Socialists. Schools for people who think Andrew Bolt’s a clown! The world be a more interesting place.

By: Byron

Byron — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:29:07 +0000

Andrew,
We do not fund private schools on the basis of “parental SES background”: we fund them on the basis of the average SES background of the postcode of the address of the student - a different thing entirely. I am not talking about the Catholic system, which I think is funded on a different basis. The current funding system has been an absolute bonanza for the “elite” or old Level 1 schools, because they have boarders from rural areas that have low SES characteristics. Yet we are supposed to believe that these families are disadvantaged because of their postcode when it is clear that they are able to devote an enormous amount of discretionary expenditure to school fees. Most Australian taxpayers could not hope to spend that amount each year on their childrens education, yet they are being called on to subsidise those who do.