We should mind the gap, not the graduation stats

Posted October 28, 2015 07:43:45

It sounds alarming that a quarter of our youths are dropping out of school, but the reality is more kids than ever are graduating. The real concern is the education gap across socio-economic lines that is opening up, writes Greg Jericho.

A report released on Monday by the Mitchell Institute somewhat challenges the notion that our education system is egalitarian.

While the study finds that nearly 75 per cent of students complete year 12 or its equivalent, only 56 per cent of young people gain an Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) that allows competitive access to university. The study also finds that ATAR attainment and scores, as well as study of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) is strongly linked with students' socio-economic background.

The landmark study "Educational opportunity in Australia 2015: Who succeeds and who misses out" measurers students' performance across a range of categories in primary and secondary schooling. It takes into account regions, socio-economic background, language, non-English speaking background and Indigenous status.

It found that "over three-quarters (78 per cent) of Australians children are developmentally ready for school". Girls are generally more ready - 84.3 per cent compared to just 71.8 per cent of boys.

And being ready to go at school entry is important, because while some students will catch up, for others there is a constant case throughout schooling of their being behind key indicators at various age levels.

Crucially the study found that socio-economic background is a key determinant on who is both ready for school, and who can catch up:

Those from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to be ready to enter school, and also less likely to have caught up by Year 7.

The study also found that this continues through to Year 12, where those from lower income backgrounds are less likely to complete high school (or a Year 12 equivalent). It also is more likely that someone who has attained an ATAR rank and thus be eligible to enter will be from a higher socio-economic background:

When the report was released on Monday there was some commentary suggesting the fact it showed a quarter of students were not completing Year 12 was a cause for concern.

The report found that 30.5 per cent of males and 21.5 per cent of females were not completing Year 12 or its equivalent. It also noted that non-completion was more common in rural areas, thus making it unsurprising that the non-completion rates were highest in the Northern Territory, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia:

Anyone who grew up in the country (as I did) would know of boys who left school and went to work on the farm as soon as they could.

But while a quarter does sound high, the reality is more youth than ever before are staying in school.

The latest labour force data from the ABS shows that 77 per cent of 15-19 year olds are in full-time education - including those who also work or are looking for work:

The change has been quite rapid - essentially within a generation. When I finished high school in 1988, just 54 per cent of 15-19 year olds were in full-time education. And while students are now more encouraged to stay in school, a big reason for the increase is the rise in the minimum school leaving age.

Back when I was at school, those boys were heading off to the farm when they turned 15, but since 2007 in South Australia (where I grew up) students who have turned 16 are required to remain at school or undertake an approved learning program until they turn 17.

The GFC also had a big impact. It saw a large increase in the number of students who were not in the labour force:

But where the change is most stark - both over time and since the GFC - is the differences between the proportion of 15-19 year olds who are either "earning and learning" (to use the political cliché) and those who are just employed:

At the end of the 1980s it was much more common for youth to be just working than it was for them to be working while in school.

The 1990s recession destroyed youth employment such that in less than three years the proportion of youth working but not in school went from 35.3 per cent to 24.1 per cent. Conversely, the numbers of students who were working began to rise - and did all the way till the GFC.

And yet while the numbers of youth employed while still attending full-time education has pretty much returned to pre-GFC levels, the numbers of youth who are just working and not in school has fallen from 23.8 per cent in November 2008 to just 16.1 per cent.

While that latter aspect is of some concern, what the data shows is that these youth are not wasting their days. More than ever before youth are either working or learning or doing some combination of both.

This is important because as the Mitchell Institute notes: "While in Australia school completion is not necessarily a guarantee of future prosperity, school completers are well ahead of non-completers in terms of the likelihood of future work and career success".

What has also been dramatic since the GFC is the change in the proportion of 15-19-year-olds who are neither at school nor employed, nor looking for work.

For 20 years about 4.2 per cent to 4.5 per cent of 15-19-year-olds were lost to both the labour force and to education; now it is just 3.6 per cent

But what is interesting is that after the GFC hit there was a large increase in these youth neither earning nor learning. But the rate then fell dramatically in 2013 - possibly this occurred as that cohort turned 20, and yet the proportion of 20-24-year-olds neither learning nor earning is largely unchanged.

The study also found that the link between socio-economic background extended beyond the school age - to those in their early 20s.

While it found youth on average from all levels of income improved their performance against educational milestones from 19 years to 24 years, the link between failing to meet those levels and not being in the labour force was quite clear.

And the differences also extend to the type of learning students undertook, with the likelihood of a student studying STEM subject or doing more vocational studies highly linked with socio-economic background:

The Mitchell Institute study of Australia's education system shows that while the level of students finishing high school is increasing, a dangerous gap across socio-economic lines is opening up.

Students who are missing out an achieving key milestones from pre-school age right through to leaving high school are more likely to come from lower socio-economic background. While schools are able to improve the performance of students, such that children are able to catch up, on average the improvement is also more likely to come from those of higher socio-economic backgrounds.

This aspects flows right through into those student who are more likely to enter university. And while university is certainly no guarantee of employment, the study did show a worrying inter-generational impact. It found that students whose parents did not complete Year 12 are 3.72 times more likely to be failing to meet educational milestones than youth with at least one parent with a university degree.

Given the link between education and employment this means that inequality in education greatly leads to socio-economic inequality across Australian society, and without repair the cycle will continue to repeat.


Topics: education, access-to-education

Comments (99)

Comments for this story are closed.

  • gbe:

    28 Oct 2015 7:55:07am

    I just shake my head when I read some of this rubbish. I would have thought the only thing changing here is the total number of students as the population increases.

    Alert moderator

    • Paul01:

      28 Oct 2015 9:38:17am

      Probably why they use percentages don't you think GBE?

      What is rubbish is the NSW government selling TAFE. Smiling Mike is selling the future of the kids who can't make uni.

      Alert moderator

      • luke warm:

        28 Oct 2015 10:36:01am

        Go easy on gbe Paul, he doesn't know what a percentage is, let alone why they would be used. I remember him often saying that he was not well educated, and that those who were, were often fools.

        Alert moderator

        • Puffin:

          28 Oct 2015 4:55:55pm

          And what is wrong with a trade?

          I regret graduating from uni. The years would have been far better in practical work.

          Too many lawyers are graduating. Too many teachers. Too many scientists (like teachers in certain feilds)

          Going to university can be the stupid choice. Last weekend my taxi driver was a qualified engineer. No engineering work for two years.

          I have never had a trade worker as taxi driver.

          Our education system is detached from life. Most subjects will be irrelevant for a person. University is just a business selling hope.

          If people drop out of year 9 for a trade they may be smarter than you or me. A six figure sallary is almost guaranteed in five years.

          Alert moderator

  • Professor Rosseforp:

    28 Oct 2015 8:06:58am

    Just as there are too many people finishing year 12, and wasting time to get a useless certificate, there are too many people going to university.
    Both school and university are hiding the huge amount of unemployment.
    There are people getting double degrees in education who are less able as teachers, than people who used to have a 2 year teachers' college diploma. There are uni trained nurses who have never stepped into many hospital wards, whereas the hospital-trained nurses had to go through many different wards before qualifying.
    Your point about inequality of opportunity was already addressed by the Hawke government, and John Dawson: re-introduce university fees, and that will encourage kids from the poorer suburbs to attend university -- I can't help but feel there was some lack of logic there, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

    Alert moderator

    • APM:

      28 Oct 2015 9:03:53am

      Intellect is not egalitarian. Year 12 rates are far higher than when I left school in the late 80's but I doubt there have been huge advances in teaching techniques or kids are somehow smarter, which means that standards must be falling. In many cases finishing year 12 is just an exercise in child care for those not developmentally ready to either study or join the workforce and this is fine. Not everyone is university material nor do we need everyone to go to university. Our universities have become sausage factories of ordinariness for average students, and should put more effort into developing and rewarding real talent. The Left are too enamoured of quantity over quality as a measure of social advancement and are unfocused about the point of education and workforce needs. Some cultures do not value education and this is a downside of diversity for diversities sake.

      Alert moderator

      • luke warm:

        28 Oct 2015 10:43:46am


        False conclusion - It does not necessarily mean that at all. Lots of the kids that I went to school with left at year 10 because they either wanted or needed to work - many were smart enough to complete year 12, or even go to university. I myself left study at year 12 - I was smart enough to go to Uni (I now have a Doctorate in Science) but just wanted to earn some money - and my parents were not well off.

        Alert moderator

      • Cyn:

        28 Oct 2015 12:03:05pm

        Firstly teaching methods are always being tweaked to get better outcomes just like many other professions tweak their methods to improve outcomes using heuristics as a guide. Secondly more kids are choosing to stay in school to year 12 because not doing so is much more likely to leave them unemployable if they don't (with the only other major alternative being an apprenticeship to get qualifications which often is highly unappealing considering the low pay apprentices get). Thirdly as the economy as a whole changes the workforce it demands needs t be higher skilled than it was in the 80's or 90's to maintain our generally high standard of living by living and unless we want to do an Argentina (become very rich and then make a lot of bad decisions and slide into mediocrity over time while not noticing it) we should be glad an ever increasing percentage of students are achieving higher qualifications because it'll help people like you out enormously when they're helping pay the tax bill.

        Alert moderator

    • Nurse:

      28 Oct 2015 9:27:11am

      I can't speak for all nursing degrees, however I know that those in second and third year at Monash Uni spend about 50% of there time doing rounds in various wards at various hospitals. To imply that current nurses in training never step foot into wards is disingenuous.

      Alert moderator

      • APM:

        28 Oct 2015 10:35:14am

        I've heard the argument that nursing degrees were started as a feminist political program to improving the status and pay of nurses more than there was a need a deeper level of training. There just isn't a whole lot that is intrinsically academic about the average nursing role. Of course some nurses do require high level training but this should take place in hospitals or other specialist nursing education bodies as required to learn directly relevant skills. From a patients perspective the key criteria of a good nurse is caring and you can't teach that. The rest is bureaucracy. There is no need for nurses to have research skills or to write 3000 word essays on the health effects of indigenous disadvantage.

        Alert moderator

        • fredn:

          28 Oct 2015 11:58:50am

          And you have some actual knowledge of what you speak of, APM?

          "I've heard the argument that nursing degrees were started as a feminist political program" does not actually count as knowledge of the subject.

          Alert moderator

        • SunCoast85:

          28 Oct 2015 2:25:32pm



          If nurses fail to adequately engage in and understand the complexities of the health effects of Indigenous (remember capital I) disadvantage then the disadvantage will continue, the gap will remain and this country will fail to achieve a fair and equitable society for all it's constituents.

          Alert moderator

        • Puffin:

          28 Oct 2015 4:59:37pm

          And the understanding needs to be in writing why?
          I would care far more if the nurse practices best hygiene practices than if they can write about it.

          I want them to know what vein to stick a device into rather than know the Latin name for every joint.

          I want practical health care, not theoretical.

          Alert moderator

        • DocWho:

          28 Oct 2015 5:09:57pm

          From a patient's perspective, the key criteria of a good nurse is:
          - ability to administer treatment orders initiated by the doctor - ie injections, wounds, clinical measurements
          - accuracy in recording clinical signs (blood pressure, respiratory rate, etc)
          - ability to recognise clinical deterioration and need to escalate treatment

          There is no point in having a nurse who is sympathetic and empathetic, who can't give injections or administer a drip, can't manage a wound, can't recognise when a patient is deteriorating. That is why they have years of tertiary education. If my family members were sick, I know what sort of nurse I would want looking after them.

          Alert moderator

    • sdrawkcaB:

      28 Oct 2015 10:50:27am

      George Washington did not go to school after the age of 16.
      Paul Keating left school at age 14 but had more years schooling then Washington's piecemeal effort.
      Ben Franklin left school at age 10 after 2 years of attendance.
      David Farragut was asked to bring back a captured Navy ship to port in 1812. Farragut was 12 years old. He was accepted into the Navy as a midshipman was he was 9.

      Todays 9 year old is flat out tying their own shoe laces although some high achievers are permitted to ride their push bike to school.

      What does that tell us?
      Exactly as you state in your first sentence: too many people; useless certificate
      In fact I would go further. This Prussian system of mass schooling that we employ is a detriment, but the Prussians knew that when they implemented it all those years ago.

      We can save ourselves a lot of money by adopting a Dorothy Sayers type method. In 1949, she took into account why people like Washington and Franklin can do it on next to no schooling, and wrote an essay. Based on Washington, Franklin, and 2000 years of educational experience before them, she outlined that 6 years of schooling does it and at the end a person does not need the crutch of a teacher but is more then capable of picking up any book and reading it. That is 6 years of schooling produces a person more then capable of educating themselves without outside interference.

      So 6 years. Cheaper and better results. Why do they not do it? Because schooling is not about education, its about control.

      Alert moderator

      • Phillip:

        28 Oct 2015 11:49:04am

        Agree completely.

        If school were that good, that important, that necessary, it simply would not NEED to be compulsory.

        I know that education is important; having left school at 15, worked for ten years, went back to uni part-time, and now self-employed.

        But it is a fool who confuses schooling as being the same thing as education.

        Alert moderator

      • Cyn:

        28 Oct 2015 1:07:58pm

        How many children would, as a first choice, educate themselves to a point where they could design an air conditioning system? Or develop a new medicine to cure a complication of HIV? Or be able to solve second derivative maths problems? Or modern accounting and economics of a small town? Or find the legal precedent find the at fault party in an accident during a robbery? Or program an automated piece of equipment in a factory? Or do you think that the vast majority of them would just do fun stuff like play games and draw pictures and watch TV?

        Alert moderator

        • sdrawkcaB:

          28 Oct 2015 3:14:29pm

          I have taught myself Mathematical Physics beyond the level of calculus you describe.

          I have used to teach myself a number things - perhaps semi pertinent is Statics and Mechanics of Materials because I wanted to be able to design myself simple structures. If I wanted to design complex structure I am sure I could teach myself finite element analysis and write the relevant software to calculate. Also, if Air-conditioning was my thing then no doubt I could go beyond Introductory Thermodynamics and pick up some Dynamics as well. That said if you are talking about designing air-con systems that go into houses or small shops then that's easy - that's only trade level knowledge, a person can also do that from standard year one Physics 101/102/103 stream with the assistance of the ASHRAE calculation procedure sheet.

          Now, I need to elaborate. A cure for HIV is doctorate level, working in a team. The limits of self-education for most are at about undergrad level. This is not to say, it is quite possible for the average self taught person to read the results of the HIV research and understand it. That said, maths has a number of self taught people who gave us some mathematical gems - George Green is one of them. I would be surprised if other fields do not have similar self-taught geniuses.

          For legal, I have an Architect friend who taught himself enough law to beat a lawyer in court and redeem his architectural fee that was refused to be paid (the other paid court costs as well). So encouraged by the magistrate's comments he became an Arbitrator.

          Next, fun stuff. Learning is as natural as walking and running. Kids like to run - its fun. Learning, when the school system has not relegated it to drudgery, is fun. Yes, they might play video games and watch TV but the natural human condition is to learn because its fun. Part of Dorothy Sayers critique is to get out of the way and let them enjoy the natural fun of learning.

          For a complete answer, Jack Tar below provides a insight.

          Enough formal schooling to get started. Go and learn an economically viable skill. Either come back and do advanced specialist courses or use your 6 year schooling as a basis to self learn for life (or not if that's your thing). Remember, with 6 year schooling, they are entering the workforce at age 12 or 13, getting a view of the world and then coming back to be specialists. This is different from asking an 18 year who has seen nothing but a classroom to decide what it is they are going to do for the rest of their life.

          Lastly, since about 1970, we are the generations that can come home from work and have leisure time. There are a lot of leisure hours - probably 30 hours a week. If half of those are used by a properly schooled adult to self learn then over a lifetime that is the time to learn 10 undergraduate degrees or the theory and practical of about 20 trades. Contrast that to now where most people cannot

          Alert moderator

        • Cyn:

          28 Oct 2015 5:41:47pm

          Just because you taught yourself and there are some notable examples occurring throughout history of self taught people doing well doesn't mean it should be the standard. I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of kids without the kind of direction school provides won't bother learning anything beyond the bare essentials they need just like the vast majority of people throughout history have.

          "Enough formal schooling to get started"
          Six years isn't enough, heck 13 years quite often is no longer enough to have the foundational knowledge needed for many jobs. The world has adapted so that jobs being offer need a certain amount of education to be done and seeing as 13 years of education is standard that makes it the minimum amount of education to get started.

          Alert moderator

        • Puffin:

          28 Oct 2015 10:39:12pm

          I agree cyn
          Examples are not proof. So here are some questions for all levels of our education system
          What is the goal?

          For secondary they should know basic reading and writing by now. What is the point of learning part of another language? Why take part in drama classes? Why study certain things in mathematics like polynomial equations?
          Is the goal to prepare people for further study, if so why arnt tertiary institutions determining the course structure? If the goal is to make the person have life skills, why is there no class on our voting system and how to fill in government forms? Why are all those years needed?

          In tertiary courses
          Is the goal to undertake study for interest? If so, why have it subsidized at all.
          if its to find a relevant job, why are tertiary institutions receiving government funds without consideration of employment rates in related fields?

          Is Primary simply a form of daycare so parents can work? If so, why spend so long training the teachers.

          We do not have a clear goal or objective for any of our levels of education. Without a clear goal, its predictable that the desired outcome will not be reached.

          Alert moderator

        • sdrawkcaB:

          28 Oct 2015 11:15:44pm

          Fair enough.

          Non-prussian schooling is a difficult topic to research as the crackpots and and consparacy theorists have attached themselves to it. You would need to do some discerning reading to work it out.

          Perrhaps a simple thing to do is find a teacher and ask how much of a 45 minute period they actually spend teaching.
          I have and I get answers of between 5 and 15 minutes.

          Take best case of 15 minutes and we roughly see two thirds of the time is spent on something other then teaching/learning.

          So 8 of the 12 years are potentially wasted.

          So 4 years of solid schooling equals 12 years of the Prussian system. Now solid schooling is impossible because humans are not machines. Permit 50% downtime so 12 years becomes something realistic.

          Now toss all that aside and opt for a system that was not designed to control the population but is actaully aimed at learning and new possibilities arise.

          The proof however is in the pudding. The Americans kept the same army entrance exam for 60 odd years. In 1904 the pass rate was 96%. Over time the pass kept falling and by the time Vietnam rolled around, they had to throw it out and produce something much easier because too many were failing. In America the Prussian system was introduced in 1898.

          I am afraid it takes a dozen or so years to get the minumum standard because the system is grossly inefficient and ineffective. Deliberately I am afraid because democracy cannot exist amoungst a free thinking population. That is well documented.

          Alert moderator

        • Dove:

          28 Oct 2015 9:50:48pm

          Do you plan on teaching yourself emotional intelligence or humility anytime soon or are you focusing on time travel?

          Alert moderator

        • The Blue Smurf:

          29 Oct 2015 8:56:39pm

          The structure of your tome certainly suggests that your academic strengths lie firmly in the disciplines of mathematics and physics.

          Alert moderator

      • Jack Tar:

        28 Oct 2015 1:42:18pm

        sdrawkcaB, I Agree that we are over teaching. It was normal to start work young and learn on the job. Increasingly we see people with years of classroom study who think they know more than people who have been doing the actual job for decades.

        Henry Ford said he didn't employ experts because they knew what couldn't be done. Too much teaching is developing a generation of Australians who will go out into the workforce with their minds closed. In their mid twenties when they start work they'll want to progress quickly to make up for those years lost at school, with no time to get the hours of hands-on experience.

        Alert moderator

        • Margaret:

          28 Oct 2015 5:35:19pm

          Yes. I remember well a comment from a member of the Sydney Jewish business community, who said 'We lost a whole generation to Commonwealth Scholarships'. I was shocked, as my Commonwealth Scholarship lifted me from disadvantage. But for many graduates, it had killed any interest in entrepreneurship, and fitted them (and me) for a job in the public service.

          Alert moderator

      • graazt:

        28 Oct 2015 2:39:09pm

        Can you let the HR guys know?

        People are in large part getting degrees so they can get work; regardless of whether it's required for the actual job.

        It's form over substance.

        Alert moderator

        • Puffin:

          28 Oct 2015 5:09:28pm

          Has there been any calculation on the benefit if a HR department following their social theories to select an amployee?

          I go by instinct. A few have been bad choices. Most good. Some great.

          If their application is neat and their appearance is neat and they can demonstrate they researched the company they are a front runner.

          My first question / instruction which has made many leave (after an email warning of the call is)

          Tell me what you can about this company!

          So where would your role fit in?

          So many have made me call the interview off with just these two questions.

          Alert moderator

        • Professor Rosseforp:

          28 Oct 2015 8:27:32pm

          "Tell me what you can about this company!" -- Is there something wrong with the company that I have to do something about it? Do you mean "What can you do for this company?" -- this is the kind of question that is tailor-made for those who don't see their own faults, and eliminates many brilliant (but self-effacing) candidates.
          "So where would your role fit in?" -- That's something the candidate can have no real idea about, unless they are already in the company. They might have an idea about the stated goals of the company, but you are the one running the company, who has advertised because of a perceived need -- have you articulated that need in the advertisement, or do you just want people who can waffle on about something they know little about?
          If "so many" have asked you to call off the interview, this could be a sign that there's a real problem with the questions.
          Having made those observations, can I add that I do admire your willingness to trust your instincts -- which are probably right. A lot of organisations are incapable of making that call, and rely on badly-designed tests and external "consultants" to tell them what they should already know -- is the person appropriately dressed, and are there responses moderate enough to avoid alarm bells? They are probably right for the job.

          Alert moderator

        • Professor Rosseforp:

          29 Oct 2015 8:31:36pm

          Oops, I mis-read your question, so please ignore the first part of my comment. I'm guessing that means I failed the interview .....

          Alert moderator

      • Bb:

        29 Oct 2015 8:37:17am

        The unpalatable reality is that the infants, primary and high school pathway serves an economic model that facilitates both parents working. Educational focus has withered to a pathetic level. Educational bueracrats are really running child minding centres. The next stage of education which remains optional receives the product of this system which it responds to by decreasing content, downgrading assessment and churning out graduates with limited skills and diluted knowledge. Universities and colleges have become market driven businesses and will resort to any means to keep the numbers up and their tenures secure. We have engineered a systemic disaster right across the educational spectrum. The current dogma of privatising that once great educational parachute of our technical colleges system in NSW despite five years of evidence of the consequences of providing public funding to shonky private RTO's in South Australia and Victoria is a prime example of the stupidity of our government.

        Alert moderator

    • Morestone:

      28 Oct 2015 11:49:45am

      "Just as there are too many people finishing year 12, and wasting time to get a useless certificate"

      Disagree, it is an advantage to have a solid education in many non-university career paths in the "digital age".

      The local state high schools where I live recognise this and have developed close learn and earn relationships with industries such as avionics that encourage participating students to finish school.

      Alert moderator

    • PaulineN:

      28 Oct 2015 1:43:51pm

      Professor Rosseforp I have to pick you up on your allegation that there "are uni trained nurses who have never stepped in hospital wards" as that is simply WRONG!

      FYI ALL undergraduate nursing degrees require students to spend hundreds of hours working in hospitals under the direct supervision of a clinical nurse educator. Student nurses who do not have sufficient practical experience in hospitals cannot graduate and be registered. Please check your facts in future

      Alert moderator

      • Professor Rosseforp:

        28 Oct 2015 2:59:09pm

        PaulineN, you may have mis-read my comment: I did not say "trained nurses who have never stepped in hospital wards" but "trained nurses who have never stepped in MANY hospital wards".
        I know that many graduate nurses are surprised to discover that hospital-trained nurses worked (inter alia) in orthopaedics, renal, emergency, surgery, paediatrics, geriatrics, cardiology, etc, etc.
        A lot of uni-trained nurses may have done stints in some wards.
        Clinical nurse educators would require a whole discussion board to themselves. Those dealing with students may be excellent, and I hope they are.
        It's often expressed as "How did you know that such a reaction would take place?" "Because I looked after a ward of 20 patients whose kidneys were shot to pieces because of the use of APC". The breadth of experience was amazing, and don't forget that any sick days had to be made up at the end of the training period!

        Alert moderator

      • Tassie winter:

        28 Oct 2015 9:02:18pm

        As a GP in Tasmania we hosted a nursing student in the second year of her two year nursing degree. She had done practical nursing placements in General Practice, Aged Care (nursing home) and Community nursing. She had never seen blood (I am not joking).

        These are all important areas but it was frightening to think that a nurse just a few months off graduating had zero hospital experience. She was hoping that her last placement would be in a hospital...

        Alert moderator

    • Margaret:

      28 Oct 2015 5:30:45pm

      When the Nursing Degree (OK Applied Science Degree) was introduced, the establishment also tried to get rid of the Enrolled Nurse qualification. It's now back. Some nurses do need a lot of detailed understanding at degree level (although based on my nurse daughter, I'd agree that essay writing may not be a strength). As long as there are nurses that can do the caring functions in a double level arrangement, it's fine!

      Alert moderator

  • Freddie Frog:

    28 Oct 2015 8:14:28am

    I'm wondering if the author looked at causative factors here or is simple correlation with SES enough to decide there is a problem?

    Is there an assumption that all students are equally capable of educational success and what are the effects of nature vs nurture in this instance?

    Alert moderator

  • Desert Woman:

    28 Oct 2015 8:20:17am

    The gap is indeed dangerous as it heralds a much divided, stratified society which is highly unstable and wracked by social problems.

    We need a two pronged strategy, bring in Gonski immediately and generously as the costs of stratification will exceed anything Gonski could cost.

    Also, immediately coordinate and implement an adult or continuing education system so that young adults and older parents who missed out on education can reacquaint themselves with learning. Reverse the downward TAFE trend.

    Most of the evidence says that the SES gap is not about $$ per se but about a culture of learning that is associated with SES. If kids see their parents reading books, doing some research and discussing new ideas, they will not enter school so unprepared. None of this is difficult. It just requires common sense and will.

    Alert moderator

    • Freddie Frog:

      28 Oct 2015 9:46:05am


      Ah, you've stumbled on the perfect solution. We should force lower SES parents to read books and discuss new ideas within the home. This will surely fix any of these educational problems.

      Alert moderator

      • Jess:

        28 Oct 2015 10:12:18am

        There is massive amounts of evidence from Australia and around the world that parental enagagement and quality early childhood education (from 3) can make up for the lack of parental education.
        Lets make the reasonable assumuption that parents accross all socio-economic classes want the best for their children.

        In some places new parents are given a selection of books when the baby is born. That is a good start.

        Alert moderator

      • Desert Woman:

        28 Oct 2015 10:24:02am

        Freddie, is deliberately misinterpreting my comment the best you can do?

        I realize you have no knowledge of the subject here but you could at least try to participate in a constructive manner. Most parents who missed out on a decent education or any at all are acutely aware of their loss and would available themselves of an opportunity if it was local, easily accessible, and they could afford it both financially and without being made to look like misfits to be looked down on.

        Instead of making just about every aspect of education system more expensive etc, why don't we seriously think about what the evidence tells us, or just sling off to cover our ignorance.

        Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          28 Oct 2015 10:38:04am

          Desert Woman,
          I make jest because your initial sentence starts from a position of ignorance. There is no evidence here that the "gap" or at least a large proportion or it is not a natural occurence that simply respresents the variability of our population. It is not inherently a "dangerous" thing as you assert.

          Every person can currently avail themselves of education of varying levels at extremely subsidised (or free) cost. Childen in particular should be encouraged to learn to the best of their ability.

          Your idea of simply throwing more money at the problem will just result in more of the same group of people currently availing themselves of the system continuing to do so. At a reduced cost to themselves of course, which I think is your actual goal.

          Alert moderator

        • fredn:

          28 Oct 2015 12:10:42pm

          You do realise, Freddie, that automation and robotics will be eliminating more and more low skill jobs? That more and more the low intelligence, low opportunity, low skill members of society will have fewer and fewer job opportunities. Not acting is not an option.

          I saw no suggestions of "simply throwing more money at the problem", and as you don't know D W, I don't know how you can just make up stuff, "which I think is your actual goal", about her.

          How about a positive contribution?

          Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          28 Oct 2015 12:56:03pm

          I'm basing my comments on this and previous comments by Desert Woman. See below from DW, this is, as usual about more money from those who apparently have "too much".

          Yes, of course many low skill jobs will become redundant over coming decades but this has always been the case throughout history. As industries decline, new ones emerge with different skill sets required.

          I'm not suggesting that we don't provide pathways for people to improve themselves, I'm suggesting we allow individuals to control their own lives and make their own decisions for themselves. We currently have many, many pathways for educational improvement, the idea that it's too hard or expensive for individuals to take advantage of those opportunities is completely false.

          Alert moderator

        • fredn:

          28 Oct 2015 4:23:50pm

          But the new automated world will have fewer and fewer jobs at the lower end. It will not be a case of old jobs out, new jobs in. There will be few jobs at the bottom when automation is doing them all. We can't let these people fall behind or we will have a very unhappy underclass to contend with.

          Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          28 Oct 2015 6:01:01pm

          I disagree, we simply dont and can't know what those jobs will entail because the industries haven't been developed yet.
          People will still have the chance to learn and educate themselves just like they always have.

          Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          28 Oct 2015 12:28:50pm

          I see Freddie, it was a joke, not ignorance. So is this current comment a joke as well? No evidence of a gap? No social problems arising from a divided society?

          It isn't more money that is required, it is a redistribution of money from those what have more than they need, such as a coffee shop with a barista, to those who do not have enough by way of appropriate paths to learning. That is the principle behind Gonski and continuing education. The current situation is no joke who are currently stuck with our failure to provide a genuinely equitable educational system.

          Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          28 Oct 2015 12:49:43pm

          Desert Woman,
          Read my original comment above yours.

          Yes there is a gap, but there is no evidence presented that it is not naturally occuring or that it is necessarily a bad thing.

          Statements like this: "No social problems arising from a divided society? " Are meaningless without context. What exactly is a "divided" society? And how are you defining it? What level of intervention should we engage in and at what point does overriding people's innate differences reduce incentives to achieve?

          Your comment about redistribution is also reductive. Who are you to define who has "too much"? Perhaps that coffee shop owner is simply smarter, works harder and is better at business?

          I agree with you that we need appropriate paths to learning, I disagree with you that they are currently as deficient as you would have us believe. Everyone currently has the ability to access our education system and can choose to compare the benefits and costs of further education.

          I have faith that Australians are able to make their own decisions, you seem to believe that they aren't and need to have more government intervention in their lives. Either way, If you're correct, I'm unsure if they're the type of people who we should be providing more "free" education for anyway.

          Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          28 Oct 2015 1:36:31pm

          So there actually is a gap Freddie. On the basis of what evidence have you determined that it is 'naturally occurring' or could be good?

          A financially divided or unequal society is given by measures such as the Gini coefficient and others. Social division and inequality is measured by such things as the ratio of the number of women to men murdered by the opposite gender.

          The aforementioned coffee shop is part of a school. Do the students at that school really need it when the money that paid for it could have given many disadvantaged kids access to somebody who could have helped them with basic literacy?

          Those disadvantaged kids didn't make a decision to be born into a family without the resources to get them extra help, let alone a flash coffee shop. I want to see a fairer, more equitable and equal Australia because it is the best way forward for all of us. The evidence says the same thing.

          Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          28 Oct 2015 3:14:41pm


          On the basis that there are inherent population ranges in intelligence, work ethic, choice, drive for economic success etc. Or do you assert that everyone is the same and should live the exact same lifestyle?

          And of course a gap is necessarily a good thing otherwise you would be overriding individual's inherent differences and stifling economic growth and innovation through reduced incentives. Why would anyone try harder when the outcome for themselves as an individual is not improved?

          As for coffee shops, I'm unsure of your point. The government isn't funding any " coffee shops" so how could that money be used elsewhere? As long as the government is providing funds to educate every child to a set standard (and they are), what business is it of yours if parents want to invest further in their child's education?

          It's not the job of government to provide equality of outcome, just opportunity. And they do.

          Alert moderator

        • fredn:

          28 Oct 2015 4:40:48pm


          Are we still referring to Knox? It was more than a little disingenuous of Caro to have spoken about one of the absolute top expensive schools as though it is representative of anything, let alone the majority of private schools.

          The students at Knox are probably the sons of some of the wealthiest. Those students could go to public schools and the government would carry 100% of the cost of educating the sons of rich people. But they go to Knox, and the government is paying about 60% of the cost of their education. And you are outraged that of the thousands of dollars the parents pay on top of the government contribution a few dollars may be paying for a Barista, though I expect a coffee there costs as much as anywhere else?

          What is gained by society by preferring to pay 100% of their education bill? If you think the public school system will make them more down to earth, or closer to ordinary people, dream on. If Daddy and Mummy are multi-millionaires and Christmas Hols is skiing in Vail, putting them in public schools will change nothing except blow out the Education budget. And with the thousands Mummy and Daddy save on school fees, they can drive their boy to school in a bigger Mercedes than they would have had to drive to Knox.

          I agree with much you say, but this confected outrage about people being able to choose private schools and save the government money is absurd.

          Alert moderator

        • Desert Woman:

          29 Oct 2015 8:56:35am

          fredn, I am not asking for private schools to close nor does Knox particularly outrage me. I used it as an example of the need for funding by need across the school system. The education system is the best place to start to tackle our growing inequality.

          Alert moderator

      • fredn:

        28 Oct 2015 12:02:57pm


        Well, yes Freddie, it would probably help a lot.

        So, now you have come up with a good idea, how do you think we could implement it?

        Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          28 Oct 2015 12:57:47pm

          Government inspectors to visit every house to ensure compliance with the new regime.

          Anyone who is found in breach will be sent for re-education.

          Alert moderator

        • spacey 101:

          28 Oct 2015 2:00:27pm

          Lol. Liberals and their voters would have a fit. First of all what you propose would cost money. Secondly it would more than likely involve hiring some extra public servants to do the job. Thirdly it goes against their small government mantra. Fourthly I can't think of a way that they could outsource the job and find a way to pay double or triple the amount the public service could do it with to one of their mates although I'm sure they'd find a way to do it. Fifth, it goes against their personal responsibility mantra.

          Alert moderator

        • Freddie Frog:

          28 Oct 2015 3:19:15pm

          No, it's a wonderful idea that will perfectly fit the mantra of the authoritarians.

          And why stop there, these government inspectors could also ensure that each child is eating a government approved diet, receiving the correct amount of physical excercise as well as only watching TV for the correct amount of time per day.

          We could solve all social problems with more and more government control and money. You know it makes sense.

          Alert moderator

    • APM:

      28 Oct 2015 11:22:23am

      Desert Women. Firstly, these "social problems" are largely imported so this is an immigration issue too. For example, asylum seeker children with limited English and with parents who are uneducated and don't value education must be hugely expensive and difficult to educate. The Left have a habit at creating social problems through ill-advised social engineering and then cannot think of any other response but to pour massive funds at it often with no real effect.

      Gonski is based on the premise that providing more resources is the only way to improve educational outcomes. The education junta has highly ideological 'social justice' agenda and never considered other remedies, like, as above, the impact of other social policies that create disadvantage. Respecting Aboriginal culture, such as giving kids several days off to attend 'sorry business' is a retreat from high educational standards. The destruction of the family unit too.

      What about discipline and teacher training and a syllabus that focuses directly on learning and not 'social justice' junk? Teacher's unions are rent seekers in Gonski with a conflict of interests. New buildings and Ipads and air conditioning are nice but don't seem transformational. Gonski will be scraping the bottom of the barrel with many kids who just don't have the brains or motivation to learn and no amount of money is likely to ever change this. Investing in kids is good but not at any cost with valuable public funds.

      Alert moderator

      • Jess:

        28 Oct 2015 12:13:09pm

        did you know it will take to 2025 for universal primary school (u12) access accross the world?
        Non English speaking isn't really addressed but usually the kids of immigrants from non English speaking countries (although all countries teach some English in schools) will generally provide the vital link for their parents and their participation in society. (children learn quicker)

        Basically you are saying we should only take immigrants from English speaking countries or those with a high level of English?

        Alert moderator

      • fredn:

        28 Oct 2015 12:20:37pm

        " largely imported so this is an immigration issue"

        "asylum seeker children with limited English and with parents who are uneducated and don't value education"

        "The left"

        "The education junta has highly ideological 'social justice' agenda"

        "Respecting Aboriginal culture, ........ is a retreat from high educational standards."

        "Teacher's unions are rent seekers"

        " many kids who just don't have the brains or motivation to learn"

        " Investing in kids is good but not at any cost with valuable public funds."

        Do you ever listen to yourself, APM? Blame and complaints. Do you ever have a solution? Do you ever have something nice to say?

        Get a hobby, commenting on The Drum is eating away your soul.

        Alert moderator

    • graazt:

      28 Oct 2015 2:43:36pm

      Well said @Desert Woman.

      Those Freakonomics guy attest to the second prong of your strategy - they found a very strong positive correlation between parents that read books recreationally and high income levels of their children.

      Alert moderator

  • Alfie:

    28 Oct 2015 8:24:30am

    We have bought this upon ourselves by creating an over generous welfare system.

    Who want's to work or go to school when you don't need to?

    Alert moderator

    • rabbie:

      28 Oct 2015 8:47:17am

      Alfie, we didn't "buy" anything on ourselves. When writing about education it is a good idea to demonstrate that you know the difference between "bought" and "brought".

      I won't comment on the weakness of your punctuation as it is obvious for most of us to see.

      And by "over generous welfare system", do you mean the one that is supporting Joe Hockey?

      Alert moderator

    • Tabanus:

      28 Oct 2015 9:36:15am

      Dear Alfie

      I think you perhaps need to brush up on the "over generous welfare system".

      Personally I could not live on the amounts paid.

      As a taxpayer, I accept that some people abuse the system, but that is the price we must pay in order to not make it too hard for those really in need. Similar to our legal system allowing some guilty to escape punishment in order to not catch the innocent.

      The real point, however, is that there are simply not enough jobs for most of the unemployed. What do suggest they do?
      Work for nothing? Does not really help in a capitalist system.

      Alert moderator

      • Peterputer:

        28 Oct 2015 1:05:17pm

        Dear Tabanus,

        I have no doubt you could "live" on the system. But I agree, I don't think I could either & have been happy to pay taxes for the last 45 years so others can get by. I'd be happy to pay a bit more, but it's not optional for me, so I take the tax cuts I probably don't deserve and try and give more to charities.

        The rest of your comment I agree with - the system is not perfect, but is the price we pay for living in a caring society. My concern is that a significant number no longer wish to have such a society, that we have become far too much a "me first" society.

        Alert moderator

        • Martin:

          28 Oct 2015 3:25:58pm

          Hello Peter,
          Happy to pay more taxes! Please can you post your details so you can pay the latest ATO extortion demand sent to me?

          Additionally can you clarify your use of the word 'deserve'? I find it very confusing in the context of taxes and transfer payments. You have to do the work to earn the money, but do not deserve it. Yet someone who does not work does deserve it. More than a little counterintuitive. Like taking the gold medal off the person who wins the race and giving to the person who is still waiting on the starting blocks.

          Alert moderator

        • fredn:

          28 Oct 2015 4:19:30pm


          Your presumption that you "deserve" every penny you make was rather undermined by PM saying in Parliament a few days ago that there are many who work harder than he did and yet he is much wealthier. He is acknowledging that luck, timing, and all kinds of factors effect what each of us receive. A big bank balance is no evidence of how smart you are or how hard you worked. So it is not some leftie guilt that makes Peter say he may not "deserve" his tax cuts.

          This conviction that I earned it and it is mine is a self serving self deception. Many do not provide the value to society that their inflated income would suggest they have given. And in a non-perfect world, that will happen. No sensible person would expect a perfect match between input and reward.

          What irks me is this constant assertion that "I" have worked hard and deserve everything I get and that nobody else, society, or government has contributed anything and it is theft when government has the temerity to tax me and even worse when they give it to some undeserving bludger who could be just as well off as "me" if he got off his backside. Get over yourself. You are just another cog in the works. Maybe a bigger or better oiled cog, but when they lower you into the grave you will know you were just another cog.

          Alert moderator

      • Margaret:

        28 Oct 2015 5:41:57pm

        The 'over-generous' tag actually applies to young people living at home and paying minimal board. They enjoy their parents' lifestyle while receiving more Centrelink spending money than I have ever allowed myself in my life. Part of the solution for young people needs to be realistic financial expectations from their parents.

        Alert moderator

    • philly:

      28 Oct 2015 9:42:07am

      And children growing up in a household where they never see an adult actually going to work, how motivated will those children be when it comes to going to school? The education gap will grow until we address the social and cultural environments many children are growing up in.

      Alert moderator

    • Paul01:

      28 Oct 2015 9:48:27am

      A quick check shows the dole pays a single person with no kids $523.40 per fortnight or $261.70 per week, over generous?

      Perhaps if we spent on VET and got the kids from the less well off suburbs into trades training then we could cut the 457 visa intake, you know invest in our own skills base instead of stealing it from countries that can't really afford to lose it.

      If you want to cut welfare then start at the top by cutting the Howard vote buying largesse, Treasury is costing the super tax rort for the wealthy at $36 billion this year. The idea of super was to lessen the future pension burden but Howard gave the rort to folks who will have too much to qualify for the pension anyway.

      Alert moderator

    • fredn:

      28 Oct 2015 12:13:10pm

      What are you talking about, Alfie? We have one of the most targeted welfare systems in the world.

      Same old BS on and on and on. Try singing a new song.

      Alert moderator

  • Geoff:

    28 Oct 2015 8:25:09am

    So what? It's always been thus. The increasing expense of keeping kids in school means that the poorer are forced out. SChools and more particularly universities are a con job. It is sad if very bright poor kids are denied opportunity but many students from a diverse range of socio-economic groups would be better off in a trade as this is where the demand is. Universities just want the dollars and don't care if graduates are saddled with a huge debt and low job prospects. They have lowered their standards to rake in the dollars. The school of hard knocks teaches more about life than senior high school or univesity. Agree?

    Alert moderator

    • Professor Rosseforp:

      28 Oct 2015 8:42:19am

      Geoff, thank you for pointing out that there was no golden era when all Australians were equal.
      Australia has always been divided along class lines, and the geography and demographics of birth have always had the biggest impact on lifestyle, death rate, age at death, imprisonment rates, etc -- and educational achievement is just one of those measures of social inequality.
      Thank you also for pointing out that the universities are, by and large, a "con job". The fact that grads may have higher employment rates than non-grads really just means that some uni courses (medicine, physio, pharmacy, engineering etc) are the only way to enter some professions ; it also means that unis get 30% of the best candidates to start with -- and that those people are taking supermarket checkout jobs more effectively than non-grads.

      Alert moderator

    • GregC:

      28 Oct 2015 9:55:34am

      Geoff - I want to consider some of your points: 1) "It's always been thus". In general, yes, But the percentages vary from generation to generation as govts. change policies. The question is whether as a society we want to exacerbate the differences, or try to spend our tax money on looking at equality of outcomes, rather than equality of inputs. 2) "The increasing expense of keeping kids in school means that the poorer are forced out." Do you mean the increasing costs of private schools or of public schools? As far as possible a society should ensure that its taxpayer dollars are spent on public schools. All taxpayers can send their children to these state funded schools. Those who choose to do otherwise should not be subsidized by the public purse. If some people cannot afford public schools, then govt. policy needs to adjust so that these poorest families are not discriminated against by dint of their income. 3) "It is sad if very bright poor kids are denied opportunity." Yes, but sad is not enough. It is inequitable, unfair and unjust. It is not, however, inevitable. Govt. policy can help ameliorate this problem. 4) "but many students from a diverse range of socio-economic groups would be better off in a trade as this is where the demand is." It could also be argued that these students would be better off at university as such extended schooling will help build a smarter, more rounded individual better able to tackle the challenges of a rapidly changing world. 5)"The school of hard knocks teaches more about life than senior high school or univesity. Agree?" As a tradey who then went to university, I understand the sentiment; but I work at a school which has a very low SES and see first hand, every day, the results of these kids who are living the life of hard knocks, and whose parents did also. Yes, they are learning a lot about life, but it is not a life which allows them to see the kind of prosperous future that other kids from higher SES families will get to enjoy.

      Alert moderator

      • Geoff:

        28 Oct 2015 11:40:32am

        I don't know if these days the gifted poor students are given a leg-up in the form of scholarships. They certainly were in my time in the form of bursaries (starting in primary school). This is one way way to get them out of the educational poverty trap. A means tested public exam would do the trick.
        The other thing working against the bright but disadvantaged is the socio- economic situation (broken homes, public housing, lack of parental support etc.)
        As a teacher I saw this as the greatest limiting factor.
        Getting gifted kids out of poor social situations and into live-in boarding schools is the answer. It is one of the few strategies which works. Aborigines who are given this opportunity thrive. Left in their local environment,despite countless millions being pumped into Taj Mahal like colleges of knowledge with top-of-the-crop teachers and small classes has been an abject failure. Agree?

        Alert moderator

    • Jess:

      28 Oct 2015 10:18:27am

      I believe that schools shouldbe able to have the students with a score of 80+ and the top 40% (including those of with a score of 80+) of students in a school being elligable for direct entry. The rest can do a bridging course or a gap year to uni.
      You can't tell me that the local demographically similar private school with a 95% entrance rate to uni has a cohort where 95% of students are suited to uni when the public school has a uni entrance rate of 50%

      Alert moderator

  • Regionalgranny:

    28 Oct 2015 8:55:19am

    Having, along with my husband, raised and supported four children to graduate with degrees from university, a couple with double degrees I can attest to the fact that if you have children today and you want for them and they want a profession you had better be prepared to support those children until they are in their early to mid twenties. Our children did some part time work while students but the majority of their costs were met by us. We were not high income earners but both worked most of the time,after the children were in primary school. No income support for our students because we earned too much?

    This scenario is often out of reach of many families with poor education themselves. Not only do they not have the ability to earn sufficient income to support their children through to tertiary qualifications, they also do not have the experience and drive to urge their children and support them in their quest for higher education. This is not to say people do not what is best for their children, it just means they need help to see their children achieve to their full potential.

    Until we address as a nation the shortcomings for less able students and their families we will remain a country with a large proportion of unemployable or underachieving people.

    Alert moderator

  • Brianwh:

    28 Oct 2015 9:08:26am

    I fail to see how you can have this discussion in any meaningful way without reference to the funding system for our schools which has resulted in a flight to private education. Parents who can afford it - the higher SES groups - overwhelmingly send their children to the better resourced private schools leaving the Government Schools as increasingly for "residual" students, students with special needs, behavioural issues and generally those from lower socioeconomic groups. Ignoring this situation will have serious long-term consequences both for our society.

    Alert moderator

  • Charles:

    28 Oct 2015 9:16:11am

    Good to see the initial commentators understand the issue with the education system, unlike the author of the article. Nearly everyone who goes into the education system at present does not get to learn or develop, they just get subjected to a process which has no goals, no outcomes, no objectives and is extremely expensive for the tax-payer.

    In effect the education system is now similar to a work-for-the dole project where we pay people to dig 'educational holes', and then we get them to fill them in.

    The other thing the author declines to recognise is that those who are graduating now are essentially qualified in nothing much, and as the complaints from prospective employers mount up the only solution they have thus far come up with is Gonski, which is just the present under-performing system on steroids.

    The educational system needs to be fundamentally reformed, it should be taken away from public servants and given to the private sector, because at the moment we are caught in a system similar to that which brought down not only the Roman Empire, but also the Athenian democracy some 800 years prior.

    Alert moderator

    • sdrawkcaB:

      28 Oct 2015 11:15:13am

      The 'educational' system is actually a school system.

      It is indeed not about development and largely exists to keep children off the streets. Many children are an unstable hormonal nightmare in their teens and we do not know what to do with them. We consequently build very low security gaols, call them schools, and demand children serve a 12 year sentence.

      I see you feel the private sector is the answer and on that I have not found a researched answer.
      In my travels I have noted:
      We know school should be teaching the trivium method; that is, how to learn.
      We know the final two years of a 6 year school career should be a child applying the trivium to self determined topics.
      We know parents are idiots if they think handing their child over to a state approved stranger for 12 years is the answer.
      We know the one room classroom produces better educational outcomes.
      We know most people work as unskilled labour: jobs that an 11 year old can do.
      We know 5 years of schooling (under the current wasteful scheme) will satisfy the 'educational' requirement for most unskilled jobs.

      I always assumed a one room, 30 child, local community funded school was the model to aspire to. I took it a school day was about 2 hours at school to be followed by 4 or 5 hours self directed work to be done at home under the eye of the parent.

      Do you have something different? Why do you see the private sector as the answer?

      Alert moderator

  • Rob Alan:

    28 Oct 2015 9:21:20am

    It's not a secret that those who do well in our education system teach themselves through understanding the text. If you get lucky a teacher comes along who can help, even inspire learning.

    If you require a teacher you are done, same as it ever was.

    Leeds to. If you are are latent follower requires leadership, you are done. Same as it ever was.

    All depends on which statistics you look at really. Same as it ever was.

    Alert moderator

    • sdrawkcaB:

      28 Oct 2015 11:32:31am

      In the 54 volume set of the 'Great Books', the introduction indicates the only way is to self educate.

      The selected Great Books are those that were meant to be read by the general population. Many are fun to read.
      Also in the introduction is the account of how University have taken these texts and sucked the joy out of them through professors requiring gross over-analysis and through claiming a degree is required to understand them.

      The authors of the 54 volume set implore people to educate themselves through reading and highlight that schooling is not education but schooling. That was in 1954 and standards have dropped a long way since then.

      I laugh every time someone claims schooling to be education. I laugh harder when parents send off their kids to expensive schools as if education is something you purchase. Its as you say, you must be able to teach your self through reading. That costs noting accept time and perseverance.

      For the record, both my kids were dux of their low SE school.
      Both had the best ATAR for their year in the district.
      The district is 10 schools of which 6 are private.
      To the parents of the 6000 kids at private schools. Sorry you have been ripped off. Your kids will achieve far more if put time and encouragement into them rather then money.

      Alert moderator

    • Rob Alan:

      28 Oct 2015 2:31:37pm

      Agree that schooling and life education are two different themes sdrawkcaB. The later comes from local community experience includes parents, where the former is ponzi investor state driven. That the many learners often only get going once they enter the real world is a clue to what you speak to.

      I've read one can do courses in 'rhetoric' these days. Professional lying is now a subject. Like marketing, like third wave event psychology, schooling has become just another lobbying center.

      Alert moderator

      • Hoops McCann:

        29 Oct 2015 9:21:54am


        Oh, gosh darn, it must be that new-fangled Aristotle! Could your gripe be any more off base?

        Alert moderator

  • Stephen S:

    28 Oct 2015 9:23:44am

    As a given, we are the only significant OECD nation reserving near a third (well north of $10 billion) of the national education kitty for private schools that can charge uncapped fees and select students.

    As a given, both parties and the media generally take this rotten funding system for granted and look for solutions elsewhere.

    Sure, you can have John Howard's 'values' and 'choice', or you can have higher schooling equity and performance in the OECD ladder, but it's pretty hard to do both simultaneously.

    Alert moderator

  • firthy:

    28 Oct 2015 12:15:21pm

    I really wonder what effect government can have on this "inequality" issue. If the parents aren't interested in educating their children that is a massive barrier to overcome. I suspect in most cases it cannot be overcome no matter what resources you throw at the problem. Better to spend money on helping kids in such situations to find some work (for example via workplace training) rather than spending heaps of cash in the hope that it will assist a small number of them to get into uni.

    Alert moderator

    • sdrawkcaB:

      28 Oct 2015 1:48:50pm

      Nailed it in one.

      A parent is responsible for more then 50% of the child's educational success. (From memory - 55% was figure given).

      My personal opinion is children should be way more responsible for their own learning (under guidance of course - they are only young). I suspect there is no real requirement for kids to go to school everyday as some days they could work under their own steam at home.

      For this to work, parents need to care. I would think the school budget could be cut to a quarter and the results be one quarter better if we could somehow get parents to care.

      A personal experience is if my son was not constantly held down to match the pace of the second lowest child, he would have finished his schooling in 7 or 8 years rather then 12. In the case of my daughter it would have probably been 8 or 9 years.

      Further, is there are systems that are not the Prussian system of Mass Schooling. Under caring parents and a different system, kids can easily graduate in 6 years with similar outcomes to the Prussian system. The difference is they will not have had the joy of learning sucked out of them and they are far more likely to be lifelong leaners.

      Alert moderator

      • Hoops McCann:

        29 Oct 2015 9:43:01am

        I had a teacher encourage me to attempt to enter university when I was in Year 9. I guess it was flattering in one sense but also a little frightening in another because I was comfortable being somewhat idle in school whilst I was pursuing my own interests in my own time.

        In some ways, I wish I'd taken the teacher's suggestion more seriously because I would have saved myself some heartache in the senior years of high school and arrived where I was heading sooner. In other ways, I know I can't change the past so try not to dwell on roads not taken.

        Re: self-directed learning. The most educational experience I ever had was during my PhD candidature and it was because I took the time to examine a bunch of 'irrelevant' texts that I believe I obtained the breadth of knowledge to help me best contextualise my own research. I think the current idea of "do your PhD in 3-4 years or leave" is a terrible one because I'm sure there are some wonderful, incomplete dissertations, and there are many pieces completed in the alotted time that aren't really worth, don't really advance knowledge, but tick the appropriate boxes and consequently receive the award.

        Alert moderator

  • Jane2:

    28 Oct 2015 1:04:27pm

    I dont know how you can close the gap. We have mandatory minimum school leaving age to try and get kids better educated...that doesnt seem to be working as those from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to drop out as soon as they can.

    We could make maths compulsary through to Yr 12 but people say that is unfair to those who are not good at maths (however English is compulsary and not everyone is good at English).

    We could make it compulsary for parents to undergo courses on the importance of a good education but you would see certain groups ignore everything they are told so that wouldnt solve the problem.

    Probably the best way to solve the problem is the mandatory sending of ALL kids away to boarding school at age 3 where they must remain until they have either completed Yr 12 or have reached the age of 19. This way all students are away from positive/negative family influence regarding the importance of education. Cant see that option coming about.

    Ok I am out of ideas since you cant force learning on people, even where the law says they must be in school until age 17 they can not force those kids to learn.

    Alert moderator

  • mike j:

    28 Oct 2015 1:49:46pm

    "a dangerous gap across socio-economic lines is opening up"

    You mean across gender lines? Or is it only a 'gap' when women are disadvantaged?

    "Girls are generally more ready - 84.3 per cent compared to just 71.8 per cent of boys."

    "30.5 per cent of males and 21.5 per cent of females were not completing Year 12"

    Not to mention graduation rates or the feminisation of our schools:

    "60% of domestic undergraduate completions in Australian universities in 2012 were women."

    From the ABS:

    "Over the last decade girls have extended their lead in the subjects they had previously dominated, and have begun to perform better than boys in some of the areas of mathematics and science. There is now a growing concern over the significant shift in educational achievement of boys relative to girls and a recognition of the need for programs to enhance the participation and performance of boys as well as girls."

    I guess the 'growing concern' hasn't filtered down to our pseudofeminist media yet. To tabloid media like the ABC, the only real victim is a female victim.

    Alert moderator

  • Felix:

    28 Oct 2015 1:59:07pm

    Also, the academic requirements of passing Year 12 have changed significantly from 20-25 years ago.

    What used to be a significant achievement to pass five (or six) publicly assessed subjects across limited disciplines has now been broadened to include 'softer' and far more subjectively assessed subjects. Perhaps this is a reflection of the 'Every child player wins a prize' mentality? *sigh*

    As someone who offers recruitment and employment support to young school leavers, I often encounter very low levels of literacy and numeracy from people have completed Year 12.

    The pressure of 'passing year 12' seems to be driven more by the Education sector, ensuring it has been 'dumbed down' simply to achieve better results for schools and teachers.

    Alert moderator

  • Erika:

    28 Oct 2015 2:24:49pm

    To what extent are we *educating* the young people who are staying in school longer? Alternatively, have we simply created a fairly resource intensive form of baby sitting for teenagers and young adults?

    Alert moderator

  • spacey 101:

    28 Oct 2015 3:04:41pm

    Honestly? I blame employers more than anything.

    The amount of times I've seen employers who require an applicant to have a Y12 cert when it isn't required to do the job astounds me.

    The same goes for employers wanting degrees, diplomas etc etc that have very little if anything to do with the job requirement.

    The problem is is that they want an economic unit they can plug in that will start paying dividends immediately. Gone are the days of proper on the job training. Forget about it.

    Have a good hard look at yourselves employers.

    Alert moderator

  • Jack Tar:

    28 Oct 2015 3:07:18pm

    The part of this report that seems to be not news-worthy is how badly boys are missing out on education. Boys are much further behind in reading than girls are in STEM, yet all we hear about is STEM programs for girls. Boys develop slower and it would seem that many of them are entering school too soon.

    Fairfax has had an article and an editorial without mentioning boy, girl, gender, or male once. if girls were disadvantaged it would be splashed across the headlines.

    I this article Greg says that 56% of students getting an ATAR is a problem. Well, it's 66% of girls and 50% of boys.

    Alert moderator

  • red hen:

    28 Oct 2015 3:32:22pm

    I work in the Construction industry and many of my colleagues are intelligent and capable men who finished Yr 10 (and even Yr 12) - and are effectively almost illiterate and innumerate. My observation is that our school system is not working for a lot of boys, so that by the time they've gotten through Primary School, they've already disengaged from formal education - or worse still, they believe themselves to be stupid and give up trying to achieve at school. Just because you get through school, it doesn't mean you are properly educated! I applaud the availability of school-based apprenticeships. I would love to see a complete overhaul of our approach to 'teaching' from primary school onward, recognising that sitting at a desk and copying from a board is not going to work for everyone.

    Alert moderator

    • sdrawkcaB:

      28 Oct 2015 4:24:53pm

      We have five learning style that align to our senses.

      Thankfully I was born audio - visual.

      If you are a kinetic learner then best be put down at birth.

      Back in the dark ages when I was doing my craft, there was one fellow in particular that had to pick everything up, feel it, toss it around a bit. If mention was made of a loose door handle, he would have to go and test it - just to make sure.

      A textbook kinetic learner.

      I sat with him many times after class to help get theory in his head. It was like a battering ram. If we kept bashing his head with it then eventually some would sink in and hang around long enough so he could pass the exam. It turned out he was a far better craftsman then I. My output was somewhat better then trade quality. He was a true craftsman.

      The system was happy to fail him - it was his teenage classmates that had the wisdom at the time to to know his failure was not right and so we did our bit to make sure it didn't happen. I don't know how he made it past year 10. These days he probably wouldn't get an opportunity.

      Alert moderator

  • Consider this:

    28 Oct 2015 4:57:11pm

    This whole article is based on a false premise: that we are all equal in academic potential ! Sadly we are not!

    FACT 1: standard IQ (the sort that is good at science/maths/english tests) is basically a genetic trait: while smart people have not so smart kids and average people give birth to geniuses but generally IQ of this sort is inherited: the higher the IQ of your parents (particularly the mother for maths/science!!) the better your chances are of being higher.

    FACT 2: in a modern capitalist democracy (yeah I know some want a revolution to a socialist dictatorship but you'll have to wait ...) smart people tend to earn more money and live in higher Socio Economic Areas (SEA).

    FACT 3: kids in higher SEA are generally going to do better in school test than their cousins in lower SEA. The lefty socialist ideologues deceptively portray this as some consequence of social disadvantage: it's not; its a consequence of the combination of genetics and a capitalist society!

    FACT 4: Nothing you can do no matter how much money (resources/technology etc etc) you throw at the problem is going to make children smarter. So while some extra funding will have a beneficial effect with learning and behavioural issues u cannot change yr basic IQ!

    Now read Greg Jericho's article again ....

    Alert moderator

  • anon:

    28 Oct 2015 6:16:43pm

    We can't fix education until we address the elephant in the room of the drug problem. No matter what interventions you throw at the system, nothing is going to work while there are disruptive students at the back of the class denying the other students their right to an education - generally the children of drug users, or children who are using drugs themselves. Where the money really needs to be invested is in child welfare agencies.

    Alert moderator

  • red hen:

    28 Oct 2015 6:20:17pm

    Have to disagree that you can't change your basic IQ: our son's has declined 10 points in just 5 years of Primary School.

    Alert moderator

    • Christine:

      29 Oct 2015 6:07:31am

      Red Hen, it's not the end of the world to have low IQ. It is however very hard to get by all on your own. You might not have that problem yourself, but for your son's sake, don't make him drop out of school prematurely or discourage him to do well at it just because you don't need it yourself. Let your son have a go on his own Red Hen. Cheers

      Alert moderator

  • Not by choice:

    29 Oct 2015 3:41:26am

    My 17 yo son has been removed from year 12 at his school this year while wanting to complete his last term.The school left it to the last minute to tell us he wouldnt get his sace while he wanted to finish his education.The only thing learned is the teachers mostly female had given up before my son did and was given no choice so it is not all the students leaving a lot would be getting moved on and maybe he will finish up as a plumber All those years of education down the bloody DRAIN!

    Alert moderator

Comments for this story are closed.