The Government’s consideration of the Gonski Review, which recommends an additional $5 billion annually in funding for schools, has cast a strong spotlight on school reform in Australia.

Photo: Herald Sun

Much of the debate at the moment is rightly focusing on what we need to do in order to tackle our most pressing problem: the underperformance of children from disadvantaged areas, who can be up to three years behind their peers of a same age.

As the principal of a secondary school in one of the most disadvantaged areas of Australia, I feel I have some insights to offer on this topic. Glenala High School has 470 students from 24 nationalities, with the most prevalent population being Pacific Islander students, followed by Australian Aboriginal and Vietnamese.

The majority of students are new Australians, with more than 30 per cent of students speaking English as their second language.  According to the national Index of Community Socio-Economic Advantage, Glenala students are drawn from the lowest socio-economic quartile.

Poor attendance, truancy, poor behaviour, a lack of a strong culture of learning and a refusal to submit assessment are all issues that we have dealt with in the past.

I say past because, despite our students’ challenging circumstances, during the last 12 months Glenala State High School has seen:

• 90.09% Attendance (up by 12%) from 2010;

• 84% of Year 12 students graduate = with a QCE (up 11%);

• An incredible 50% of Year 12 students now pursuing tertiary education, up by 45%;

Not only are suspensions down and enrolments up, the vast majority of parents and carers are now satisfied their child is getting a good education at our school. This year we were the proud recipients of two regional awards for excellence in education and a State Finalist.

What caused this turnaround? As principal, I believe our school’s recent achievements would not have been possible without the additional $350,000 annually our school has received as a result of the National Partnerships Agreement.

In practice, what difference the National Partnerships Agreement makes for our school? In 2011 and 2012 it meant:

• A full time Pacifica Liaison Officer whose primary role is to “inspire students, parents, teachers and community to aspire” and build community and parent relationships to support a strong focus on learning and high expectations;

• A new teacher to provide more non-contact time for Year Coordinators so they can focus on supporting students with attendance, uniform and work ethic;

• An additional .5 Guidance Officer to ensure our students have access to a Guidance Officer every day; and

• A new position called the Director of Student Achievement who tracks the achievement of every student in the school, alerting teams of teachers when a student is falling behind.

These new services have made a world of difference, not only for our students and school, but for the whole community. Glenala State High School is truly at the heart of our local community. In tackling the education challenges our students face, we are working hand in hand with their parents, and the issues they are dealing with.

The Inala Community know the expectations we have of them but they also know that we will support their individual circumstances with practical solutions.

Sometimes this involves taking risks and working outside the traditional routines of a school. For example, for many parents having younger children or infants makes involvement harder in the secondary setting. So, when we hold school events we make sure there are food and activities such as face painting to amuse younger children.

We know language is a barrier as is access to computers and the internet, we ensure our school communications are printed in up to three languages. We also invite parents and an Elder to attend our Homework Club so that their own education levels do not prevent them from participating in their child’s schooling.

We work closely with ethnic community leaders and continue to invest in staff who speak fluent Tongan, Samoan and Vietnamese to better support and assist parents.

I have no doubt that this approach is delivering results that have long-term community-wide benefits. But without the additional investment our school has received, we could not fund these additional support services.

I know without these services students would get left behind. Not because of any fault of their own, but because our school would not have the financial resources to meet all our students’ needs.

Unfortunately, the National Partnerships Agreement funding is for a limited period only. Once it finishes, our school will need to find alternative ways to fund the new services we are providing – or see them end too.

The beauty of the Gonski recommendations is that they would make additional resources permanent for our school. They would do away with ad hoc and temporary funding arrangements whilst also providing a better measure of need for all schools.

It’s been over six months now since the release of the Gonski Review. Now it’s time for the Government to make a commitment to the funding and to passing legislation this year that will make Gonski laws.

Because when it comes to ensuring every child – no matter their background, or the individual challenges they face – there is no question the difference that proper resourcing makes.

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEST.

Most commented

42 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • jonesy says:

      07:47am | 21/08/12

      Education is the soul of society as it passes from one generation to the next.

    • acotrel says:

      09:17am | 21/08/12

      Bloody socialists ! ! - Gillard is in danger of being re-elected (AT THE END OF 2013) if she keeps doing good things for the average punter. She has already trumped the Paid Parental Leave psuedo-policy with the NDIS !

    • daniel says:

      09:45am | 21/08/12

      acotrel,

      Gillard hasn’t delivered an NDIS but only a trial. Her government still hasn’t decided on how to fund it.

    • Achmed says:

      08:14am | 21/08/12

      The Gronski Review needs to be acted on.  And its good to see Gillard is implementing the recommendations.
      The shame of it is that because Labor have impemented the Liberals will have to oppose, well thats what Opposition does…isn’t it???  Well thats the mantra we hear from the Liberal supporters when Abbott’s No No No catch cry is criticised.

    • glenm says:

      01:58pm | 21/08/12

      NoAchmed, Gillard is currently reviewing the report and will some time in the future put forward a policy which can then be debated in parliment.  The Libs have simply stated that the full recomendations of the report cannot be implemented within the budget at present. If past performance is anything to go by Labor will put forward a half baked trial policy with no funding model and claim they have fully implemented school reform. That way those with a reading and comprehension level of less that 8 years old can continue to make claims like yours and vote labor.

    • Philip says:

      09:06am | 21/08/12

      Define education, define achievement. How do you compare achievement at Glenala against, for example, Geelong Grammar.
      As an employer I want to employ people with a work ethic, not a degree in “I want to earn more than you as soon as you employ me”.
      Increased funding, hopefully, should not be based on the same outcome criteria across the whole country.

    • Rose says:

      09:43am | 21/08/12

      “Increased funding, hopefully, should not be based on the same outcome criteria across the whole country.”
      Yes it should, funding should be geared at allowing every student to reach their goals and ambitions, so that every student can live up to their full potential. Every kid should have the ability to pursue either a trade or academic qualification, regardless of what school they went to.
      “As an employer I want to employ people with a work ethic, not a degree in “I want to earn more than you as soon as you employ me”.” Sounds a bit like sour grapes there, if some one has put in the required effort to earn a degree and converted that degree into a lucrative career I’m pretty sure they have a pretty decent work ethic, maybe you’re just annoyed that they are able to demand a salary in excess of what you do. If your employees earn more than you do, maybe you should check out your business model and not get antsy because you have to pay some one what they’re worth!

    • Philip says:

      09:06am | 21/08/12

      Define education, define achievement. How do you compare achievement at Glenala against, for example, Geelong Grammar.
      As an employer I want to employ people with a work ethic, not a degree in “I want to earn more than you as soon as you employ me”.
      Increased funding, hopefully, should not be based on the same outcome criteria across the whole country.

    • acotrel says:

      09:22am | 21/08/12

      When did Australian employers and the Education Departments and universities ever communicate and define common objectives ?

    • Budz says:

      09:09am | 21/08/12

      Great story! And that $350,000 spent will be more than saved through lower costs in welfare and other costs that are incurred through having non productive members of society.

    • T S says:

      09:29am | 21/08/12

      It’s a good news story but what I found more interesting was what was done with the additional funding. The funds were not actually spent on education materials or to reduce class sizes but seemed to be more akin to welfare spending to meet deficiencies of the families in the local community (essentially there were 4 new positions created that are essentially social worker/support type roles). An additional $350k was required because this is a community that places no value on education and where 1 in 3 don’t have English as a first language.
      Like I said this is a good news story and I admire the outcome. This is not however a case where there were insufficient “education resources” (I assume there are enough class rooms etc) but one where the school has had to play a “parent” type role that says more about the failure of welfare policy and immigrant integration than it does about education funding.

    • Economist says:

      10:36am | 21/08/12

      TS agree. This clearly shows the stark differences in resourcing required based on the pool of kids using the school. The problem with education is that there are at time competing priorities. There are personal benefits and social benefits. I had a quick look at the Myschools website, based on Net recurrent spending Glenala receives around $14,709 per student. My local public school in a well healed community is $13,117 per student. Geelong Grammar is $19,025, Campbelltown primary $9223 and comparatively John Terney in Campbelltown has $11,936. Basically you can see the spread of funding, yet the within school resourcing will not doubt be starkly different because of the makeup of the students, and location. 

      This is why I can’t take seriously claims of equal funding for all schools. This is why it concerns me when Abbott implies non-government schools are disadvantage because they only receive 21% yet teach 34% of students. Many parents in non-government schools focus on education for personal gain at the expense of the desired social outcome and effectively want to deny sufficient resources to governments school, or resent the fact that there are middle and high income earners sending their kids to government schools and they want to charge them extra, because they don’t want to compete with public education.

    • Economist says:

      10:54am | 21/08/12

      To clarify, my comparison of schools funding is a little simplistic in that we are comparing primary, high and secondary schools and combinations of all three.

      To further add to the discussion, parents send their kids to private schools for 3 main reasons. Firstly they live in a community where the student pool for the public school is full of undesirables that would affect their child’s learning. Secondly and related to the first is the supposed lack of bullying or accountability in managing bullying. Finally for prestige.

      These are potentially all worth reasons, the issue then comes down to what level of financial support should be provided for making this choice. Gonski is simply arguing that those in most need deserve more funding. It effectively argues, from what I’ve read, that funding should be like a voucher system, but not equal, based on need.

      The problem is that we have politicians to gutless to withdraw some funding from schools, both private and public that are well resourced. Again the competing priorities of personal and social gain. The government should focus on the social benefits. Under the SES model it cost approximately and extra $800M a year to providing funding to schools that weren’t entitled to the monies because no school could be made worse off when it was implemented. Similarly Labor with Gonski will result in a cost blow out, if implemented in full, as no school can be made worse off. 

      The issue is that some parents don’t have a choice and some parents don;t care about the choice, disadvantaging the child and I have no issue with providing resources to these kids disproportionately to other kids, even if it means providing them breakfast and relationship counselling. As long as at the same time their parents welfare is tied in through income management if necessary.

      Clearly the sector can be made more effective by winding back on education bureaucracy and providing more autonomy for principles, but I do not support the proposal to make non-government schools totally independent of education departments if they receive government funding. It will simply results in indoctrination in some school sectors.

    • Steve L says:

      11:01am | 21/08/12

      To me it seems that the positions were created to support students and teachers to be able to achieve at a higher level. Many schools take for granted that they have a full time Guidance Officer and other support staff. How can it be a bad thing to have someone emplyed in thew role of DOSA who can track student achievement and identify issues before kids fall through the cracks. I think your statement that the positions are essentially support roles are illinformed. Any resource (human or physical) in a school is an educational resource and the staff and community of Glenala are rightly proud of their achievements.

    • jade (the other one) says:

      11:45am | 21/08/12

      Guidance Officers’ main function within a school tends to be more along the lines of career counselling and supporting students to access appropriate vocational or tertiary pathways. I don’t see how this is the role of a social worker, rather I see it as a part of a secondary school’s job.

      The additional teacher to provide more time for year coordinators to focus on attendance, uniform and other issues. I would think that attendance and uniform are quite clearly within the realms of a school’s responsibility. I also think you don’t really understand the role of a year coordinator. They are teachers within the school who are given responsibility for discipline, and monitoring a particular student cohort. Within schools, they usually travel from year 8 to year 12 with one cohort, providing one consistent point of reference. They run Year Level assemblies, where issues relevant to each year level are dealt with (ie the needs of a year 8 cohort are very different to those of a year 12 cohort).

      A Director of Student Achievement to monitor student academic progress and identify issues is absolutely not a social work type role. I think it is an incredibly innovative and interesting idea to help students refocus on educational achievement and show that achievement in academic areas is an area worthy of focus and respect.

    • Phil says:

      10:58am | 21/08/12

      Stop playing the “Abbott”, just join everybody else to celebrate the right things done by the “Gillard”.

    • acotrel says:

      06:52pm | 21/08/12

      And there have been many ! - Even in the face of a nasty agressive, poisonous, negative,and obstructive oppostion.

    • Loxy says:

      11:28am | 21/08/12

      Great article, however I think you left out one of the key success factors and that is a having a good Principle. A school is only ever as good as its Principle and it sounds like you are a real keeper.

      On another note, the sad fact is it doesn’t really matter what Labour do as far as education funding goes as the Liberals will undo it all when they come into power next year. Education has never, ever been a priority for the Liberals and under Abbott it most certainly will not be.

    • Dash says:

      11:39am | 21/08/12

      The question which is not simple is where is the money coming from??

      The ALP are avoidng this question just as they did when announcing the unfunded NDIS! Doug Cameron last night said increase taxes. But he’s a raving socialist!

      Given the socialist nature of this government, I fear that once again we will see the people that are already paying the most tax asked to pay even more. I’m sick of the ever reducing pool of PAYG taxpayers being smacked time and time again by this government!

      Lets increase the GST to 15% and reduce the top marginal tax rate to 33% like they did recently in NZ. That will broaden the tax base, increase revenue to pay for these schemes and remove the silly disparity between the top marginal tax rate and the corporate tax rate.

      But as we know, the ALP are a pack of cowards and will not do it. instead, they will continue to go to the ever deminishing well of the top 10% of PAYG taxpayers who continue to pay for everything.

      This school funding process will turn once again into yet another avenue for this lefty pack of morons in the ALP to wage more class wars. they will tell us that anyone earning over $80K a year is exactly the same as Gina Reinhart and Clive Palmer and that their success deserves to be punished.

      If we need an extra $5billion a year OK. But everyone should pay!

      And students are not more worthy of funding just because their parents pay no tax!!

      Once again, if you educate your self, work hard and become successful, this ALP has a massive target on your back. If you are as dumb as dogshit and pay little if any tax…. here have some money. It’s bloody worng!!! And more to the point, unsustainable.

    • Concerned says:

      12:36pm | 21/08/12

      How woefully short sighted…if, as a society, we fail to invest in these students now you can bet it will cost us a lot more in welfare in the future when they lack the skills to support themselves and contribute to society.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      01:12pm | 21/08/12

      But it’s ok to tax business to the tune of 3 Billion to fund a six month holiday known as paid maternity leave? Funny how there always seems to be money to fund middle class family welfare

    • Economist says:

      01:13pm | 21/08/12

      Dash, of course I’d support serious welfare and tax reform to broaden the base and reduce subsidies, but to complain that the problem is Labor is ignoring history. It’s one of Shane from Melbourne’s pet peeves.  The number of net tax payers likely reduced under Howard with the expansion of middle class welfare including expanding funding to private school education subsidies. 

      Gillard has stated no school will be made worse off. They will not venture down Latham’s hit list path, because they will lose marginal seats in Sydney’s West.

    • Dash says:

      01:16pm | 21/08/12

      Hey, read my post again! I never said we should not invest in students or that we should not find the $5billion extra a year. I said, if we are going to increase taxes, let everyone pay rather than going to the same people that are already paying the most tax and are already funding everything.

      If anyone is woefully short sighted, it’s the ALP who have reduced the tax base by increaseing the tax free threshold and who refuse to allow Ken Henry to include the GST as part of his so called “root and branch” tax review. They have put more of the tax burden on the top 10% of taxpayers at a time when the tax base needs to be broadened.

      My post is about getting some equity into the tax system!

      Don’t attack me. Education should not be used as yet another excuse for more socialist taxes. It’s unsustainable to continue to go to the top 10% of taxpayers to pay for everything. The tax burden needs to be spread more. And the easiest and best way is to put 2.5% to 5% on the GST.

      Would you be prepared to pay more tax to implement this policy? Or do you think that only the top 10% should fund it? If it’s the latter, then you are the one who is woefully short sighted.

      The people who put their kids through private school are also the ones who are funding the public school system for everyone else! Yet the ALP want to deamonise everyone earning over $80K a year. I’m sick of seeing our government punish success when it should be encouraging it. That is the height of short sightedness.

      Short sighted socialist rule in Greece, created the issues they have now. We do not want to be there in 25 years!

      I also have issues with the disparity between the top marginal tax rate and the corporate rate. Corporates split their income, declare half, operate in the cash economy and claim benefits. Meanwhile the poor PAYG tax payer is paying 36%, 38% of their income in tax. Multinational corporates only pay 30% after claiming GST and then expropriate the balance overseas anyway.

      The tax system in this country is broken!!! It needs to be fixed. We can fix it so that we can make it fairer and pay for all of these things the ALP announces but never funds! Sorry but that’s looking towards the future and not short sighted at all!

    • Dash says:

      02:01pm | 21/08/12

      @Shane - no that’s not OK. I do not and have not got on here to support that policy.

      I get no welfare and am not after any. But I’m sick of paying for it all. Including the carbon tax compensation, the low income tax cut and the $900 handout! Did you get all three?

      If you genuinely believe the extra $5billion a year is needed that’s fine. But who pays for it and how?

      @Economist, you know as well as i do, that this welfare state, no matter who’s responsible is not sustainable. And you also know that it’s stupid for the ALP to be reducing the tax base at a time when it should be expanding it.

      This thing needs to be paid for. I believe it is wrong to ask the top 10% of taxpayers to pay for this exclusively as well! We need to increase the GST and get rid of the disparity betwen the corporate tax rate and the top marginal tax rate. I would be very suprised to hear you oppose that proposition. And this is something that tax accountants and economists have been saying fior some time now.

    • Dash says:

      01:40pm | 21/08/12

      How would you fund the extra $5billion a year Shane? Any ideas?

      Take more from the people already paying all the tax?

      The people paying private school fees paid for your $900 handouts. They paid the Flood levy. They are told they should wear the cost of the carbon tax without a cent of compensation (regardless of how they pollute or how many solar panels they have). These are the people funding medicare for you whilst being told they cannot use it and being forced into private health care. These are the people who have seen their superannuation tax concessions removed and the private health tax rebate abolished. These are the people funding the dole, funding single parents, funding tax cuts to low income earners and paying for the public school system. They pay more for your roads, your transport and your healthcare!! And they get nothing in return but the government taking more and more and more from them.

      And here you are deamonising the hand that feeds the ALP’s welfare state!!! Searching for some kind of Socialist Nirvana. Give me a freakin break.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      03:53pm | 21/08/12

      @Dash- Yep. Cut off all government welfare for any individual earning more 40,000 per year, cut out welfare after second child, cut off unemployment benefits after first year (some have been on for 20 years!!) Two tier disabled pension (Full disability at current rate, partial disability at half rate). Abolish tax deductions or at least standardize the refund at average rate for applicable profession. Impose a financial transactions tax on money going outside the country. Plenty of ideas that will never be implemented cos it takes political courage.

      P.S I don’t get anything for the government either. And don’t want anything from the government except to stop paying for other people’s lifestyles. The welfare state is too bloated.

    • Dash says:

      04:21pm | 21/08/12

      @Shane - I’d vote for most of that! I’m not sure about the financial transactions tax. I’d need a bit more to convince me that it will not stifle investment in Australia. International businesses will be concerned about putting capital into the country if they can’t get it out. And that’s not good.

    • Anjuli says:

      12:12pm | 21/08/12

      My granddaughter who is a high achiever at 10 going to a brilliant primary school ,now finds because of a broken promise of a new High school which is why they built there in the first place .She has to go to a very under performing high school which is in a so called under privileged area, had no passes at all into university last year. They are looking to move house ,have been told to move over to the next suburb which is a couple of streets over , they would have to go up to $100,000 more for a home which is less attractive and smaller than theirs now ,this all because of the crooked boundary line of the suburb

    • Concerned says:

      12:27pm | 21/08/12

      What people need to realise is a failure to adequately fund disadvantaged schools now will lead to a major welfare expense in the futre. The reality is that self motivated students only require a good teacher to excel (materials such as text books, well resourced classrooms etc will help a little but not as much as people think) whereas unmotivated students, often from low SES areas, require many programs and resources just to get them to the point where learning can begin to occur. As a society we need to choose, pay more for their education now and skill them up to be productive members of society or fail to invest and pay for the welfare costs in the future.

    • Dash says:

      01:20pm | 21/08/12

      You’ll get little argument on this point but, how is the extra $5billion a year to be funded? What about an increase in the GST to fund both this scheme and the NDIS which the ALP is still yet to fund.

      Lets see some forward looking tax reform now that we have an aging population and the PAYG tax base is geting smaller.

    • Big Jay says:

      02:15pm | 21/08/12

      @Dash - I largely disagree with most of your views on here but I’m glad you’re not arguing this point.

      Personally, even though I’m a left leaner, I believe a large amount of money should come from the family payments system that give parents cash to do whatever they want (from pokies to private schools for that matter). Decrease cash to parents increase cash to schools. But good luck with that!

      GST is a regressive tax (poor people pay proportionally more of their income). The idea that moving forward from here that poor people pay more tax, and well off people pay less, is really only for Americans.

    • Dash says:

      03:23pm | 21/08/12

      Big Jay - I am not arguing against the progressive tax system. Never have. What i argue for is equity in the tax system. At the moment, the top 10% of taxpayers pay more than 50% of the PAYG tax revenue. And the tax base has been reduced by the ALP. The few are wearing even more of the tax burden! Why?

      With the baby boomers leaving the workforce and the PAYG tax base diminishing, the current system is not sustainable. Something must change.

      The well off will still pay more! The point is, we all pay more, not just the top 10% of taxpayers!

      What I propose spreads the tax burden more evenly accross the economy. And it takes away the disparity between the corporate rate and the top marginal tax rate. You cannot avoid consumption. But corporates splitting their income, declaring half and operating in the cash economy are ripping the rest of us off under the current system!

      Yes GST is regressive, but it’s only part of the total tax system. The progressive tax system should be left in place. Your comment is an over simplification. Otherwise, how is this to be paid for? Give me your view.

      Are you just going to say that the people already paying most of the tax should just pay more? And everyone else should just pay the same or less? That’s what the ALP did with the carbon tax!

      In my view it is stupidity to say that “only the well off” should pay tax. Everyone who earns income should pay tax! And no individual in this country should be expected to pay an effective tax rate higher than the corporate rate.

      I do not understand why people think it’s reasonable for people trying to look after their family should pay 36%, 38% effective tax when BHP, BP, NAB etc only pay 30%. I’m sorry but that’s wrong!

      The tax mix must change! We cannot continue to rely on the top 10% of PAYG taxpayers to fund everything.

      The GST rate in Australia is low by world standards. In fact i cannot think of a western country with a lower rate. NZ is 15%, UK is 20%.

    • Esteban says:

      06:06pm | 21/08/12

      Dash. Business is the engine. All the rest are carriages.

      You can only flog the engine so much. You can debate where the theoretical maximun tax is before it becomes a disincentive to operate businesses within a country. I suspect we are at maximum.

      If you could think for a minute what is like to risk your own money in the hope of being successful only to find that you get hammered by tax. You have to give business some incentive otherwise you carriages don’t have enough engines.

      Also businesses consume less services than individuals. When was the last time you saw a business at the hospital or local school.

      Business far from get ‘sof lightly. Council rates for business is about 3 times that for individuals yet consume less services. Water rates and use, electricity, all higher for business. Business subsidises the householder.

      Without a successful business you don’t have a high tax paying payg worker.

    • Troubled says:

      12:30pm | 21/08/12

      Parents who complain that private schools don’t receive enough funding have the option to send their child to a public school. This would actually improve the state system as continually skimming off the best students lowers the standards of those who are left behind.

    • Dash says:

      01:29pm | 21/08/12

      Wow what a grat idea! Lets see how the public system copes when all the private students come knocking on the door!!

      In fact, given the parents who pay private school fees are funding the public system as well, perhaps their kids have more right to be there. I mean, they are paying more tax so they deserve to participate in the system they fund!

      Or do you think that these Parents you mention should pay even more to fund the schools they are not using?? Strange logic.

      Everyone earning over $80,000 a year should just pay for everything and everyone else should just get a free ride. That’s what the ALP are doing to our country!

      And why does the ALPs definition of “working families” seem to include the people not working and not paying tax?

    • Esteban says:

      01:03pm | 21/08/12

      All to often with government intervention money in = costs up.

    • Luke says:

      01:08pm | 21/08/12

      I think the real trouble is…
      One action does not suit all…
      There are too many schools in too many different positions…
      Some need money, others don’t, and being public or private has nothing to do with it…

    • kristen bayliss says:

      01:52pm | 21/08/12

      This is an exciting example of creative problem solving that shows that given opportunity schools can provide education to young people in a way that is valued, meaningful and ultimately results in capacity building through the community- present and future generations. Very inspiring!

    • lostinperth says:

      01:59pm | 21/08/12

      If money in = results up, then why has student performance gone down over the last 20 years whilst teacher wages have gone up markedly?

      Perhaps if teachers spent more time teaching instead of having 12 weeks annual leave, student free days, days off to protest that they only get 20% above the national wage while working 75% of the year and getting involved in union politics, our children might actually receive an education instead of whatever “politically correct crap” they are being taught.

    • Stockinbingal roo says:

      02:53pm | 21/08/12

      A conservative mix of teachers would be good but there aren’t many as teaching is below them. Law is more aspirational.

    • Big Jay says:

      02:56pm | 21/08/12

      @lostinperth - While I support more money for public schools (and public health) I worry about this being eaten up by wage demands by teachers (and nurses). We’ve already seen pushes for teachers to make $100k and trials of this have been done in NSW.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter