Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, when in opposition promised an education revolution, and although it has got underway slowly, it is in fact happening even if it looks more Darwinian than revolutionary. The paramount reason is that what is required is an extensive reconstruction of a decaying system rather than its overthrow -- a far more complex undertaking.

To date what the Rudd government has not done is to designate a body to develop a thorough  understanding of what Australia requires of its educational system from primary school through university. That will take several years to complete and it must be followed by determining the budgetary requirements and designing the methodology to realise the goals set.

If accomplishing the task sounds as though it will be at least as complicated as building CERNS Large Hadron Collider -- it is -- and from the viewpoint of Australian's wellbeing it is of far greater consequence. Yet would the experimental and theoretical physics establishments go about designing and constructing the LHC by commissioning a four month review followed by a submission to Cabinet which then decides on a partial course of action dealing with one segment of the construct while fiddling around with questionable models of constraint such as ERAs and hubs and spokes?

Nevertheless, there is reason for cautious optimism. Australia's Chief Scientist, astronomer Professor Penny Sackett, is also the Executive Officer of the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (PMSEIC). She has indicated that at its next meeting, scheduled for June 5, she believes the "menu" of challenges the council's standing committee is to present will be well received by the Prime Minister, his Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Minister, Kim Carr, and the 10 other ministerial members* -- although how many will be representing themselves is unclear.

In broad outline Professor Sackett says: "Having presented some broad ideas, some conversation starters ... we want to engage in consultation regarding the foresighting process with the Prime Minister and ministers," and by way of explanation she says they are looking toward "the next 10 to 50 years, what problems might Australia face? And then we do a stocktake of where we are now and draw a line, including the challenges and opportunities that might intersect that line. We want to identify the gaps in our knowledge and try to fill them. What we are about is, that if the ship needs to be turned, that we (should be) signalling the need to do it long before it becomes critical".

As always the devil will be in the detail, just what resources the government will be willing to allocate, and will there be any attempt to develop a multi-partisan approach? In short how far beyond a hand-waving exercise will Professor Sackett and her "standing committee" be able to advance the concepts they put forward?

Here I believe it's worth drawing attention to one point of comparison involving Australia and the US state of California which, if closely examined, might give a clue as to an important direction that might be taken.

Learning and research are the foundation of a first world state. Compare the ten universities (campuses) of the University of California^§ with the eight universities of Australia's Group of Eight.

If the SJTU rankings have meaning, what are the reasons for the discrepancy between the two groups, keeping in mind that the UC set are public universities, with modest endowments, large commitments to the teaching of undergraduates, and face stringent financial constraints.

A thorough and critical comparative analysis by a reinvented PMSEIC might be a good starting point.