[Public Education] IT’S
BROKEN...FIX IT...
Above: Julia, implement Gonski now!!!
nb: Readers are also welcome to join Left Focus's Facebook Group where there is ongoing robust debate of all manner of issues relevant to the Left!
See: http://www.facebook.com/groups/58243419565/
By Jenni Devereaux
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard,
is on the defensive where the Government’s commitment to the Gonski Review is
concerned.
Responding to a question on the
implementation of the Gonski recommendations during her recent Q&A
appearance, she said that we could expect the Government “to say something in
response to Gonski in the months ahead”:
... in
the meantime, we’ve got all of our education reforms flowing, including almost
doubling the amount of money going into school education with special
arrangements to inject money into disadvantaged schools and special arrangements
to inject money into the care and support of kids disabilities.
There’s a lot one could say about
the wider question of the ALP’s education reforms, but let’s look just at the
question of Gonski and school funding since the ALP took office in
2007.
Gonski and his review panel consulted widely, commissioned a body of research on key issues around the funding of Australia’s schools, and received more than 7000 written submissions. The report was delivered on time to the government in December 2011 and publicly released in February.
As widely expected it confirmed
that Australia’s system of schools funding is unfair and inequitable. Not only
does it lack coherence and transparency, it is also unsustainable, and
contributes to widening resource gaps between schools and sectors and schooling
outcomes for students from different backgrounds; so much so that students who
live in disadvantaged areas are up to three years behind their peers in more
affluent areas.
In short, several
decades of funding arrangements largely driven by political accommodations
rather than educational policy imperatives have entrenched a deeply flawed
funding system which delivers a disproportionate share of Commonwealth funding
to Australia’s private schools at the expense of our public schools and the
majority of students who attend them.
Gonski found that Australia is
investing far too little in education and, in particular, in public schools. The
Report recommends a $5 billion a year increase in funding (2009 dollars) with
$3.8 billion to public schools which are in the greatest need, and major changes
to the way money is allocated to schools to ensure it is better targeted
to the meet the needs of students.
· A School Resource Standard [SRS] which sets a
per student dollar amount for primary and secondary students (Primary – $8,000
& Secondary - $10,500 – in 2009 figures);
·
A series of loadings depending
on the size and location of the school; the concentration of students from low
SES backgrounds; students with a disability; Indigenous students; and language
background/proficiency of students;
·
Capping the SRS for private
schools at 90% which will reduce according to their capacity to attract fees –
potentially to 20-25% of the SRS.
Despite Gonski’s insistence that
“Australia will only slip further behind unless, as a nation, we act and act
now”, there has been no commitment by the Government to deliver the urgently
needed additional funding, while the Coalition says there should be no changes
to the existing system until at least 2017. Rather, the Government says, more
consultation is required.
While there is no question that
the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments have significantly increased schools
funding, there are two significant problems with Gillard’s Q&A response in
this regard.
Firstly, a substantial proportion
of the increased funding has been of a short-term nature. The $16 billion
Building the Education Revolution infrastructure funding program has now
wound-down, and a number of short-term programs being funded through National
Partnerships Payments [NPPs] are in the process of being wound-down.
Secondly, the underlying
Commonwealth funding arrangements for public and private schools remain. The
most recent analysis of these arrangements by Dr Jim McMorrow, a leading schools
funding analyst, is based on the May Federal Budget. It shows that Commonwealth
funding for public schools is projected to decrease in real terms for
each of the financial years from 2011-12 to 2014-15. While it is projected to
increase in 2015-16 due to the re-introduction of some NPPs, the overall effect
is that public schools would receive $673 million less in real terms in 2015-16
than they received in 2011-12, a cut of 12%. In ‘per student’ terms, this would
see each public school student receiving $385 (or 16%) less.
The reduction is mainly due to the
cessation of short-term programs like the NPPs; programs from which public
schools have received more than their enrolment share of funding because they
are targeted to schools and students with higher concentrations of low SES
backgrounds and those needing greater literacy and numeracy support. These are
the schools and students hardest hit by the effects of the Budget; the very
schools and students who would benefit most from the implementation of the
Gonski recommendations.
By contrast, Commonwealth funding to private schools is projected to increase in real terms by more than $1.3 billion (or 15%) by 2015-16; a $495 (or 7%) for each private school student. And the reason for the increase?
“The assumptions built into the
Budget estimates and projections that preserve and protect the Commonwealth’s
current funding scheme for non-government schools. In particular, the ongoing
indexation of general recurrent grants ... at a level that exceeds increases in
the real costs of schooling overcompensates for the non-government sector’s
share of the budgeted reductions in National Partnership and DEEWR-administered
programs.” (http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2012/JMcMorrowBudget.pdf)
This highlights both the
“fragility and vulnerability” of public school funding and the
“inequity of an indexation measure which applies increase to non-government
schools regardless of relative need” and is what the Government’s lack of
commitment on Gonski is defending and protecting. No amount of talk about
education reform and (short-term) funding increases can justify
that.
McMorrow argues cogently that the
Budget analysis both encapsulates the very problems identified by the Gonski
review, and demonstrates the urgent need for the recommended reforms including
replacement of the existing indexation measure with a more equitable measure and
better targeting real increases to the needs of schools and students. This
requires new legislative arrangements in place before the current inequitable
funding arrangements end in 2012. The Government needs to be reminded, as Gonski
says, that “Australia will only slip further behind unless, as a nation, we
act and act now”.
Jenni Devereaux is a Federal
Research Officer of the Australian Education Union.
Is it not a bit disingenuous to focus only on *federal* funding?
ReplyDeleteCombined state-and-federal funding per student in public schools (rightly) dwarfs what state-and-federal govts provide per student to independent schools. The low-fee Catholic sector is in between, but skews things by being primarily federally funded and also educating the vast majority of private students.
When I moved my kids from our local (high ICSEA) public school to a (high ICSEA) independent school, both state, federal, and state-and-federal govt funding for my kids reduced by a combined $10,000. Had we been in a needier public school it would have been more.
Even taking into account that there's a system-wide issue when families with socio-educational advantages opt for private (concentrating disadvantage in public schools) it's not at all clear that (a) our departure could have had a $10,000 detriment on the public system or that (b) it should be the fractional funding provided to our private school (rather than this $10,000 taxpayer saving when we switched) that should be targeted for redistribution to schools in our most disadvantaged communities.
Of course there's a state v federal issue in some of this; we went independent, but if we had gone Catholic, the bulk of govt funding (which would have remained substantial) would have been shifted from the State to the Federal purse.