Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Means testing education benefits

By Paul Duane - posted Tuesday, 4 June 2013


The richest 20% of Australia’s households receive up to 12% of social assistance benefits, which include public education and healthcare.  While most cash transfer benefits are means tested, some in-kind benefits are not.

In the case of education, a wealthy family with three children can enjoy total government benefits over their schooling years ranging between $143,000 for a wealthy private school, and $585,000 for a public school, to cover recurrent costs only.  Yet by definition, wealthy parents in our society should not need such help.

So let’s proceed, first, by revisiting the idea of introducing some level of user charges for better-off parents who patronize Australia's government schools.  That would seem to be the most obvious challenge facing advocates of means testing.

Advertisement

Two years ago, Tim Hawkes, headmaster of Sydney’s Kings College, and Brian Caldwell, a former dean of education at Melbourne University, proposed that wealthy parents pay something towards their children’s education, just like parents of students in private schools.

Their idea drew a riposte from a former Victorian Minister for Education, who argued (SMH 20 June 2011) that society faces a high price if we take the ‘free’ out of education: "Underlying these proposals is the provocative contention that government should not provide free education for all.  They are arguing that future public provision of schooling should be means tested and would remain free only to those in most need".

This traditional view of public education funding is clearly indifferent to the large benefits that it confers on rich parents.  And it contrasts with the widespread acceptance of means testing of subsidies given to private provision of schooling. 

At present, the federal government determines its subsidies to the most wealthy private schools to be 13.7% of a construct called 'Average Government School Recurrent Cost'.  In 2011, this AGSRC was $10,583, and the related subsidy for 'wealthy' schools was therefore $1,450 per student, which was more than five times smaller than the equivalent subsidy intended for the 'poorest' schools.

While the federal government’s method of varying subsidies between private schools is controversial, its intended purpose is to means test them.

State and Territory subsidies on the other hand are not as remarkable in their distributional aims.  For ease of exposition, let's just add the average State and Territory recurrent cost subsidies for all private schools in 2010-11 to the above $1,450.  This would bring average public assistance to wealthy private schools to about $3670 per student, which would have helped lower such schools' minimum tuition fees to perhaps $20,000.     

Advertisement

In contrast, well-off parents of children who patronized a government school in 2010-11 enjoyed  average recurrent cost subsidies of $15,002 per student.  Their fees were virtually nil.

Translating these figures into family-sized benefits, public subsidies given to a wealthy family educating three children over 13 years of schooling totalled $143,000 for private schools and $585,000 for public schools, the latter exceeding the former by $442,000.

At $442,000 each, only 2,262 such families are needed for this extra government funding to reach $1billion.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Paul Duane had careers in the Federal Public Service and the World Bank, working on agricultural and economic development issues. An interest in education led him to make a submission to the Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Paul Duane

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy