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

No surprises on funding commentary

By John Benn - posted Thursday, 22 August 2013


Some media have realised that the ALP has been missing an electoral advantage by not pushing harder its school proposals which traditionally have gained political advantage for the party over recent elections.

The Australian Financial Review (Financial Review, 2013) seems to have discovered truths that have been apparent to most astute commentators on school improvement for many months. Four main inferences are raised by the Financial Review article, but they are more complex than they look.

1. Prime Minister Rudd is discovering that education is central to the ALP's re-election chances.

Advertisement

During the course of his first prime ministership Mr Rudd conveniently left much of the running on education to his capable and extremely passionate deputy Julia Gillard. Any leadership role is generally complacent to bask in their underling's achievements so in this regard Kevin Rudd was no exception.

After being axed Mr Rudd enthusiastically adopted his ultimate political goal to stride a much wider international stage through the foreign affairs portfolio leaving school reform to the more experienced but no less diminished passion of Prime Minister Gillard.

Following her axing Mr Rudd was quick to endorse Ms Gillard's efforts to seek state/territory consensus for Gonski funding outcomes although, as before, Mr Rudd is more political show that policy go. His sole contribution to the school improvement debate was to rebadge Gonski to assume a more politically neutral epithet – Better Schools.

While some Gonski recommendations remain effective schooling reform has subverted to a variety of individual financial deals with states/territories to secure their agreement to the federal government's intentions which remain primarily politically motivated. How can the ALP secure state/territory agreement - and supposed national consensus - by offering more money to sign on to whatever remains of the Gonski proposals?

Three governments remained sidelined to signing – Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory – while Victoria only signed at the eleventh hour after the federal government backed down on some of its earlier prerequisites concerning increased federal domination of schools if states were to receive additional federal funding.

Because differing deals have been presumably signed with the earlier agreeing constituents – NSW, SA, ACT and Tasmania – it is expedient to ask what national consensus on school funding now exists between the states/territories and the federal government?

Advertisement

If differing states/territories have gained pre-emptive funding advantages won't states not so advantaged have every right to challenge constitutionally the entire funding package?

If non-signatory WA, Qld and NT governments fail to receive commensurate future increased funding won't they seek restoration of funding equality through a constitutional challenge?

Mr Rudd likes to be photographed beaming widely in front of adoring school children as if such news photos or 'selfie' exposure gives him electoral credibility for schooling reform.

It hasn't and it never will because the entire school funding proposals have been so politicised that the real issues of educational improvement – or as The Australian Financial Review headline announces 'Schools need more than money' - has failed to ignite broader electoral debate.

The August 15 article 'Lies, damned lies and statistics' - www.eduEducators.com.au - provides a more expansive outline on the federal government's less than generous contribution to improved school funding over the next three years

2. If the coalition is elected long term funding for schools will be jeopardised.

This electorally-biased question is raised by Australian Education Union advertisements proclaiming the coalition will dump ALP school funding through Gonski-backed proposals over the last two years of the ALP's six year funding package.

In seeking to minimise any electoral differences with the ALP the coalition agreed to 'a unity ticket' that would guarantee schools receive additional school funding for four years not the six years promoted by the ALP. Failing to complete the last two years of bulk funding will, according to the AEU, jeopardise the entire school funding program if the coalition is elected.

What the AEU has ignored is that the federal government's forward estimates for national accounts extends for a four year period only meaning the coalition has every right to project its school funding allocations within that more condensed timeframe.

Progressing expenditures into the 2018/19 and 2019/20 accounting periods – when around two thirds of the ALP's additional school funding is to be apportioned – carries significant risks during times of economic uncertainty, a reality known to the ALP which itself would probably re-examine unless improved national accounts and supposed surpluses can be achieved by 2016/17 as forecast.

3. That generous school funding will flow from a re-elected Labor government.

The Australian Financial Review perpetuates the concept that the new funding model will provide a 'minimum standard of funding provided per student' – over $12,000 a year for secondary students (actually $12,193 per student) and over $9,000 for a primary student (actually $9,271) as part of the Gonski-proposed School Resource Standard (SRS).

Read in isolation this sounds very generous to an uninformed reader of the Financial Review. The actual existing funding reality is that the states/territories already receive per capita funding in accord with known costs of educating a child in a government school – the AGSRC measurement – which for 2012 allocations amounts to:

Primary students $10,057, slightly higher than the current government-offered SRS allocation

Secondary students $12,445, slightly below the current government-offered SRS allocation.

The truth remains that the commonwealth already offers AGSRC-based per capita student grants which, in the case of primary students is more generous than the new SRS amount but in the case of secondary students (which far outnumber primary students attending all Australian schools) is less than the current recurrent payment from Canberra.

Allocating a conservative 5% average school cost increase for the new 2014 school year over the 2012 AGSRC index would create the following per capita actual costs of educating a child in a government school:

Primary students $10,550, costs significantly above the SRS offer

Secondary students $13,065, costs significantly above the SRS offer

Both expenditure/cost levels are higher than the respective amounts being offered by the current government under the SRS allocation.

The federal government has made great play that any additional funding will be determined through a range of loading assessments depending on school location, size, indigenous students, disadvantaged students, English language teaching requirements, etc but the unanswered question remains for state-based funding allocations: how will Canberra determine individual school loading criteria and then impose those allocations onto essentially state-based school bureaucracies?

The administrative complexity of such negotiations beggars belief. How an incoming ALP government hopes to adequately reconcile its school loading criteria to the non-government school sector remains unanswered when it's abundantly clear the majority of those loadings covering educational disadvantage will rightly flow to public schools.

4. That money from 'both state and federal sources will follow the student no matter which school in which sector they attend'.

All schools receive both federal and state funding allocations. The level of direct commonwealth funding to the non-government sector remains proportionally higher than to the public sector although public education receives massive commonwealth funding support through COAG agreements.

The actual level of financial underpinning going to each public school remains blurred as state bureaucracies make subsequent funding allocations within the sector whereas individual commonwealth payments to independent schools are separately itemised and so can be more readily publicised by critics of sector recurrent funding.

Critics of recurrent funding to the non-government sector conveniently fail to ignore the funding contribution made to all schools by ALL governments, federal and state. In 2009-10 the recurrent per capita funding from ALL governments applied to the following school recipients:

Government schools $14,380 per student

Non-government schools $7,430 per student (basically comprising catholic systemic schools)

Independent schools $6,450 per student (non aligned independent schools) (Snapshot 2012).

The public school sector rightly received the majority share of ALL government funding allocations, an inconvenient truth the AEU fails to acknowledge in opposing any recurrent funding to the non-public school sector.

5. Both major parties are essentially locked in to direct additional funds to schools in the future.

The Australian Financial Review's claim that the 'prospect of a future Coalition government retreat on the promised money – even in four years' time – (is) that much harder' may well be true but the national economic climate will strongly dictate any such funding decision whichever major political party in is power in 2018.

Ideally all educationalists would hope additional money will continue to flow towards all education – schools and higher learning – although the past promise that additional funding will automatically improve schooling outcomes has proven a mirage.

Considerable past money has been allocated to schools – the $16.2 billion BER outlay being an ALP highlight – but the money has not reversed steadily declining international comparisons for Australian students notably in poor literacy, numeracy and scientific skills or static improvement in highly academically gifted students.

A fundamental re-assessment of the more than $40 billion annual schooling allocation from all governments should become a national priority that involves federal leadership to achieve improved student outcomes as well as state/territory involvement to realise the national urgency to co-operatively and comprehensively move towards improved student goals.

Unless such a national vision is promulgated schools and higher education remain what they have been demonstrably degraded across numerous parliaments – a battleground for electoral advantage - rather than a fundamental bell weather measurement of Australia's international standing in teaching and learning performance.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

This article was first published on eduEducators.com.au.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 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

John Benn has more than 25-year's administrative experience in fund raising, communications and marketing in the non-government school sector. He blogs on education matters affecting schools on www.edueducators.com.au. He holds post graduate degrees in communication from The University of Technology Sydney.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John Benn

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

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy