The experts agree: the ambition and scope of vision in the Gonski review, the first real attempt at a major overhaul of school funding in 40 years, is pretty breathtaking. Whether the government implements any of it is another matter, but this review has a clear and concise premise: look at the best-performing schools and use them as the basis for a per-student funding model applied across all sectors, load funding to reflect the needs of different schools (particularly around disabilities), then determine what’s fair for schools already receiving private contributions whether large or small, and the Commonwealth pays 30%.
As Bernard Keane writes today: “If, by some remote possibility, the Gonski funding formula or something like it ever gets up, the Gillard government would, in its brief life, have been responsible for two key reforms to the core of Commonwealth-state relations, on health and education funding.”
The health funding model didn’t go far enough, but it was a significant step toward a more coherent, logical and efficient funding mechanism across jurisdictional lines.
Tomorrow, our health writer and head of Croakey Melissa Sweet will detail the parallels between Gonski’s findings regarding education and our current health system. Issues with quality, equity and lack of transparency are all echoed within the health system and yet, as Sweet puts it, the policy silos continue.
So too with education. Cost aside, the Gonski report faces major hurdles — and a rather large wall — getting the federal and state governments to agree to the new funding model.
The policy debate around both education and health should not be about rich versus poor. It should focus on the fact the most important elements of our public polity — health and education — are caught between two levels of government in a way that seems purpose-designed to create inefficiency. That’s the real problem — not the public-private divide.
The current system of education funding has become so distorted by parochial pork barrel politics, pandering to conservative religious groups, and the funding models for private schools based on parental income requires a serious overhaul. Every Australian child should have it as a right of entitlement access to a first-class education regardless of their social,ethnic or religious background.
This should be free and secular, and those who wish to indulge a religious indoctrination should do so outside of the school system. Those who wish to buy a privileged education outcome for their children should not be subsidised from the state taxation, but if the state system is regarded as beingsubstandard, one can understand why people might want to choose an alternative.
One of the hidden issues in relation to private schooling is control of standards and behaviour. State-run schools are obliged take any student, whilst private schools can be selective in terms of both parental economic background, perceived social status, and in terms of discipline. they can also cherry pick the best it is because of scholarships which distort the outcome of year 12 results.
However it is pointless funding state schools to a high standard if they are to be disrupted by bogan morons misbehaving, and teachers not having the capacity to control poor and disruptive behaviour. school administrators must be given more disciplinary power to control disruption and poor behaviour.
The gross anomalies based on parental declared income for taxation purposes being used for private school funding decisions ignores (deliberately?) the fact that a significant number of professionals operate through trusts, and effectively declare no taxable income. The stories of children of self-employed professionals receiving Austudy to buy Audis to go to Uni on the basis that their parents have no “income” despite living in leafy suburbs and driving expensive cars funded through family trusts is legend.
State aid to religious schools commenced on the basis of the relatively low standards in the Catholic system at the time, and the fact the religious bigotry was forcing Catholic children to have a second-rate education. This situation has been grossly distorted to provide massive funding support to the private school system reinforcing privilege and is a gross misallocation of community resources. The whole system needs a complete overhaul, but I doubt that politicians will have the guts to do that.
I disagree that the real problem with school education is the divide between levels of government rather than the public and private sectors. For a start, note that almost all of the funding for private schools comes from the Australian Government while the big majority of funding for public schools comes from state and territory governments.
Next, note that since 1850 (ie, 50 years before the establishment of the Commonwealth Government and 100 years before federal funding of education) the provision of ‘State aid’ to private schools has been a recurrent theme in school funding debates.
Thirdly, the funding divisions between levels of government are less important in Australian vocational education and almost non existent in higher education, yet the public private divide is a big issue, particularly in vocational education.
Is you for real? Or do you just take your readers for fools?
The rich parents always recruit one level of govt (it used to be Howard’s federal govt, now its the Liberal State governments) to talk about how its not about rich vs poor, public vs private, its about the inefficiencies in education bureaucracies, overlapping responsibilities, blah blah blah.
Bring back Latham’s hit list and stop funding the snob factories with my taxes.
Sorry, Australian education is about rich versus poor, more so ever since John Howard pulled the trigger in 2001.
What governments actually do, in case you hadn’t noticed, is they raise taxes and they redistribute wealth and income in the form of services.
In case of education, there’s been a vastly unfair and undemocratic redistribution from the poor to the rich – not to mention the irreligious to the religious.
To say that it’s not about that is about as daft and dishonest as Gillard’s specious remark that we’ve ‘moved beyond’ public versus private.
I’m all in favour of choice; it’s a matter of who pays.
Private schools, like Private Health Insurance companies, can ‘cherry pick’ their clients, leaving the more difficult cases to the public purse. This sets up a spiral, with the public option being increasingly perceived as a second rate choice for those who can’t afford better. And those who have left the public system no longer want to pay for it – they lobby to reduce taxes while demanding public subsidy for their private choice.
We need to break the spiral.