Analysing Gonski
Few educationalists can doubt the Gillard Government will place considerable faith in the outcomes from the school funding review headed by Mr David Gonski AC, an eminent Sydney businessman and lawyer.
Although the committee has revealed little information to date the six-person panel has been receiving submissions nationally over the last twelve months. Interim reports may be released over the next three months with a final report due by the end of the year.
How the government moves on review recommendations remains conjectural although the entire issue of school funding remains mired in political controversy. Neither the Rudd nor Gillard governments chose to alter the current Socio-Economic Status Model (SES) funding arrangements set out by the Howard Government in 2001.
Critics of this funding policy claim it unfairly favours non-government schools at the expense of the public sector. Such unfairness – it is claimed – springs from the higher proportion of federal funding received by non-government schools rather than the public sector.
Such unfairness turns a blind eye to the published fact that public school funding has always been a state government responsibility based on federal/state government loan agreements to support such educational allocations.
Critics also conveniently ignore that based on the relative per capita cost of educating a school-age child substantially more combined government funding is allocated to the public sector than to independent schooling. The difference in the comparative education costs comprises payments from parents as tuition fees.
One vocal critic of the present funding system, Professor Jack Keating from the University of Melbourne, believes the Gonski Review will provide an unrivalled opportunity to formally and finally resolve the issue of national school funding (The Conversation, 2011).
Prof Keating claims the funding allocation policy has created an intractable situation categorised by social divisiveness with school sectors being split based primarily on wealth.
Most attention has focussed on the federal government’s role to fund independent schools disproportionally to public schools.
While media driven commentary reinforces this belief any consequence of social divisiveness should have also focussed on the role of state government funding support that has been inadequate and highly disjointed towards the public sector with generally poor policy and/or inadequate implementation of strategic solutions.
Case in point is provided by previous NSW government decisions to sell certain inner suburban public schools only to see that subsequent population and demographic changes have resulted in a resurgent schooling demand in those suburbs.
With no public schooling option available – and with generally higher income earning families moving into revitalised inner suburbs – the result has seen an inevitable swing towards independent school enrolments.
The federal government’s intervention in school refurbishment through the BER program classically demonstrated past failures in state government funding strategies.
Despite the BER’s administrative problems at least the Rudd and Gillard governments committed to invest in school facility and infrastructure improvements. Many state governments failed to accept such financial responsibility.
Prof Keating believes the Gonski review should attempt to achieve more equitable education outcomes across school sectors. Such a commendable goal, however, appears to be totally based on increasing funding for the public sector at the expense of current funding allocations towards independent schools, an approach that is readily and vocally supported by the Australian Education Union.
Such an assumption can be challenged on at least two grounds.
First, it tacitly implies that funding alone holds the key to improved learning outcomes. Funding support is fundamental to achieve better schooling but so too are operational and teaching conditioners that delivery quality learning.
Second, it makes an inequitable assumption that somehow funding to non-government sector students can be sacrificed to accommodate the wider educational good.
Perhaps funding critics are convinced by their own press statements that private sector schools are inherently rich and can be conveniently excluded from per capita student support. Does that represent an equitable outcome for all Australian school students?
Funding equity should be just that: governments should implement equitable arrangements that include all students without excluding pupils whose parents choose to enrol their child at an independent school.
Prof Keating claims inherent structural unfairness within the current system requires radical overhaul.
Inequity also prevails, according to Prof Keating, because the non-government sector has autonomy over student enrolments and enjoys increased flexibility regarding principal and staff appointments.
Prof Keating adds the proviso that because the public sector carries responsibility to educate all students of differing abilities – but non-government schools possess the freedom to implement selective enrolment procedures – this exacerbates inherent inequity across sectors.
Such unjustified criticism relates more to differing operational criteria between the two sectors rather than any fundamental distinctiveness in funding.
Independent schools have always enjoyed freedom to ‘hire and fire’ employees. To suddenly equate this inherent management responsibility to modern norms of equity is mystifying and unsubstantiated.
The perennial chestnut regarding selective school enrolments is hardly a justifiable reason to preclude per capita funding but more a reference to social inequity. Because a school is deemed rich, a classification generally attributable to charging high tuition fees or enjoying modern facilities, critics assume such institutions can afford to exclude the average from the well-do-do student.
Based on such socio-economic educational apartheid why should that independent school receive government funding to sustain its perceived exclusiveness?
Prof Keating would do well to closely examine the bulk of non-government school’s demographics and the diversity of socio-economic students they enrol.
Proof of this enrolment reality can be measured in the SES classification itself which critics of recurrent funding are so keen to dismiss as arbitrary and inappropriate.
Apart from the small minority of schools with the highest SES determination (130 or greater) which receive 13.7% of the AGSRC fund determination the majority of non-government schools receive higher federal funding because they actually enrol students across a wide cross section of economic stratum.
Critics may dismiss the current SES protocol as inappropriate but they cannot deny it does reflect actual socio-economic diversity that exists across most independent schools.
Many independent school leaders agree that the basis of the SES modelling should be reviewed as should the process whereby funding retained schools continue to receive guaranteed commonwealth money despite possible changes to their SES profile over time.
Such structural changes cannot equate to Prof Keating’s statement that because of the SES protocol private schools are providing ‘cultural incentives for a select group of the community’ (The Conversation, op cit).
Prof Keating attempts to substantiate this statement by claiming such schools are attracting students ‘from the western suburbs’ who will record a low SES calculation (based on combinations of income, family background, etc) thereby ensuring the school receives a higher rate of funding.
To claim independent schools engage in such structured social engineering is fanciful.
Because of the increased competition to attract student enrolments during more difficult economic conditions most schools accept enrolments across all demographic and social groups provided they determine, in conjunction with the parent and the student, that a particular school and its values and ethos will benefit the student.
The reality remains that in Sydney, for example, those independent schools located near rail transport will attract students from across the metropolitan area or from feeder bus or ferry hubs.
Some schools operate their own buses to bring students from more diverse suburbs where such direct transport links are not possible or to avoid parents driving children across the city to attend the school of their choice.
In many instances such students are being enrolled from SES districts that are totally opposite to Prof Keating’s assumption, that is, the school’s SES classification is notionally worse because of such enrolment practices.
Prof Keating makes the sweeping international comparison that unlike other OECD countries Australia has managed to mire itself in such an intractable problem related to government funding.
There are two main reasons for this situation, neither of which should be compared to OECD nations:
i) Australia has arguably the highest national percentage of students – around 34% - attending non-government schools which remains a fundamental reason why this country exhibits such a large commitment to fund the sector by international comparisons.
ii) Such sector attendance is conditioned by a number of factors including a perception of improved education quality, dedicated professional teaching staff, strong discipline and leadership, an adherence to values that better equate to family expectations coupled with an overall community disappointment in alternate public education.
Like so many other critics within this debate merely bashing the independent school sector for its apparent funding largesse examines one side of the recurrent funding issue.
If a realigned funding model is recommended by the Gonski Review – and it seems a needs-based approach is an inevitability considering federal funds for schooling are not inexhaustible – any revised school funding must include a re-evaluation of public school effectiveness, including the contentious and still-to-be-resolved role of state government support for public education.
Such outcomes will inevitably revolve around political solutions.
With the federal government and its state ALP counterparts in South Australia and Queensland facing enormous electoral challenges it is problematic how much of the Gonski funding reform agenda will actually be effectively implemented within the next three years.
In the meanwhile inconsistent generalisations concerning supposed recurrent funding shortcomings cannot be left unchallenged.
The Conversation. The Gonski review; finding a path through the school funding maze. www.theconversation.edu.au/the-gonski-review. 20 July 2011.
Comments: