Revealing reasons for MySchool
In a long editorial justifying its decision to publish a league table of school results from the MySchool website the Sydney Morning Herald’s ultimate reason for publishing such information was to ‘create a groundswell for change – in education funding in particular.’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 2010)
This realisation should come as no surprise to thinking independent school leaders, many of whom have expressed concern regarding the government’s ultimate objective in creating the website in the first place.
The Rudd Government has continually claimed the website will provide ‘transparency’ to identify areas of educational need and generate ‘equity’ to ensure all students are given opportunity to achieve their highest possible level of schooling attainment.
Each fully justifiable outcome is inexorably bound into the issue of funding, a point clearly made by the government in its massive infrastructure injection to schools although those allocations also underpinned the government’s economic stimulus package to confront the world-side economic downturn in 2009.
Changing the rationale for school funding, based on a determination of need, directly confronts the issue of recurrent resourcing to the non-government school sector.
As this blog has long highlighted, adequate and equitable resourcing requires a rationale that is acceptable electorally within a medium term political climate involving considerable manoeuvring for public funding support for a wide range of needy and necessary social, economic and fiscal programs.
The question of SES-based recurrent funding allocations was highlight on www.eduEducators.com.au as a significant issue facing independent schools this year.
The SMH’s editorial provides further evidence that the MySchool website will reveal those schools requiring additional funding support.
The SMH states this argument thus: ‘By making public the comparative performance data of all schools it is allowing all Australians to see, in effect, how each school, public and private, is using its funding, and to judge how well taxpayers’ funds are being spent.
‘It should lead eventually to thoroughgoing reform of educational funding.’ (SMH, op cit)
Thinking educationalists would see this rationale merely as a smokescreen for strengthening government intervention in all school funding for public, catholic and independent school institutions.
How a school uses its funds has always been crystal clear to school administrators.
Schools use the bulk of income, irrespective of its source, to pay teachers and staff to deliver quality education to young people.
For most independent schools staff pay accounts for between 75 – 90% of total school expenditure, depending on staff;student ratios, gender pay differences, size of school, capital repayment schedules, etc.
School income differs according to a range of variables that include its SES status and the quantum of funds received from private sources, primarily tuition fees and to a lesser extent, donations, endowments, foundation support and interest from invested funds.
The critical SMH issue is not how independent schools USE recurrent funds but the SOURCE and QUANTUM of funds received by a school.
All schools must use their funds judiciously if they want to remain financially viable.
The government has flagged that future MySchool website developments will include details of school funding which conveniently fits into the Government mantra of ‘transparency’ and ‘equity.’
Funding sources for schools remains a highly contentious issue.
If a school is deemed to be well funded – however the government makes that assessment – a sound political and electoral argument can readily be mounted that such a school does not require funding from the public purse.
Such an assessment also conveniently aligns with determining school need and judgements regarding the extent and quality of education resources.
Why should a school with excessive resources – or an ability to raise ancillary funds to support improved facilities as determined by a modified SES assessment process - continue to receive generous funding support from government?
Questions regarding the appropriateness of the website’s Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) remain largely unanswered by the government.
Apparent anomalies and inconsistencies abound. No doubt many such inconsistencies will be corrected when school funding details are posted to the website.
Government is already well aware of its funding commitments to all independent schools through its SES program.
Similarly it is relatively easy even for independent commentators to determine broad fee income by tabulating student numbers against the school’s tuition fee structure, details of which are often posted on many school websites anyway.
Seeking and receiving often confidential and sometimes highly sensitive information regarding donations, bequests, endowments or other sources of private income poses challenges for all schools.
For example, will a struggling public school be keen to reveal funds raised by its tuck shop or charity drives when that hard won money is critical to finance ancillary school supplies? Will such funds change the school’s basis of need?
Should an independent school of long standing be financially penalised if a generous donor bequeaths money to sustain higher educational standards for future student generations?
The SMH revealed its true intention towards the end of its editorial justification.
‘In a field where public debate about the distribution of funds between public and private schools has for too long been conducted in the thick fog of rumour and prejudice, accurate comparisons will for the first time shine a clear light.’
Expect the question of recurrent funding to non-government schools to remain a contentious issue.
If nothing else expect the SMH to continue to focus editorial light on school funding into the future.
Why we are publishing a league table, Sydney Morning Herald Editorial, 29 January 2010, p 14. www.smh.com.au
Operating issues in 2010 – school’s recurrent funding, 21 December 2009. www.eduEducators.com.au
Comments: