School reform in a climate of political instability

The cause celebre that has characterised the continuing immolation of the Gillard government will undoubtedly influence government decision making involving school funding.

The government’s failure to adequately prepare and subsequently comprehensively present its proposed changed media laws, plus the withdrawal of changes to the anti-discrimination act, plus target cuts as the NBN roll-out pace falters have fractured the government’s legislative legitimacy.

Notwithstanding these policy humiliations the government faces a deeper underlining issue, namely, the Prime Minister’s leadership fragility under the weight of continuing, election losing polling for her and the government.

Regardless of the government’s re-election chances the instability that now daily racks the parliamentary party has flow-on consequences for yet to be confirmed legislation involving school funding and education changes emanating from the Gonski review.

The ALP has long been regarded by voters as the party most attuned with and best receptive to improving schools and education overall. This strong electoral mandate will have inevitably suffered as the government struggles to gain voter traction and secure funding consensus with the states/territories.

With the May budget looming - and party leadership instability continuing - serious doubt exists that the Minister for School Education can secure agreement to implement a comprehensive new funding proposal.

In attempting to regain the government’s initiative Minister Garrett stated that solid progress on funding reform was being made with the states/territories. He advised that as many as 12 funding options were being considered as if the multiplicity of alternatives provided conviction that the federal government was indeed progressing towards an agreement.

If so many proposals are being considered the possibility of securing state/territory agreement seems even more remote especially as the May 7 budget countdown will require a raft of financial assessments noting the unceasing escalation in the nation’s national deficit. In addition the states will be reluctant to add hundreds of millions of dollars to their own education commitments noting their own tight fiscal circumstances.

The government has been widely and justifiably criticised for its inability to present cogent fiscal details to back its rhetoric on school improvement. Uncertainty over school funding closely aligns with other stuttering legislative initiatives such as the disability allowance program and a national dental scheme.

Such worthwhile programs will remain merely grandiose ideals if the federal government cannot sustain their progressive financing over the long term. In light of the current political and fiscal uncertainty what outcomes can education expect regarding the present funding imbroglio?

i)Mr Garrett will cobble together ‘an agreement to agree’ with state and territory representatives. While many components of the Gonski review are commendable they will require additional consultation between governments to determine the ultimate funding structure across sectors.

Political outcome: The federal government will be perceived to have achieved funding agreement while progressing towards a fully comprehensive program, surely a political win.

ii) The federal government will offer a nominal capital injection – that will also satisfy Treasury’s deliberations for the May budget – and will call on the states to commit funding injections in accord with percentage allocations thrashed out at the April COAG meeting.

Political outcome: Such resolution will be triumphantly announced by the PM as initiating major school reforms, aka, “believe me when I commit the government to education improvement for all Australian students”. The government’s budget allocation will fall well short of the $6.5 billion being bandied about as the annual funding injection required to implement constructive schooling reform.

iii)Because it seems highly improbable the vexatious issue of SES modifications can be finalised before the April COAG meeting – and because financial implications resulting from any changes to the AGSRC measurement will impact on state budgets – the government will announce with much fanfare that the current SES determined recurrent funding to non-government schools will be extended beyond 31 December 2013 to 31 December 2014 thereby retaining funding to independent schools.

Political outcome: The Prime Minister will brazenly claim this result assures the non-government sector – and those parents wishing to vote Labor – that her party cares for and understands all education sectors and promotes a non-discriminatory funding policy. This outcome sustains earlier government statements that independent schools will ‘not lose a dollar’ of funding under her government. The states will be blamed for any subsequent non-delivery of funding support.

School reform and education funding will remain fundamentally inseparable from political machinations, an all-too apparent reality leading up to the September election.

Ms Gillard needs a circuit breaker to offset the recent political upheavals to show her government has not lost its fundamental task to present acceptable policy to the Australian electorate. She will desperately demand school reform provide that surge in political current although with many elements of the Gonski review being progressively eviscerated perhaps schools are facing intermittent power failures rather than illuminating long term improvement.

A travesty for Australian students will occur if the momentum to positively improve school outcome and student performance is lost or because continuing political partisanship fails to deliver adequate government assistance to education.

Political infighting or subsequent inertia from the incoming federal government in September will further inhibit that momentum which, when lost, will be extremely difficult to regain.

In the current polarised political climate positive indicators of progress are barely discernible.