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

To Gonski or not to Gonski...?

By Scott Prasser - posted Thursday, 13 June 2013


When Labor came to federal power in 2007, it promised to instigate education reform. Though it made much about introducing laptops into schools, the real issue that had to be reviewed was Federal Government funding to schools. It had been nearly four decades since the last comprehensive review of federal school resourcing. The existing system was becoming unbalanced. Politics had prevented well founded funding formula being applied to all schools.

In response to this, the Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling (the Gonski Review) was commissioned in April 2010 by the then Rudd Labor Government and Education Minister Julia Gillard to review Commonwealth school funding. It was initially seen as a genuine attempt by the Rudd Government to review the current school funding. The Gonski Review is what is deemed a “public inquiry” – a temporary, ad hoc body with members drawn from outside government, using open processes of consultation and seen to be providing independent expert advice.

What makes the Australian school system different, and why this funding issue is so important, is that one in three children go to non-government schools and these schools receive considerable government funding. Most of this comes from the Federal Government in Canberra, with some top-up also going to the public schools.

Advertisement

The States are responsible for 76 percent of total government spending on all school education in Australia, but they mainly allocate their funds to the public schools, with less support to the non-government sector. Just to clarify, on average, in 2008-09 a government school student received $13,544 in public funding and a non-government school student received marginally more than half this amount – $6,850. The average independent school student received a little less – $6,100.

The debate in Australia has been about whether we are spending enough on education (we are about average), the performance of our students (middle to high ranking) and whether governments should fund the non-government sector and, if so, by how much. Mixed in here are concerns about equity, helping those in disadvantaged categories improve and, for some, seeing the school system as the means to improve social inequality.

In summary, the Gonski Review, which was released in February 2012, has recommended an increase in spending on schools (about $5 billion extra a year), a new complex formula for funding schools and increased Commonwealth involvement in school funding. Some hail it as a “reform” while others see Gonski as making a complex system more complex, involving a too-intrusive intrusion by the Commonwealth into school education about which it has no direct experience.

The greatest criticism of Gonski is that it does not provide the evidence for its proposals of increased spending. Indeed, Australian and overseas evidence is that it is not spending levels, but where and how you spend the money, that makes the difference to quality education.

After all, spending on education has increased by about 40 percent over a decade, with classrooms getting smaller by about the same amount and quality not improving. Moreover, Australia has long been providing extra funding to disadvantaged students, though its impact has been limited in terms of real improvements, and the link between performance and those students with lower socioeconomic backgrounds is not as straightforward as some would suggest.

In other words, other factors like school governance and flexibility, quality teaching, parental involvement, school choice and the existence of a private school system and targeted programs to those with special needs, are what improve school quality. The Gonski Review had surprisingly little to say about these matters.

Advertisement

Consequently, the public debate post-Gonski has degenerated into a squabble over just spending more money, which political party will promise how much and whether state governments will sign up and make their contributions.

Sadly, the old debates about public versus non-government schools have been reignited rather than dampened. All this has been fanned by the public teachers’ union which wants more spending, and a Federal Government desperate to stake out a policy area where it boast it is really different from the Opposition.

The Gonski Review is a failure in terms of its process, the evidence it uses (and ignores) and its recommendations that seek to create a more complex school funding system.

Its greatest failure is that it did not tackle the myths surrounding school funding and the vested interests that are resistant to the changes that would improve school quality and help Australia continue to compete in the international arena.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

Originally published by Blue's Country in June 2013.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

14 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

Scott Prasser is Professor of Public Policy and was Executive Director of the Public Policy Institute at the Australian Catholic University. Scott has worked previously in senior policy and research roles in federal and state governments and in several universities in Victoria, NSW and Queensland. Recently, Scott co-edited with Associate Professor Nicholas Aroney and J.R. Nethercote the book Restraining Elective Dictatorship: The Upper House Solution? He has just written with Helen Tracey a report entitled Beyond Gonski: Reviewing the Evidence on Quality Schooling.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Scott Prasser

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

Photo of Scott Prasser
Article Tools
Comment 14 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy