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

Another Gonski deadline ….

By Dean Ashenden - posted Wednesday, 3 July 2013


Another Gonski deadline has come and gone, and yet another has been set. What is it with this Gonski business?

Here is everything you wanted to know about Gonski but were too fed up to ask. 

How long has this soap been running?

Advertisement

Since April 2010, when then-education minister Julia Gillard announced a Review of Funding for Schooling, to be chaired by the ubiquitous businessman and philanthropist David Gonski.

Terms of reference were not finalised until July 2010. In December 2010 the review panel published an issues paper, and then got down to serious work. Five thousand seven hundred submissions, 39 school visits, 71 formal consultations and four commissioned papers later the final report went to the federal government in December 2011. In February 2012, now-prime minister Gillard released the report, provided a lukewarm endorsement, and announced yet-more consultations.

Six months on the government's worries about its electoral prospects had deepened. Gonski would be its salvation. An 'education crusade' was declared, and in December Gonski was encased in 'the most important legislation of 2012'.

In the absence of any agreement with any of the eight state and territory governments or the Catholic and independent sectors, the legislation was entirely contentless. The detail would be finalised and agreed at COAG's April 2013 meeting. In fact the meeting produced only acrimony. The deadline was extended again, to June 30.

Come June 26 only NSW, South Australia and the ACT had signed, although the Catholic and independent sectors were said to be on side. The Australian Education Act, now with content, albiet incomplete, passed through the Senate within hours of Julia Gillard losing her job. Two days later her successor announced to a startled press gallery that he was a reasonable man, and so another fortnight would be ok.

What is 'Gonski', now?

Advertisement

Not what it was. Gonski wanted: a 'national schools resourcing body' to disburse all public funds, state and federal, to all schools, irrespective of sector. Schools would get a base amount plus loadings according to size, location, and how many poor, Aboriginal, and non-English-speaking students they enrolled.

The loadings would be tightly concentrated on just one in four schools, most but not all of them in the government sector. It would cost around $5 billion (later raised to $6.5 billion) on top of the current annual government spend of around $40 billion and the often-forgotten $7 billion or so from non-government sector parents. Some of the new money would come from the federal government, some from the states.

What we now have is: no national body; separate deals on offer to each government and sector; a promise that each system in each state will decide how to use its money; agreement that the money will be spread much more thinly (over half of all schools rather than one quarter), and loadings, by one calculation, to comprise just 17 per cent of the total; a promise that every independent school will be better off; very little money for the first two years, and two more years before full flow; and a new requirement that every school (all 9500 of them) would have to prepare 'development plans'.

We still have five hold-outs, two of them (WA and Queensland) seriously stroppy, and the probable next federal government saying (in its third policy iteration) that unless every system signs up it will stick with the old funding scheme for the short term at least.

In sum, what was proposed as a serious national assault on educational poverty has been turned into a familiar brawl among nine governments and three sectors over who gets how much of the pie.

Will it happen?

Even in the event of a Rudd miracle, and in the event of all states and sectors getting on board, and even in its now-attenuated form, Gonski will face serious obstacles. By 2016, when the real money is proposed to flow, budgets may be even tighter than they now are. If so, ways will be found to re-schedule, to trim, and to steal from Peter to pay Paul.

A Coalition government would go further. Tony Abbott has several times claimed that the present system is 'not broken', Gonski's scathing evaluation of it notwithstanding. Abbott shares with his entire party room a belief in making 'choice' more 'widely available' through subsidies to non-government schools rather then leveling up the playing field. That will have to be balanced against widespread public support for Gonski, and endorsement of it by one or more conservative state governments.

If all states do sign up an Abbott government will have two years before real money is required in which to nip and tuck, duck and weave. If one or two states do hold out (as Abbott is urging them to do), the political task will be so much the easier.

Will/would it make any difference?

Yes, no, maybe, and no again. Yes, it would cheer up the schools doing the hardest yards and the government sector generally, for a while anyway. More importantly it would reinforce two important principles: that all schools, and not just the govvies, serve common and public purposes; and that public effort should be deployed to reduce the impact on kids of huge differences in what their families can do for them.

No, it would not make much if any difference to the steady flow of 'aspirational' families into schools catering to families just like them. Any Gonski money will/would be nowhere near enough to change massive differences in schools' social, political, cultural and educational capital, the last of these provided mainly by students, to each other.

Maybe 'Gonski', taken together with other recent developments including more and more public information about schools' performance, and pressure on performance (from the OECD's international comparisons particularly), will see at least some improvement in some curriculum areas, among some groups of students and schools.

No, it will not get Australia into the top five by '25, not least because other systems will improve more quickly than ours can.

Should it be supported?

Yes, strongly, but conditionally. The principles involved are fundamental, and however disappointing the specifics may be when compared with what Gonski wanted, Gonski-lite is very much better than the alternative. The money involved is not huge; indeed, it seems likely to fall below the growth trend of recent years, around six per cent.

The key condition: further progress should only be made by doing what Gonski unfortunately failed to suggest: using 'new' money to loosen the iron grip held on 'old' money by industrial agreements centred on class sizes and other conditions of students' and teachers' work. That is essential if schools are to have more say on and responsibility for how they get results.

What are the morals of the story?

Two matter most. First, Australian schooling is badly in need of re-engineering. Current talk is all about good schools, but what we really need is a good school system.

Gonski had the right idea: all schools should be funded according to the difficulty of the educational job they do on our behalf. That idea needs substantial extension, however: all schools should enjoy a similar kind and degree of 'autonomy', and all should play by the same rules, including how much money per student they are allowed to spend. All families should pay (or not) on the same basis, irrespective of the kind of school their children attend.

Second, the machinery of reform itself needs reform. Again, Gonski had the right idea: national (which does not mean 'federal government') control of key decisions, made at arm's length from all governments and from the sector-based and industrial lobby groups which, in the present scheme of things, are forced defend their own interests, and in the doing thwart reforms that would see just about everyone better off.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

THis article was first published in Crikey on July 1, 2013.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 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

Dean Ashenden was co-founder of the Good Universities Guides and Good School Guides, and had been an adviser or consultant on education policy to state and federal governments and agencies.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Dean Ashenden

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

Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy