Support state and private schools equally

In their comment piece "Australia near bottom of the class in government school funding", Lucas Walsh and Barbara Lemon say they are in favour of school choice when they state, "A challenge here is not to discourage choice or penalise any particular school sector".

It's a pity they fail to follow their own advice. Instead of supporting parents' right to choose between types of schools the two authors reveal themselves as pro-state schools and in favour of a funding model that would weaken the autonomy and viability of Catholic and independent schools.

Walsh and Lemon cite statistics from the OECD's Education at a Glance to support their argument that non-government schools are over funded to the detriment of state schools (Australia is ranked 26 out of 28 countries in terms of public expenditure on state schools and fourth highest in terms of public funding to non-government schools).

The funding situation in Australia is described as representing a "dangerous trajectory" and the figures are described as "appalling" and "pointing to a shameful inequity". The current socioeconomic status (SES) funding model comes in for particular criticism when it is described as "flawed, complex and not in the nation's best interest".

While Walsh and Lemon feel that Catholic and independent schools are receiving too much government funding, an argument can also be put that such schools, compared to government schools, are under funded and that they deserve increased investment and support.

The fact that Australia, compared to other OECD countries, ranks high in terms of public funding to non-government schools is because such a large percentage of students attend such schools. Across Australia, the figure amounts to about 33% of students, rising to over 40% at years 11 and 12.

It should also be noted that between the years 1998-2008 enrolments in Catholic and independent schools grew by 21.9%, while government school enrolments flat lined at 1.1%. Given that all students, regardless of school attended are entitled to a well resourced and properly funded education, it is only fair that governments contribute their fair share.

It should also never be forgotten that those parents who send their children to non-government schools, a right that is protected by international conventions and agreements, in addition to school fees, pay taxes that support a system they do not use.

As noted in the 2010 Report on Government Services, published by the Productivity Commission, government school students, on average, receive $12,639 in government funding, the figure for non-government school students is approximately half that cost, $6,606.

The reality is that every student that attends a non-government school saves government, and taxpayers, approximately $6,000. Some estimates put the savings to government at over $7 billion dollars a year and the fact is that the government school system would collapse if it had to enrol those students currently attending Catholic and independent schools.

Contrary to the impression often created by non-government school critics, it is also the case that the level of funding non-government schools receive is adjusted to take into account a school's socioeconomic profile. Wealthier schools only receive 13.5% of the cost to government of educating a student in a government school, with less privileged schools receiving 70% of such a figure.

In support of their belief that state schools have a greater right to government funding, Walsh and Lemon argue that while such schools "open their doors to all students", non-government schools are exclusive in nature, basing enrolments on "high fees, academic results or sporting ability".

Ignored is the presence of selective secondary schools, especially in NSW, that are not open to all comers as they choose students according to academic ability, excluding those who fail the entrance test.

Also ignored is the reality that many government schools only enrol students whose parents can afford to buy property in a school's enrolment zone. Such a situation, following the logic of Walsh and Lemon, is inherently inequitable as not all families can afford to buy the million dollar plus real estate that would guarantee enrolment in their preferred school.

It also should not be forgotten, as argued by Gary Marks, a researcher at the Australian Council for Educational Research, that the community profile of Catholic schools, that make up the largest proportion of non-government schools, is similar to government schools.

In calling for increased equity and excellence in education Walsh and Lemon imply that government schools are better able to achieve such outcomes. Again, based on the example of Catholic schools, such is not the case. Not only are Catholic schools, when compared to government schools, better able to help disadvantaged students achieve strong academic results such schools, as noted by Jennifer Buckingham in her monograph The Rise of Religious Schools, are very successful in promoting social stability and civic engagement.

Given their organisation commissioned the report, it is understandable why Walsh and Lemon support the funding model put forward in Jack Keating's Resourcing Schools in Australia. While their description of the report as providing "an elegant solution to some of the current problems of funding and inequity" suggests that the report is without blemish, there are concerns.

Catholic and independent schools, while complying with government regulations and registration procedures, when compared to government schools have greater autonomy and flexibility in terms of managing themselves and best meeting the needs and aspirations of their communities.

Faith-based schools, given their uniquely religious focus, are free to enrol students and employ staff in accordance with the school's religious beliefs and mission. Keating's suggested funding model, while not going as far as suggesting that non-government schools, as a condition of public funding, should be integrated into the state system, seriously compromises the independence of non-government schools.

As a condition of funding the danger is that non-government schools would lose control of who they enrol and who they employ. There is also the intention that such schools must abide by government policies in areas like curriculum, testing and assessment, teacher registration and certification, release of school data and equity and social justice policies.

While a certain amount of regulation and oversight is warranted, it should be clear that what is being envisaged will overwhelm non-government schools with the type of intrusive, byzantine and costly regulation currently forced on government schools and guaranteed to stifle independence.

Walsh and Lemon conclude their comment piece by arguing, "What is urgently needed is a systematic response to the moral imperative of ensuring that a quality, world-class education is available to all Australians".

As argued by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, when Minister for Education, the best way to ensure a quality education for all Australians is to move on from the old and fruitless state aid debates. The challenge for government is to fund all schools properly and to ensure, as a result of the review currently underway, that Catholic and independent schools are not penalised or disadvantaged.