NSW school funding cuts arrive … from a different source

iv) In political terms the O'Farrell government is probably seeking to minimise its electoral damage for the March 2015 state election by announcing this funding reduction relatively early into its four year term. In financial terms freezing school funding may foreshadow addition government cuts to other government services or public service jobs.

Cutting $210 million to public schools offers limited manoeuvrability for the sector to offset the reduction. Catholic and independent schools may posses some flexibility to raise tuition fees but they could face a parental backlash from many families already stretched financially to pay for normal, anticipated fee increases. Adding another 4-5% to offset loss of state revenue support – which merely holds schools in the same position financially - may be a bridge too far to cross for some families. Equally worrying will be any negative impact on forward student enrolments if fee escalations move beyond acceptable levels for the clientele of a particular school.

v) Other political consequences arise from this state government decision. Only one week ago Prime Minister Julia Gillard exhorted states/territories to join her school 'crusade' by financially supporting proposed federal funding allocations to inject an additional $6.5 billion annually to improve schooling. Contrary to Ms Gillard's expectations the NSW government will merely cite its own state financial circumstances to refute Canberra's impositions. If NSW cannot underpin Ms Gillard's schooling crusade it seems improbably that the federal funding target can be achieved. Nor does it seem likely that states' agreement on a new schooling federalism can be consummated noting that the Queensland government budget also earmarked 14,000 public service jobs to be axed. Some of these job cuts will inevitably be sourced in school departmental bureaucracy. Under such circumstances it remains extremely problematic how any binding financial consensus with the states can be negotiated by schools minister Mr Peter Garrett to implement Ms Gillard's crusade.

vi) The federal government is keen to implement the ACARA national curriculum reforms into schools during 2013 or 2014. Funding reductions to the state's education bureaucracy could seriously impact on this curriculum timetable providing another unknown outcome from eastern state's depleting financial situation.

vii) Conveniently ignored by the state government is the reality that many low funded non-government schools already experience significant funding restraint from the state since the middle nineties. Low fee Christian and catholic schools will be most seriously affected by this state funding reduction.

Some conclusions

Each public school will be required to seriously review the NSW government's funding freeze and its implications for learning delivery. The consequences for non-government schools and its implications for future tuition fee decisions are considerable.

How such an income reduction can be accommodated by the non-government sector without jeopardising education delivery or alienating fee paying parents constitutes a major strategic decision for the next four years. Despite statements to the contrary from the state government is seems inevitable that the allocation freeze will not be rescinded in the future.

This government decision raises an inevitable outcome: state recurrent funding, at least to the non-government school sector, will permanently decline in real terms in future.

All schools –government and non-government - must now confront that funding reality.