Audit Commission's Gonski landmines

It would be open to each of the states and territories to adopt Gonski-like measures, as NSW has done. But what about the others? Will we get seven local battles over funding shares instead of just one national one?

One way of tackling these and other problems is through national reporting. The Commission is in favour of that, but only for 'outcomes'. Has the Commission bowed to objections by the independent schools to current requirements that they also report 'inputs' (income and expenditure) on the MySchool website?

Moreover, as just about any educationist of any ideological orientation will point out, data on outcomes alone are worse than useless. They are misleading. The real question is how much difference each school (or school system) makes, taking into account the difficulty of its educational job, and the resources to hand. The answer can only be found with data on inputs and social context as well as outcomes.

Nor do outcomes define everything that schools produce, or that parents (and governments) care about. What do current students, parents, and teachers report about the character and quality of life at their school, for example? It is all very well to say that these will be matters for each jurisdiction, but if there is a case for a national curriculum, or indeed national reporting on outcomes, why not on other crucial matters also?

These and other shortcomings could be remedied within a devolved system, but only by a much more considered framework of requirement and reporting than the Commission's narrow field of vision permits.

There is little reason to hope that the Government will see things differently. The Coalition in opposition, urged on by independent sector lobbies, opposed the Gonski solution from day one. It sought to frustrate governments, such as the O'Farrell Government in NSW, that supported Gonski, and encouraged the waverers and hold-outs such as WA and Queensland to resist.

After 18 months of playing the spoiler, the now Education Minister Christopher Pyne and Abbott announced an 11-hour conversion to Gonski, only to try to ditch it again within weeks of taking office. The Commission's proposals are inevitably tainted with the odour of bad faith.

Pyne's brazen effort to get rid of Gonski served only to show that he is not to be trusted and that Gonski enjoys widespread popular support. Abbott must be wondering whether this minister - or any minister - could carry the day with the kind of scheme recommended by the Commission.

Abbott no doubt also realises that Opposition Leader Bill Shorten would be happy to go to the next election as leader of the Gonski party and worry later about how to implement it.

In the meantime, the hottest ticket in town will be for Gonski's first major statement since the release of his report two years ago, scheduled for 21 May at the University of Melbourne. He has promised to give his views on the extent to which stakeholders have comprehended and implemented what he and his panel proposed.