The only funding model Gonski ever got

We are treated on an almost continuous basis to justifiable complaints from the public education lobby about the underfunding of government schools. Yet, no one in that lobby even put a funding model to the Gonski panel. Many made comprehensive, thoughtful submissions on the needs of students, but, when it came to money, it was "Give us more – take it from them".

One person did put a funding model to the panel – the author of this article. That model, which looked at in-school costs only, was based on an explicit staffing ratio, as teacher employment makes up more than 80 per cent of the core recurrent cost of a school. That staffing ratio was based on the decent teaching loads, class sizes and time allowance pool (deductions from class teaching for leadership responsibilities) that applied in Victoria in the 1980s, removed by the Kennett government 1992 and to be partially restored by 2024 thanks to long-term education minister James Merlino.

The staffing ratio in that model supported a maximum teaching load of 21 50-minute periods in secondary schools and 21 hours in primary schools. It also supported maximum class sizes of 21 in prep to year 2 and 25 at all other levels.

The staffing ratio had two parts: a base factor that applied irrespective of student enrolment and an enrolment-linked factor.

The base factor provided two teachers for all but the smallest primary school and eight teachers for all secondary schools. The two teachers in a primary school would be the principal and a librarian. The eight teachers in larger secondary schools would be a principal, three vice principals (one for curriculum, one for discipline and welfare and one for organisation), two librarians, one student welfare coordinator and one careers teacher). Smaller secondary schools would not have three vice principals or two librarians but extra classroom teachers to provide subject range at senior levels.

The enrolment-linked factor, called the student learning entitlement in the submission, provided one teacher for every eighteen students in years 3 to 6 and one teacher for every fifteen students in all other levels. They are the ratios required to support the decent teaching and learning conditions on which the model is based.

It is almost fourteen years since the submission was made, so we need to update the amounts in it to take account of teacher salary increases, the increase in the superannuation guarantee and the consumer price index.

The student learning entitlement would be $9,898 for every student in years 3 to 6 and $11,818 for every student in other levels in 2024.

These amounts are lower than the current schooling resource standards for two reasons:

1. The current model does not have base staffing for each school;

2. The current model includes out-of-school costs.

The student learning entitlement would be paid in full to all government schools and to all non-government schools that capped their fees at the level necessary to make up for the lack of base factor funding.

The base factor would be $354,540 for all but the smallest primary school and $1,418,160 for a secondary school in 2024.

The base factor would be paid to government schools only in recognition of the government's duty to provide schools throughout the country, a duty the non-government sector does not have.

A non-government primary school with 400 students would need to charge fees of $886 per student to compensate for the fact that it was not eligible for base funding.

A non-government secondary school with 800 students would need to charge fees of $1,773 per student to compensate for the fact that it was not eligible for base funding.

Schools that wanted to charge more in fees would be free to do so, but their student learning entitlement would be reduced.

In addition, there would be loadings for disadvantage, as there are now, for all students with extra needs, irrespective of the school they attended.

Finally – and separately from whatever model is applied – we need to remove the basis for the dishonest argument that the federal government pays 80 per cent of non-government schools' entitlements but only 20 per cent of government schools' entitlements. This is factual, but still dishonest. The dishonesty arises because the argument always ignores the much greater favouring of government schools in the states' funding arrangements. The solution is simple. The federal government should pay 30 per cent of the entitlement of every school, government and non-government, and the state government should pay 70 per cent of the entitlement of every school, government and non-government.

The whole point of the model is to reduce educationally damaging social stratification in Australia's schools while preserving parents' right to decide which school best meets the needs of their own children.

It is not too late for the federal, state and territory governments to adopt such a model. In fact, it is essential that they do so if their claims about reducing social stratification in our schools and lifting overall educational performance are to be taken seriously