Education reform must aim to provide a fair go for all, not choice for some

Between 1995-6 and 2001 the Commonwealth cut the Government school sector's share of funding from 42.2 per cent to 34.7 per cent, although the enrolment share declined only 1.9 per cent. As a proportion of GDP, expenditure on the government sector was static while it increased by 21.6 per cent in the non-government sector. Federal Government funding for non-government schools ballooned from $3.36 billion last year to an estimated $4.74 billion in 2004-05.

Some of the wealthiest schools operate with 200 per cent of the resources available in government schools. The Government's funding policies and the SES funding formula are major contributors to this reverse discrimination. Give most to those who have most; take from those who have little.

Such disparity in resources will almost certainly lead to even greater inequalities in performance. Instead of front-end loading the schools who deal with the most disadvantaged and systematically assisting those most likely to benefit from extra expenditure, the government provides derisory amounts to support literacy and numeracy programs. Last year, for example, they spent $115 million on advertising, while the current budget commits just $7 million for grants to foster literacy and numeracy.

In June last year, Ken Boston, former head of Education in NSW, argued passionately that Australia urgently needs to debate and resolve some fundamental questions about the future of school education, particularly its inherent unfairness to the less well off.

He asked rhetorically "whether we want to educate our children mainly in government-assisted fee-paying private schools, based on an exclusive clientele identified by socio-economic status, religion, ethnicity or some other dimension?" Or do we want them mainly to be in inclusive government-funded public schools, mixing with children from a wider range of backgrounds and experiences?"

We need to debate whether education should be something we purchase, like soap powder or a public good, for which we all take responsibility through our governments.

Boston makes a compelling case that "choice" is an ideology that the Howard government gives precedence over equality, should never be based on the fact that government schools are underfunded. In his view, and mine, the "overriding priority of national and state governments should be to provide universal access to first-class public education while respecting the right of parents to choose non-government schools and supporting them on the basis of need."

As a former Education Minister and university lecturer, I am convinced that education, as John Ralston Saul has argued is the "single most important element in the maintenance of a democratic system. The better the citizenry as a whole are educated, the wider and more sensible public participation, debate and social mobility will be … Highly sophisticated elites are the easiest and least original thing a society can produce. The most difficult and the most valuable is a well-educated populace."

Mass public education is costly, but citizens of modern societies have been willing to pay these costs because they have been convinced it is in the public interest; that there are public as well as private goods.

Surveys over the last few years show that whereas 20 years ago a high rate of economic growth, a stable economy and strong defence forces were considered the most important priorities for the country, today's top priorities are:
(a) ensuring everyone has access to a good education,
(b) providing a quality life for our children, and
(c) providing quality health care for everyone

The same research reveals that preventing the gap widening between rich and poor was more important to the citizens of the 90s than increasing their own standard of living. They seemed willing to share.

Investment in public education is now under challenge and resources are stretched to the limit. Australian public education has been affected by the systematic attempts to undermine the "welfare state" - "the revolt of the rich", as Galbraith called it.