tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/needs-based-funding-39115/articlesneeds based funding – The Conversation2017-10-12T19:16:56Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/854502017-10-12T19:16:56Z2017-10-12T19:16:56ZA matter of trust: the checks and balances schools must have to ensure fair funding for disability<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189905/original/file-20171012-9815-1bcsl5l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Recent <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/wealthy-private-schools-set-for-funding-windfall-20171005-gyv599.html">media coverage</a> has revealed some of Victoria’s wealthiest private schools are reporting spikes in the numbers of students with disabilities. </p>
<p>Many (but not all) wealthy private schools schools were initially identified as <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/revealed-the-nations-most-overfunded-schools-20160928-grqfh9.html">overfunded</a>, and were set to lose government funding to bring them into line with the <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/srs_explained.pdf">Schooling Resource Standard</a> (SRS). This makes it surprising that schools earmarked to <em>lose</em> funding now appear set to <em>increase</em> their funding through top-ups for disadvantage.</p>
<p>Reportage needs to be moderated to ensure these schools aren’t <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/private-schools-accused-of-gaming-the-system-to-double-disability-funding-20171009-gyxar2.html">“gaming the system”</a> at the expense of public school students.</p>
<h2>Why would the numbers of students with disability change?</h2>
<p>Some change was expected following the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017B00079">amendments</a> to the Australian Education Act (2013), known as Gonski 2.0. These amendments ushered in a new model for disability funding by providing top-ups to the SRS in the form of “needs-based funding” for educational disadvantages, such as disability. It was announced that this model would use the <a href="http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/parents/needs/Pages/nccd.aspx">Nationally Consistent Collection of Data for Students with Disability</a> (NCCD) to replace previous methods for identifying and funding students with a disability.</p>
<p>Prior to Gonski 2.0, only those who received funding were counted, which was problematic for a number of reasons. One reason was that it involved students with disability and their families going through complex, lengthy, and potentially expensive assessments before it could be determined if a student would qualify for funding. This disadvantaged some and led to others <a href="https://theconversation.com/children-with-disabilities-risk-being-misdiagnosed-in-order-to-receive-school-funding-support-53490">being misdiagnosed in order to receive school funding support</a>. Another reason was that it was deficit-oriented. Students were only eligible for funding if they failed psychological and similar tests.
A further issue with this model was that it underestimated the number of students with disability, as it did not count students without funding.</p>
<p>So, while an increase in the numbers of students under the new model is unsurprising, an “alarming” increase in funding raises questions.</p>
<h2>What is the new model?</h2>
<p>The NCCD includes both a counting process and a funding formula based on an annual census. The NCCD is based on the idea that teachers are better positioned to identify which students need an adjustment relating to a disability. Teachers then determine the type and level of adjustments in teaching and learning, where this was previously done by professionals distant from the realities of the classroom. The NCCD empowers teachers to make important decisions about which students need adjustments, and the type and level of adjustment needed to provide high quality education to the students in their classroom. The student numbers, disability types, and levels of adjustment are then reported in an annual census.</p>
<p>Adjustments are judged based on <a href="http://www.schooldisabilitydatapl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/level-of-adjustment-provided-to-the-student.pdf">four levels of support</a>: Quality Differentiated Teaching Practice (QDTP), Supplementary, Substantial and Extensive. The latter three attract a scaled <a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiYrOP0-ObWAhVLzbwKHSlxAGsQFghQMAc&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aisnsw.edu.au%2FDocuments%2FOpen%2520Access%2FCommonwealth%2520Funding%2520Changes%25202018.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1vNTQYc7SA6-QRkJAMHn1H">financial loading</a> that is then tallied and granted as needs-based funding to schools to fund the provision of these adjustments. Ideally, schools should ensure that funds are used in providing adjustments that are supported by <a href="http://routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/_author/mitchell-9780415623230/">research evidence</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189935/original/file-20171012-9795-9wnkxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189935/original/file-20171012-9795-9wnkxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=111&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189935/original/file-20171012-9795-9wnkxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=111&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189935/original/file-20171012-9795-9wnkxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=111&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189935/original/file-20171012-9795-9wnkxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189935/original/file-20171012-9795-9wnkxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189935/original/file-20171012-9795-9wnkxp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">2018 loadings for levels of NCCD adjustment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Australian Government Department of Education and Training Submission to Select Committee on Australian Education Amendment Bill</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>NCCD is robust, but overestimation can occur</h2>
<p>Schools are <a href="https://resource.dse.theeducationinstitute.edu.au/sites/default/files/dse_plus_guidance_notes.pdf">legally obliged to provide adjustments</a>, and the census provides accountability under the legislation. With the <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-05-02/true-needs-based-funding-australias-schools">recent connection</a> of the NCCD to a funding model, the stakes are further increased.</p>
<p>In light of the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/private-schools-accused-of-gaming-the-system-to-double-disability-funding-20171009-gyxar2.html">perceived manipulation</a> by wealthy schools, it is important to consider that the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) <a href="http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Reports%20and%20publications/PwC%202016%20CQIP%20Final%20report%20-%20accessible%20version%20(1).pdf">report</a> on the quality of this model has suggested it is robust, with relative stability on the numbers of students needing support at each level throughout Australia. </p>
<p>However, they identified some schools that overestimated the level of support. Such overestimation could potentially explain unexpected rises in funding for those schools reporting increased numbers of students with disability needing supplementary, substantial or extensive support. </p>
<h2>Trained staff and moderation key to getting the numbers right</h2>
<p>Two issues are key to enhance trust in the numbers reported and data quality.</p>
<p>One is training. Staff should be trained in the key legislation, such as completing the online training in Disability Discrimination Act and Education Standards <a href="http://example.com/">http://dse.theeducationinstitute.edu.au/login/index.php</a>. The should also undertake training in the NCCD <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/nationally-consistent-collection-data-students-disability-guidelines">processes</a> and engage in professional learning through working with the <a href="http://www.schooldisabilitydatapl.edu.au/resources">resources</a> provided for this purpose.</p>
<p>The other is to ensure that schools engage in moderation. This would mean two or more teachers independently judging student needs and level of adjustment, and then comparing and reaching agreement using <a href="http://www.schooldisabilitydatapl.edu.au/data-collection-steps/do-you-have-evidence">evidence</a>. Schools can use the <a href="http://www.schooldisabilitydatapl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/nccd-moderation-resource-for-schools.pdf">moderation resource</a> produced by our team to ensure reliable reporting of the students and the levels of adjustment. By using the process outlined in this resource, schools should be in a position to defend their numbers and funding requests. Schools should also be able to produce evidence in support of their decisions.</p>
<p>Extending the moderation process between sectors and states can further improve the reliability of the data and the public’s confidence in the new funding model.</p>
<h2>Schools should be able to justify their claims</h2>
<p>An increase in numbers and funding is justifiable, providing schools can demonstrate they are not artificially increasing the level of adjustments, have qualified staff responsible for compiling NCCD data, and have engaged in moderation process. Only under these circumstances should the public trust the numbers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85450/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Kate de Bruin received funding from the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training relating to the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data for Students with Disability. She is a member of the academic advisory panel All Means All - Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Umesh Sharma received funding from the Department of Education and Training to develop the School Moderation Resource for NCCD. Umesh is a Member of the Australian Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association. </span></em></p>Some of Victoria’s wealthiest private schools have reported spikes in numbers of students with disability. We should only trust those numbers if they’re moderated by qualified staff.Kate de Bruin, Researcher in Inclusive Education, Monash UniversityUmesh Sharma, Associate Professor in Special Education and Educational Psychology, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/784692017-06-01T20:08:11Z2017-06-01T20:08:11ZExplainer: how does funding work in the Catholic school system?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171371/original/file-20170529-25201-12jbkv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Catholic schools haven't always received government funding.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gonski 2.0 has provoked substantial debate about how much money schools get, who gets too much, and how the money will be distributed. </p>
<p>Catholic schools in particular have <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2017/05/20/catholic-schools-to-challenge-gonski-2-0.html">expressed concern</a> about the impact of Gonski 2.0, with many Catholic schools <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/03/gonski-20-catholic-schools-not-singled-out-for-funding-cuts-minister-says">facing potential funding cuts</a>. </p>
<p>In response, the Catholic Education Commission Victoria (CECV) <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/catholics-declare-war-on-liberals-over-school-funding/news-story/71cd8ec9c08646d856e09172c3097580">claims</a> some schools may have to increase their fees by as much as A$5,000 per year. </p>
<p>The federal Education Minister <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-03/minister-hits-back-at-catholic-sector-school-funding-outcry/8492890">Simon Birmingham has hit back</a>, accusing the Catholic sector of “exaggerating” claims of potential cuts and their impact. He has defended Gonski 2.0 stating that it will treat all schools - government and non-government - consistently. </p>
<p>Amid all of these debates is a lot of confusion about how and why the federal government funds Catholic schools. Catholic schools, like all non-government schools, receive their primary government funding from the federal government. However, there is not necessarily a direct funding flow from the government to schools. </p>
<p>Most Catholic schools are systemic schools, situated within the Catholic system across the states and territories, and these systems make their own decisions about school funding. </p>
<p>So how does government funding of Catholic schools actually work? </p>
<h2>Government hasn’t always funded Catholic schools</h2>
<p>In the current context, it’s perhaps easy to take for granted that Catholic and other non-government schools receive government funds. However, this was not always the case. The market-based system we have today has been encouraged by a number of key policy decisions. </p>
<p>This all began in the late 1960s and 1970s when, in response to a struggling Catholic sector, the federal government decided to provide school funding. </p>
<p>Up until then, the federal government had little involvement in the funding of Australian schooling (with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory). </p>
<p><a href="https://www.education.gov.au/funding-schools">Constitutionally</a>, it is the states and territories – not the Australian government – that have legislative authority to regulate, register, and deliver schooling. Therefore, it was really the states that funded schools. Indeed, it is still the state and territory governments that primarily fund government schools. </p>
<p>It started in earnest with capital funding for schools <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/schoolsfunding.pdf">introduced in the 1960s</a>. The <em>States Grants (Science Laboratories and Technical Training) Act 1964</em> funded science laboratories in both government and non-government schools. </p>
<p>Federal funding for non-government schools was then cemented in 1970 with the <em>States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969</em>. This provided non-government schools with a flat rate of federal government money per student. </p>
<p>Yet, it wasn’t until 1973 that an ongoing and systematic approach to federal funding of schools was enshrined. Then, the Whitlam-appointed <a href="http://dehanz.net.au/entries/karmel-report-schools-australia/">Karmel Report</a> introduced a “needs-based” school funding approach from the federal government. </p>
<p>The significance of the Karmel Report cannot be understated. Based on a “needs-based” formula, it provided <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/education-religion-and-the-state-in-australia/5546816">much needed funding for the struggling Catholic system</a>, and in many ways cemented reliance on - and expectation of - federal funding across the non-government sector. </p>
<p>Since the Karmel Report, successive governments have retained federal funding, albeit with a range of policy changes to the funding formula over the years. </p>
<p>School funding has also become a lever for the federal government to intervene into schooling policy (while constitutional authority is retained with the states and territories). This includes, for instance, the buttressing of a market-based system premised on the existence of the three sectors – government, Catholic and independent. </p>
<p>For instance, non-government schools <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/children-of-the-whitlam-education-revolution/news-story/0e11f930d82c700dcd706c847d0d6e51">fared particularly well under</a> the Howard government’s SES model. At this time, federal education policy became pinned to the notions of marketisation and the rhetoric of “<a href="https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/academic-professional/education/School-Choice-Craig-Campbell-Helen-Proctor-Geoffrey-Sherington-9781741756562">school choice</a>”. </p>
<p>Importantly, over the years the trend has been for a <a href="http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=aer">higher increase</a> in federal funds for the non-government sector than the government sector. </p>
<p>Now, after over 40 years, it is taken for granted that in addition to state and territory funding (which is primarily targeted at government schools), the federal government funds schools and that it does so inequitably, funding non-government schools at a higher rate than government schools. This is despite the fact that it is government schools, far more than non-government schools, that cater for disadvantaged students (as noted in <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Gonski 1.0</a>).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171740/original/file-20170601-25684-5diu00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171740/original/file-20170601-25684-5diu00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171740/original/file-20170601-25684-5diu00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171740/original/file-20170601-25684-5diu00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171740/original/file-20170601-25684-5diu00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171740/original/file-20170601-25684-5diu00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/171740/original/file-20170601-25684-5diu00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Catholic schools receive most of their government funding from the federal government.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How does government funding for Catholic schools work now?</h2>
<p>Catholic and other non-government schools receive the bulk of their government funding from the federal government. </p>
<p>Yet, they also receive funding from the state governments. This is because of the legislative authority that states and territories have in relation to schooling. Thus, each state and territory has its own arrangements for funding non-government (and government) schools. </p>
<p>In Victoria, for example, the state government in 2016 provided over <a href="http://www.cecv.catholic.edu.au/getmedia/12cc6732-290d-47cd-8d79-d3c1d6eabf3f/CECV-Annual-Report-2015.aspx">A$440 million funding</a> to Catholic schools. </p>
<p>This recurrent funding was calculated as a part of the <a href="http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/938886C085A1A9A5CA257E0400099911/$FILE/15-001aa%20authorised.pdf">Education and Training Reform Amendment (Funding of Non-Government Schools) Act 2015</a>, which sets out the arrangements for the Victorian state government to fund non-government schools at 25% the rate of government school funding per student. </p>
<p>State funding of non-government schools can also include targeted special grants, such as the Victorian government’s <a href="http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/funding-boost-for-victorian-independent-schools/">$32.8 million facilities funding announced in December 2016</a>.</p>
<p>Gonski 2.0 represents another iteration of federal funding policies in schooling. In this model, the <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/glossy/gonski_policy/html/gonski_overview_06.htm">Schooling Resource Standard</a>, as set out in Gonski 1.0, is retained. This formula produces a base rate for the cost of schooling. </p>
<p><a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/new_fairer_school_funding_from_2018.pdf">Gonski 2.0</a> sets out that by 2027 the federal government will fund non-government schools 80% of the SRS, with government schools receiving 20%. </p>
<p>The bulk of funding for the Catholic system comes from the government. For example, the CECV <a href="http://www.cecv.catholic.edu.au/getmedia/12cc6732-290d-47cd-8d79-d3c1d6eabf3f/CECV-Annual-Report-2015.aspx">reported</a> that in 2015 it received: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>$440 million recurrent and $9.2 million targeted state government funding</p></li>
<li><p>$1.6 billion recurrent and $7.5 million targeted federal government funding</p></li>
<li><p>$96 million in school levies and almost $11 million from bank deposit interest and other income streams. </p></li>
</ul>
<h2>How does the Catholic system fund its schools?</h2>
<p>When funding flows from the federal and state governments to the Catholic and independent sector it does not necessarily flow straight to the school. </p>
<p>For schools that exist within a system (such as most Catholic schools) government funding is managed and allocated by the system. This is different to the many schools within the independent sector that are not organised within a system. </p>
<p>Importantly, a <a href="http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20160309-Grants-to-NG-schools/20160309-Grants-to-NG-schools.pdf">recent report</a> from the Victorian Auditor-General suggested there was a lack of transparency and accountability within the Catholic (and other non-goverment) system’s allocation of government funds. </p>
<p>To continue with the Victorian example, Catholic schools in Victoria are managed through the CECV. Similar systems exist for Lutheran, Ecumenical and Seventh-Day Adventist schools. Independent non-government schools that do not belong to a system receive government funds directly. </p>
<p>The CECV manages all but two of the 493 Catholic schools in Victoria and the <a href="http://www.cecv.catholic.edu.au/getmedia/71d7f374-228e-44ab-839c-d0f69cd8e4ca/Allocating-govt-grants.aspx?ext=.pdf">combined $2.1 billion in funds from both the federal and state government</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.cecv.catholic.edu.au/getmedia/71d7f374-228e-44ab-839c-d0f69cd8e4ca/Allocating-govt-grants.aspx?ext=.pdf">According to the CECV,</a> funding allocation is decided through a number of committees. </p>
<p>For primary schools, the CECV decides on the share of funding that each of the four Victorian diocese will receive (the Archdiocese of Melbourne, the Diocese of Ballarat, the Diocese of Sandhurst and the Diocese of Sale). </p>
<p>The CECV uses its own <a href="http://www.cecv.catholic.edu.au/getmedia/71d7f374-228e-44ab-839c-d0f69cd8e4ca/Allocating-govt-grants.aspx?ext=.pdf">funding model,</a> which - among other things - takes into account each schools “capacity to contribute” based on the school’s SES scores. </p>
<p>According to the CECV, once the funding flows to the diocese each diocese has their own funding model they use to decide funding allocation. For secondary and combined schools, funding decisions of the CECV flow straight to the school. </p>
<p>The question, therefore, of how particular Catholic schools will fare under Gonski 2.0 is a complex one. There are layers of decision making, within multiple funding models, which occur before funding reaches each school. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, as with the first Gonski report, Gonski 2.0 is supportive of our current market-based model. </p>
<p>Despite particular “winners” and “losers”, <a href="https://thewest.com.au/news/education/funding-surge-for-high-fee-schools-ng-b88491810z">government funding of highly resourced and elite schools</a> remains intact. Arguably, then, it will also do little to address the rising inequalities that are entrenched within our market-based education system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Gerrard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Federal and state government funding to the Catholic sector does not necessarily then flow straight to the school.Jessica Gerrard, Senior Lecturer in Education, Equity and Politics, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/784552017-05-29T23:43:42Z2017-05-29T23:43:42ZConfused about changes to school funding? Here’s what you need to know<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171287/original/file-20170529-25198-2woku2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How will policy changes affect schools?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Coalition government <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-02/malcolm-turnbull-announces-schools-funding-boost/8489806">announced their new school funding proposal</a> with a flourish, and a Gonski. </p>
<p>David Gonski was the architect of <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">the 2011 needs-based funding model</a> that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tasmania-signs-up-to-schools-funding-deal-20130709-2pnrb.html">the Labor party hobbled</a>, and which the Liberal party then <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-26/pyne-adamant-gonski-school-funding-needs-overhaul2c-despite-st/5116978">sent right down the gurgler</a>. </p>
<p>So, for many in the education sector, Gonski’s reappearance was both surprising and comforting. Did this mean we were back to a funding model that was apolitical, sector blind and all about a distribution of money based on need?</p>
<p>Well, there is good news and bad news, and then some more bad news.</p>
<h2>More money</h2>
<p><strong>The good news</strong> </p>
<p>It is substantially more money than what the Coalition government currently has allocated for education - 75% more by <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2017-05-02/press-conference-minister-education-and-training-senator-hon-simon-birmingham-and">the Prime Minister’s own reckoning</a>, from A$17.5 billion this year to $30.6 billion by 2027. </p>
<p><strong>The bad news</strong></p>
<p>It’s less money than what some states and systems were promised under the deals done with the Labor government - <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/05/02/gonski-20-school-funding-plan-amounts-22b-cut-plibersek">about $22 billion less</a>. They say they need that promised money to deliver on education programs they have already put in place, and which they argue are already <a href="https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/how-gonski-funding-is-making-a-difference-to-rocky/3151447/">making a real difference to students</a>. </p>
<h2>Fairer and sector blind</h2>
<p><strong>The good news</strong></p>
<p>This funding deal returns to the original Gonski principle of one funding formula for everyone. Each student will attract the same base amount - called the Schooling Resource Standard - of $9,271 per primary school student and $12,193 per high school student.</p>
<p>This is in contrast to the multiple deals done with systems and states back in 2013 as the Labor government tried to get a Gonski take-up around the nation. They gave out lots of money, and promised that everyone would be a winner. This <a href="https://theconversation.com/gonski-model-was-corrupted-but-labor-and-coalition-are-both-to-blame-65875">deal-making did not solve the problem</a> of funding inequity between the schooling sectors. Poor schools got more money, but so did rich schools. </p>
<p><strong>The bad news</strong></p>
<p>The federal government inexplicably remains the benevolent benefactor of the private sector. It will fund 80% of the Schooling Resource Standard for private schools students, and only 20% for government school students. It will rely on the goodwill of the states to fund the remaining amounts. So it is only the private schools that are getting an iron-clad guarantee for most of their funding into the future.</p>
<p>Not fair and certainly not sector blind.</p>
<h2>Needs-based</h2>
<p><strong>The good news</strong></p>
<p>The government claims their new funding proposal returns us to the absolute crux of the original Gonski review - it will be truly needs-based. </p>
<p>This means there will be extra loadings for students who need more support to achieve. There will be loadings for low socio-economic status, Indigenous students, students with a disability, students with limited English language proficiency, school size, and regional or remote locations.</p>
<p><strong>The bad news - and this is <em>really</em> bad news</strong></p>
<p>The government has no proposal for the allocation of those loadings. They don’t even know how many students are eligible for those loadings. </p>
<p>As a consequence they have no idea how much money it will cost to fund them. This is why the pundits keep saying “more analysis is needed” before anyone knows how much their school is really going to get, or lose.</p>
<p>Who will be eligible for the disability loadings? </p>
<p>Each state and sector defines disability differently. The government says it will come up with a national definition. But it does not have one yet.</p>
<p>Who will be eligible for the English language loadings? </p>
<p>How “limited” does your English language need to be? How would this be measured? Nobody knows, including the government. </p>
<p>And there is nothing in the budget papers or the Education Acts to indicate that the money will actually be delivered to the students who attract the loadings. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-04/taxpayer-funds-directed-away-from-poor-catholic-schools:-report/8497810">Recent history</a> suggests the money won’t necessarily go to them. <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/what-gonski-really-meant-and-how-thats-been-forgotten-almost-everywhere">States, instead, could just spend the money on the general business of running an education system</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">original Gonski report</a> said that it was imperative an independent body, a National Schools Resourcing Body, be set up to answer these questions, and to monitor how those loadings are distributed. </p>
<p>However there is no indication that body will ever be instituted, and without it this funding proposal cannot claim to be needs-based and it will not successfully address educational disadvantage. </p>
<p>Very bad news indeed.</p>
<h2>A new review - Gonski 2.0</h2>
<p><strong>The good news</strong></p>
<p>David Gonski will now conduct a new review - the <a href="https://theconversation.com/gonski-2-0-is-this-the-school-funding-plan-we-have-been-looking-for-finally-yes-77081">Gonski 2.0 review</a>. </p>
<p>This new review is to decide what good teaching and learning looks like. That’s a little odd as the government already has a body that does that - <a href="https://www.aitsl.edu.au">the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership</a>.</p>
<p>But fingers crossed he’ll be able to sneak that National Schools Resourcing body back into his recommendations.</p>
<p><strong>The bad news</strong></p>
<p>The expert panel has only until December to come up with an answer that will inevitably start with “It depends…”</p>
<p>They haven’t even decided on the terms of reference yet.</p>
<h2>A suggestion for the panel</h2>
<p>If I could give one suggestion to Gonski’s review panel as they tackle this complicated question, it would be this: ask teachers what is needed to close that achievement gap.</p>
<p>Ken Boston, a member of the Gonski review panel, <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/what-gonski-really-meant-and-how-thats-been-forgotten-almost-everywhere">observed</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We concluded that the issue in low-performing schools is not the quality of teachers in these schools but the magnitude of the task they are facing. These teachers work in the emergency wards of Australian education, yet they lack the battery of specialist support typical of an emergency ward in a hospital. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The fact that we never ask teachers at the coal face for their expert input on what works, and what doesn’t, is perhaps the strangest twist of all in this good news, bad news story.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78455/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Misty Adoniou works for the University of Canberra. She has received government funding to research spelling, curriculum, and refugee education and orientation. She is on the Board of Directors of TESOL International, a global affiliation of teacher associations. </span></em></p>Here’s what the latest funding proposals mean for schools.Misty Adoniou, Associate Professor in Language, Literacy and TESL, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.