tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/gonski-review-558/articlesGonski review – The Conversation2022-03-03T00:53:50Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1780162022-03-03T00:53:50Z2022-03-03T00:53:50ZStill ‘Waiting for Gonski’ – a great book about the sorry tale of school funding<p>You may think “not another article on school funding”. But this important story has to be told and the book, <a href="https://unsw.press/books/waiting-for-gonski/">Waiting For Gonski: how Australia failed its schools</a>, should be read by every parent, economist and Australian committed to “the fair go”.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449405/original/file-20220302-23-6u0rsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Cover of Waiting for Gonski" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449405/original/file-20220302-23-6u0rsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449405/original/file-20220302-23-6u0rsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=924&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449405/original/file-20220302-23-6u0rsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=924&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449405/original/file-20220302-23-6u0rsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=924&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449405/original/file-20220302-23-6u0rsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1161&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449405/original/file-20220302-23-6u0rsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1161&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449405/original/file-20220302-23-6u0rsp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1161&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsw.press/books/waiting-for-gonski/">UNSW Press</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The title is apt and who would have thought a book on school funding would be a riveting read? Authors Tom Greenwell and Chris Bonnor have all the angles covered.</p>
<h2>What went wrong?</h2>
<p>The much-lauded <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/national-school-resourcing-board/resources/review-needs-based-funding-requirements-final-report-december-2019">Gonski reforms</a>, recommended ten years ago, have not been effectively enacted. The book provides a clear account of how it all went wrong in “the Gonski we got” and “postmortem” analysis chapters.</p>
<p>Rather than levelling the playing field, it is clear the system has become more unfair. More funding has gone to less needy schools. Government funding to non-government schools grew at <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/feb/16/private-school-funding-has-increased-at-five-times-rate-of-public-schools-analysis-shows">five times the rate</a> of funding for government schools over the past decade. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449423/original/file-20220302-17-7reycb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Chart showing changes in funding for public, Catholic and independent schools from Commonwealth, states and all governments, fees and other income, and total income." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449423/original/file-20220302-17-7reycb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449423/original/file-20220302-17-7reycb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449423/original/file-20220302-17-7reycb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449423/original/file-20220302-17-7reycb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449423/original/file-20220302-17-7reycb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449423/original/file-20220302-17-7reycb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449423/original/file-20220302-17-7reycb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://saveourschools.com.au/funding/get-gonski-back-on-track/#more-5070">Chart: The Conversation. Data: Analysis of ACARA, National Report on Schooling data by Trevor Cobbold (2021), Save Our schools website</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The review introduced the concept of the <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/quality-schools-package/fact-sheets/what-schooling-resource-standard-and-how-does-it-work#:%7E:text=The%20Schooling%20Resource%20Standard%20%28SRS%29%20is%20an%20estimate,for%20Schooling%2C%20led%20by%20Mr.%20David%20Gonski%20AC.">Schooling Resource Standard</a> (SRS). The review panel said this was the funding “needed as the starting point for […] transparent, fair, financially sustainable and educationally effective” resourcing. The SRS uses a base funding amount each student, plus “loadings” for particular school and student needs. </p>
<p>The majority of government schools are yet to be fully funded to the SRS. At the same time, many non-government schools are overfunded, well beyond the standard (and fees sit on top of this government funding).</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Shortfalls and excesses in SRS funding by state and territory, 2018-2023</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449433/original/file-20220302-17-sn3bo7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Chart showing shortfalls and excesses in School Resource Standard (SRS) funding by state and territory, 2018-2023" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449433/original/file-20220302-17-sn3bo7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449433/original/file-20220302-17-sn3bo7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=719&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449433/original/file-20220302-17-sn3bo7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=719&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449433/original/file-20220302-17-sn3bo7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=719&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449433/original/file-20220302-17-sn3bo7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449433/original/file-20220302-17-sn3bo7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449433/original/file-20220302-17-sn3bo7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=904&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.dese.gov.au/national-school-resourcing-board/resources/review-needs-based-funding-requirements-final-report-december-2019">Source: Review of needs‑based funding requirements: final report, December 2019/DESE</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>A 2019 <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/national-school-resourcing-board/resources/review-needs-based-funding-requirements-final-report-december-2019">federal government review</a> of needs-based funding makes it clear government schools’ needs are not being met and the system lacks transparency. New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania committed to reach 75% of SRS funding for government schools beyond 2023. NSW and Tasmania will reach 75% in 2027, Victoria in 2028 and Queensland in 2032. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=P5VfEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT229&lpg=PT229&dq=%22federal+government+has+locked+in+a+model+where+every+private+school+will+get+fully+funded+by+2023,+whereas+very+few+government+schools+will+ever+get+fully+funded%22&source=bl&ots=d8lnkDkl5T&sig=ACfU3U0zwqjkFj8i3I3buUZXjV8RN-b-Cw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjz8aK2oKb2AhVoT2wGHdjLAekQ6AF6BAgaEAM#v=onepage&q=%22federal%20government%20has%20locked%20in%20a%20model%20where%20every%20private%20school%20will%20get%20fully%20funded%20by%202023%2C%20whereas%20very%20few%20government%20schools%20will%20ever%20get%20fully%20funded%22&f=false">quote</a> from the then Grattan Institute school program director, Peter Goss, is instructive: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The federal government has locked in a model where every private school will get fully funded by 2023, whereas very few government schools will ever get fully funded. By 2030 we’re going to be having this same argument and it’s all predictable from now.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Unlevel playing field has a long history</h2>
<p>While many schools are still waiting to receive the Gonski needs-based funding, Greenwell and Bonnor make it clear there was also a sense of waiting in the lead-up to the review and 2011 <a href="https://www.dese.gov.au/school-funding/resources/review-funding-schooling-final-report-december-2011">report</a>. </p>
<p>Pre-Gonski history provides important insights, including coverage of mistakes in the original establishment of Australia’s inclusive public education system. The system wasn’t really inclusive and created the first unlevel playing field, with well-resourced free education for most, alongside struggling Catholic schools. This changed after the 1960s, when the private sector successfully lobbied for funding. But, as the authors point out, “one unlevel playing field replaced another”.</p>
<p>The 1973 Karmel report followed, but was criticised because, as Simon Marginson <a href="https://www.ppesydney.net/content/uploads/2020/04/Reassessing-Karmel-results-of-the-1973-education-settlement.pdf">wrote</a> in 1984:</p>
<p>“[The report] did not develop an understanding of the dynamics of the dual system of schooling that operates in Australia […] [and] failed to go to the roots of inequalities in schooling”.</p>
<h2>Gonski also failed on this score</h2>
<p>Bonnor and Greenwell point out this criticism also applies to the Gonski review. Rather than tackle the complexities of the public-private system, Gonski left untouched the issues of school fees and very different school sector obligations, operations and accountabilities. Inequities in school operations, including enrolment policies, were not addressed.</p>
<p>While recommending adequate funding for schools where students had greater needs, the review did not question or seek to resolve why these students concentrated within disadvantaged schools, most of them government schools. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-schools-are-becoming-more-segregated-this-threatens-student-outcomes-155455">segregation of schools has since increased</a>. Both the <a href="https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/equity-in-education_9789264073234-en">OECD</a> and <a href="https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/995-an-unfair-start-education-inequality-children.html">UNICEF</a> have identified this as a key weakness in Australian schooling.</p>
<p>Greenwell and Bonnor point to the significance of the review’s focus on the impact of peers on student achievement, in a structure where fees sort and segregate students into different schools on the basis of socio-educational advantage. Bonnor says: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The review panel couldn’t, or chose not to, join the dots between this phenomenon and Australia’s increasingly mediocre levels of student achievement.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Gonski review panel member Ken Boston now agrees and attributes much of our educational woes to weaknesses in the report and failures of implementation. Noting the model was to be needs-based and sector-blind, he <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/want-to-know-why-our-schools-keep-lagging-the-world-s-best-20220216-p59wtq.html">says</a>: “Quite the opposite has occurred”. </p>
<p>Waiting for Gonski is a riveting, but depressing, account of how that happened. Drawing on interviews with key figures, the authors describe the manoeuvrings to get the funding legislation passed, the distorting of Gonski’s recommendations, the intensity of the activities of the lobby groups, and the eventual sabotage of the remnants of Gonski that managed to get over the line.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="School children in uniform walking across school grounds" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449445/original/file-20220302-27-1ko7lu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449445/original/file-20220302-27-1ko7lu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449445/original/file-20220302-27-1ko7lu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449445/original/file-20220302-27-1ko7lu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449445/original/file-20220302-27-1ko7lu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449445/original/file-20220302-27-1ko7lu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449445/original/file-20220302-27-1ko7lu3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Since the Gonski review, tens of thousands of students have gone through a school system that failed to meet their educational needs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Students – and Australia – continue to miss out</h2>
<p>The story is complete with a coming-of-age personal drama highlighting the impacts of funding on two young students as they move through their schooling.</p>
<p>It is important to remember that many thousands of children have completed <em>all</em> their schooling in the post-Gonski era, without the funding deemed necessary for the system to be “educationally effective”. The pathways of those lives have missed out on the educational enrichment funding to the Schooling Resource Standard would have brought.</p>
<p>Alongside Waiting for Gonski, a <a href="https://www.cper.edu.au/conferences">Why Money Does Matter</a> conference marked the 10th anniversary with further sobering analysis, available <a href="https://www.cper.edu.au/conferences">here</a>. </p>
<p>Gonski made “needs-based” equity funding part of our vocabulary but not part of our system. It is clear that action to fully implement true needs-based funding is urgently needed. </p>
<p>Waiting for Gonski ends with a call to action. For our education system to thrive nothing short of <a href="https://www.gie.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/Structural%20Failure_final.pdf">substantial structural change</a> will do. </p>
<p>Greenwell and Bonnor also argue public funding brings public obligations, and a public contract is needed, requiring non-government schools to operate with policies comparable to those of government schools. Such an approach would “level the playing field”, which would undoubtedly strengthen Australian education and our economy. Do we have to wait much longer?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Let us do something, while we have the chance! … Let us make the most of it, before it is too late!” <strong>― Samuel Beckett, Waiting For Godot</strong>.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178016/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>I previously published a report "Structural failure: Why Australia keeps falling short of its educational goals" co-authored by Chris Bonnor, one of the authors of 'Waiting for Gonski'
I am also on the Board of the Centre for Public Education Research that hosted the conference mentioned in this article.</span></em></p>A decade ago, it was hoped the Gonski reforms would level the playing field for Australian students, but the system is now even more unfair. A new book lays out how it all went wrong.Rachel Wilson, Associate Professor in Education, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1240002019-09-30T19:45:11Z2019-09-30T19:45:11ZGonski’s vision of ‘personalised learning’ will stifle creativity and lead to a generation of automatons<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294714/original/file-20190930-185369-qdyvw2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The general idea of personalised learning is where teachers help students understand key concepts through individualised learning and group work.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The education debate in Australia becomes tangled when the same key concepts are used by various groups and individuals to mean very different things. </p>
<p>Take the concept of “personalised learning”. It can describe a flexible approach to learning which starts with each student’s individual strengths and capabilities, and encourages a wide range of learning activities. Or it can be used to justify a program of rigid and scripted individual learning progressions. </p>
<p>In the past few years the idea of “<a href="https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/national-literacy-and-numeracy-learning-progressions/">learning progressions</a>” has garnered a lot of attention in curriculum debates and reviews. Invariably it is argued <a href="https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/literacy-and-numeracy/professional-learning/introduction-to-the-literacy-and-numeracy-progressions-online">learning progressions promote</a> “personalised learning”. </p>
<p>It is important therefore to subject this claim to some scrutiny and try to understand the version of “personalised learning” being promoted in policy circles.</p>
<h2>From year levels to learning progressions</h2>
<p>In 2017 the then Turnbull government appointed David Gonski to lead a review into how to improve <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-announces-schools-funding-and-a-new-gonski-review-77011">Australian schools</a>. The idea was that if the amount of Commonwealth money going to schools was to be increased – as recommended by the <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">earlier Gonski review</a> in 2011 – then we needed guidance as to what the money should be spent on.</p>
<p>A central proposal in the <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/review-achieve-educational-excellence-australian-schools">subsequent 2018 report</a>, dubbed as Gonski 2.0, relates to “personalised learning”. Using the well-rehearsed argument that all students should be able to demonstrate a year’s learning growth every year, the report’s first recommendation is that schools move
from a year-based curriculum to a curriculum expressed as learning progressions independent of year or age. </p>
<p>It claims this move will enable schools to better meet the individual learning needs of students than does the organisation of schools by year levels. The latter, the report says, is a remnant of the industrial era and must change if schools are to come into the 21st century.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gonski-review-reveals-another-grand-plan-to-overhaul-education-but-do-we-really-need-it-93119">Gonski review reveals another grand plan to overhaul education: but do we really need it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Certainly, the idea of scrapping year levels potentially creates greater flexibility for students and teachers. Rather than aiming curriculum at the average of a cohort of students at a particular age, teachers can “personalise” the curriculum by making an individual student’s readiness for learning the key criterion for curriculum planning. </p>
<p>Of course, a number of schools already do this, and in many other schools where year levels are still used, teachers use adaptive or differentiated teaching to cater for individual interests. </p>
<p>There is always a danger removing year levels will result in a return to streaming if teachers group students according to perceived ability levels rather than age, but this is not an automatic outcome and can be guarded against. </p>
<p>However, the question of removing year-level structures can’t be separated from the issue of what is taught and how. And it is here that it seems the report has taken a progressive idea like personalisation and colonised it with an instrumental purpose.</p>
<h2>Gonski’s version of personalised learning</h2>
<p>There are different approaches to personalising learning. Some enable teachers and students to negotiate learning programs based on students’ interests and learning needs. </p>
<p>For instance, in the <a href="https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/05/01/kappan_washor.html">Big Picture schools</a> in Australia and the US, students investigate topics or issues individually or in groups and report on their findings.The key to this kind of learning is skilled teachers helping students make connections across the curriculum, because key concepts are understood through negotiation and collaboration. </p>
<p>This approach prizes student agency and group as well as individual activities. It recognises learning is not a linear and scripted activity.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294731/original/file-20190930-185390-1d0iwz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294731/original/file-20190930-185390-1d0iwz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/294731/original/file-20190930-185390-1d0iwz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294731/original/file-20190930-185390-1d0iwz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294731/original/file-20190930-185390-1d0iwz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294731/original/file-20190930-185390-1d0iwz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294731/original/file-20190930-185390-1d0iwz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/294731/original/file-20190930-185390-1d0iwz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There are many approaches to personalised learning, some of which include indivudal and group activities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But that is not the version of personalised learning proposed in the 2018 Gonski report. This report recommends an approach where content and skills across every area of the curriculum are atomised into bite-sized chunks of knowledge, and then sequenced into progression levels. </p>
<p>Students work on their own and, at regular points, use online assessment tools to test their readiness for the next chunk of knowledge. Once one level is mastered, they move onto the next.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/662684_tgta_accessible_final_0.pdf">report recommends</a> that, over the next five years, the recently developed and implemented Australian Curriculum should be rewritten so every learning area and general capability is written up as a number of progression levels. </p>
<p>It offers an example of “spelling” being broken into a 16-level progression, with students mastering each step before moving lock-step onto the next level.</p>
<p>The Gonski version of personalised learning bears an uncanny resemblance to the model of <a href="http://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?tag=direct-instruction">direct instruction</a> developed in the US in the 1960s. This is a tightly scripted, step-by-step approach that follows a predetermined sequence through packaged resource materials. </p>
<p>Assessment follows each instruction phase with tests aligned to the behavioural goals of the program. The results are fed back to the teacher and student, and the stage is then set for the next phase. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-explicit-instruction-and-how-does-it-help-children-learn-115144">Explainer: what is explicit instruction and how does it help children learn?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Similarly, Gonski suggests students advance incrementally through progression levels. At regular intervals they should be assessed by an online assessment tool against the learning progressions that measure student attainment and growth in attainment levels over time. </p>
<p>The tool could also suggest, for consideration by the teacher, potential interventions to build further progress. </p>
<p>Although there is an apparent nod in the direction of teacher decision making, it is inevitable the tightly scripted nature of the process will result in a reliance on the use of online resources.</p>
<h2>Online assessment tools make students automatons</h2>
<p>The National Education Policy Centre in the United States recently reviewed a number of personalised learning programs in the country that have adopted similar characteristics to those Gonski prescribes. The <a href="https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/publications/RB%20Personalized%20Learning%20revised_0.pdf">report concludes</a> that they reflect</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] a hyper-rational approach to curriculum and pedagogy that limits students’ agency, narrows what they can learn in school, and limits schools’ ability to respond effectively to a diverse student body.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The manifestation of this model in the US has been a financial bonanza for private <a href="https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/publications/RB%20Personalized%20Learning%20revised_0.pdf">technology companies such as Summit</a>, owned by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. These companies have developed online tests and learning resources capable of tracking the progress of, and devising programs for, individual students.</p>
<p>With such programs, students become individual automatons moving through standardised progression levels. Creativity and critical thinking are stifled as students are steered down an already determined path. And teachers are increasingly excluded from the process, as planning and decision-making is done by algorithms. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/its-back-to-school-for-facebook-and-its-personal-49804">It's back to school for Facebook, and it's personal</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The result is a narrow and highly individualised learning experience that is unlikely to prepare students adequately for the challenges of the 21st century. </p>
<p>The point is that “personalised learning” can take many forms. Some approaches will liberate learners, some will tightly constrain them. The model proposed by Gonski is more likely to do the latter. Far from moving schools away from an industrial model, Gonski’s model would entrench it.</p>
<p>Rather than immediately adopting a model such as “progression levels”, surely it would be better to clarify our understanding about personalised learning, including the theories and assumptions on which various versions are based. </p>
<p>Then, if personalised learning is the goal, why not evaluate a number of different models of personalised learning? </p>
<p>The version of personalised learning Australia promotes should be one that nurtures a love and a passion for learning, not one that reduces it to a checklist. </p>
<p><em>This is an edited extract from Alan Reid’s book, <a href="https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/academic-professional/education/Changing-Australian-Education-Alan-Reid-9781760875206">Changing Australian Education: How policy is taking us backwards and what can be done about it</a>, (Allen and Unwin: Sydney), available from October 1, 2019.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124000/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Reid has received funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>Many rely on David Gonski’s ideas to shape the future of education policy. But his recommendation of personalised learning is a scripted, rigid version of education that will take us backwards.Alan Reid, Professor Emeritus of Education, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1080792018-12-20T18:50:11Z2018-12-20T18:50:11ZSchools policy in 2018: reflecting on the big events and the new developments<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/251124/original/file-20181217-27776-1n3tvfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Regardless of who wins next year's federal election, it's time for us to all get on the same page.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This is a longer read at just over 1,500 words. Enjoy!</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The year 2018 was a mixed bag for schooling policy in Australia. </p>
<p>We had new ministers, a new organisation and some auspicious anniversaries. As Christmas approaches, it’s worth reflecting on the year that’s been. </p>
<h2>Let’s begin in the states and territories</h2>
<p><strong>New South Wales</strong></p>
<p>One of the biggest ticket items this year is the <a href="https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/about/initiatives/curriculum-review">overhaul of the NSW school curriculum</a> for the first time in decades. The curriculum is currently under review – and when it’s reformed, the effect will likely be felt far beyond NSW’s borders. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/decluttering-the-nsw-curriculum-why-reducing-the-number-of-subjects-isnt-the-answer-96853">Decluttering the NSW curriculum: why reducing the number of subjects isn't the answer</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There have been <a href="https://education.nsw.gov.au/our-priorities/innovate-for-the-future/education-for-a-changing-world">multiple indications</a> the reformed curriculum may have a greater focus on capabilities. These are also known as “soft skills” or “21st century skills”, and include creative and critical thinking. (The new <a href="https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/educationstate/viccurriculumf10edstatefactsheet.pdf">Victorian Curriculum</a>, and to a lesser extent the national <a href="https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/">Australian Curriculum</a>, have also focused more closely on general capabilities.) </p>
<p>This shift is a response to <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rulesforengagement/SEL-Revised.pdf">growing evidence</a> of the vital importance of capabilities to school performance, life outcomes and the economy. There is also <a href="http://www.mitchellinstitute.org.au/reports/the-capable-country/">evidence</a> they can and should be developed in education settings from toddler-hood through to the tertiary years and beyond. Debate now turns to the best way to do so.</p>
<p><strong>South Australia</strong></p>
<p>NSW is not the only state marching forward with its own bold program. The new South Australian government is embarking on an ambitious <a href="https://www.education.sa.gov.au/teaching/school-improvement">school improvement agenda</a> to “speed up” the learning growth of every student in every classroom. This system-wide reform combines tailored approaches with a heavier emphasis on planning, data, literacy and numeracy, building on their successful trial of the <a href="https://www.education.sa.gov.au/teaching/curriculum-and-teaching/numeracy-and-literacy/phonics-screening-check">phonics check</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/south-australias-trial-of-englands-year-one-phonics-check-shows-why-we-need-it-94411">South Australia's trial of England's year one phonics check shows why we need it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Queensland</strong></p>
<p>Queensland is steadily <a href="https://www.queenslandplan.qld.gov.au/delivering-the-plan/plans-and-reports/annual-progress-report.aspx">closing gaps</a> in educational outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. </p>
<p>It has also launched a new <a href="https://qed.qld.gov.au/det-publications/strategiesandplans/Documents/strategic-plan-2018-2022-a4-booklet.pdf">strategic plan</a>. Notably, this includes early childhood education and post-school education, and additional measures for students in regional and rural areas, and students with disabilities. This is part of a cohesive approach to lifting and sustaining learning outcomes for all students. </p>
<p><strong>Victoria</strong></p>
<p>The re-election of the Andrews government in November sees the continuation of its <a href="https://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/educationstate/Pages/vision.aspx">Education State reform agenda</a>. This includes funding more specialists in schools (teachers, doctors, speech pathologists, psychologists and social workers), building and renovating more schools, and providing more preschool. </p>
<p>Yes, in a landmark policy announcement, Victoria’s youngest residents will receive <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/labor-s-5-billion-kinder-promise-for-victorian-families-20181004-p507ob.html">two years of funded preschool</a>. Given the <a href="http://www.mitchellinstitute.org.au/reports/two-years-preschool/">benefits of quality preschool</a> to all students, especially reducing developmental vulnerability on school entry, it’s a solid investment. It is one of the only strategies proven by research to lift outcomes for <em>all</em> children.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/research-shows-there-are-benefits-from-getting-more-three-year-olds-into-preschool-104416">Research shows there are benefits from getting more three-year-olds into preschool</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Western Australia</strong></p>
<p>Western Australia is turning its attention to better recruitment, development and support for school leaders, as part of its broader <a href="https://www.education.wa.edu.au/documents/43634987/0/WA+Department+of+Education+Proposed+Public+School+Leadership+Strategy.PDF/f03c80ac-47e2-329d-4df7-03b2196a23ef">system improvement strategy</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Tasmania</strong></p>
<p>In Tasmania, the ongoing implementation of the <a href="https://www.education.tas.gov.au/about-us/legislation/education-act/">2017 Education Act</a> kept schools and department officials busy – in large part due to giant shift to 13 years of compulsory schooling (prep to year 12) by 2020. </p>
<p>Until recently, many schools finished at year ten and students wanting to continue their education move to a new school, often in a new town. This is a major factor in Tassie’s low <a href="http://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia-data-portal/year-12-certification-rates">year 12 completion rate</a> of only 72% - a full 10% lower than the national average. </p>
<p><strong>The Northern Territory</strong></p>
<p>And the NT launched it’s latest <a href="https://education.nt.gov.au/education/statistics-research-and-strategies/strategic-plan">strategic plan</a> with a focus on school leadership, quality, equity, differentiated learning, community engagement and better data. </p>
<p>They also put out a new <a href="https://education.nt.gov.au/education/statistics-research-and-strategies/school-resourcing-model-action-plan-for-the-future">school funding model</a>, with a greater emphasis on action and targeting to student needs and interventions. </p>
<p><strong>ACT</strong></p>
<p>The ACT became the first jurisdiction in Australia to provide every secondary student in a government school with a laptop. The ACT 2018-19 budget also provided <a href="https://apps.treasury.act.gov.au/budget/budget-2018-2019/budget-in-brief/educatio">A$9.2 million for research and trials</a> of new teaching techniques in response to damning research that found once socio-economic backgrounds are taken into account, ACT students are <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/canberra-s-public-high-school-students-up-to-a-year-behind-20180824-p4zzik.html">up to a year behind</a> their counterparts in other states and territories. </p>
<h2>Turning to the federal level</h2>
<p><strong>Gonski 2.0</strong></p>
<p>The March release of the Gonski 2.0 <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/review-achieve-educational-excellence-australian-schools">report</a> was an early highlight. This review was tasked with identifying the school and classroom factors that can make the biggest, sustained difference to educational achievement. This includes what funding should be spent on, rather than structural issues like funding allocations.</p>
<p>Gonski 2.0 advocated for a student-centred schooling system based on learning growth over time. Key recommendations focused on enhancing student voice, and better valuing of and support for teachers and school leaders, including providing them with the time and tools (including finer grain data, and data beyond NAPLAN) to focus on teaching and educational leadership, so they’re not swamped by administrative compliance. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gonski-review-reveals-another-grand-plan-to-overhaul-education-but-do-we-really-need-it-93119">Gonski review reveals another grand plan to overhaul education: but do we really need it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>(Astute readers will have noticed the key elements of Gonski 2.0 are already key elements of existing state and territory policy platforms and strategies.)</p>
<p><strong>Happy anniversary?</strong></p>
<p>2018 was the tenth anniversary of three major pillars of Australian schooling policy: <a href="https://www.nap.edu.au/">NAPLAN</a>, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (<a href="http://www.acara.edu.au/">ACARA</a>) and the <a href="http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf">Melbourne Declaration</a> of Educational Goals for Young Australians. Each celebrated this milestone amidst growing <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/education/desperately-disappointing-10-years-since-the-melbourne-declaration-20181201-p50jk5.html">debate</a> on whether they had served their intended purpose.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-melbourne-declaration-on-educational-goals-for-young-australians-what-it-is-and-why-it-needs-updating-107895">The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians: what it is and why it needs updating</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the case of NAPLAN, this was accompanied by a growing call for its abolition or overhaul. NAPLAN was intended as a nationally-comparable, point-in-time dataset on a few vital areas to support schools and system leaders to make program and resourcing decisions. It was also meant to inform parental choice of schools.</p>
<p>But misunderstanding and misuse of NAPLAN has led to perverse effects. These include an overemphasis on preparation by some schools and families, resulting in anxiety and curriculum narrowing. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/five-things-we-wouldnt-know-without-naplan-94286">Five things we wouldn't know without NAPLAN</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>In with the new</strong></p>
<p>2018 also saw the launch of a new national institution - the <a href="https://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/about-us/gonski-institute-for-education/">Gonski Institute</a> focused on addressing education inequality across Australia. Despite - or perhaps because of - near continuous reforms at state and federal levels this past decade, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-5871.12317">inequality continues to grow</a>. </p>
<p>We also got a new federal education minister – Dan Tehan. He received the poisoned chalice of continuing the long and testy negotiations with the states on a five-year school funding agreement derived from the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017A00078">2017 Education Act</a> (the previous round of funding refoms) and the Gonski 2.0 findings. </p>
<p>These <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/national-school-reform-agreement-0">funding agreements</a> are also a key element of the Coalition’s <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/quality-schools-package">Quality Schools policy package</a>, which has remained fairly constant the last few years.</p>
<p>It wasn’t until this week all jurisdictions were finally signed-up. But the last signatory - Victoria - only made a one-month deal. The Victorian government has expressed their concerns about a “<a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/holding-kids-to-ransom-one-year-school-funding-deal-knocked-back-20181213-p50m3m.html">dud deal</a>” that provides more funding for students at non-government schools than those at government schools. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-victorian-governments-decision-not-to-sign-on-to-the-gonski-reforms-means-for-schools-in-the-new-year-108674">What the Victorian government's decision not to sign on to the Gonski reforms means for schools in the new year</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This short-term deal raises a bunch of questions as we head into the near year and the 2019 federal election - will there be by more short-term deals? Will other states seek to renegotiate better terms? Is Victoria banking on a change of government - and negotiating partner?</p>
<h2>What do we know about federal Labor’s plans for education?</h2>
<p>The key elements of Labor’s schooling policy pillars are restoring funding to schools cut by the Coalition. This includes, contentiously, restoring funding to some of the most over-funded non-government schools. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/an-education-research-institute-wont-take-politics-out-of-the-classroom-92037">An education research institute won't take politics out of the classroom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>They have also pledged an additional year of preschool for all kids across Australia, and have announced they will establish a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/16/labor-pledges-280m-research-institute-to-take-politics-out-of-the-classroom">national evidence institute</a> for education policy. </p>
<p><strong>A new year and new goals</strong></p>
<p>The updating of the national goals for Australian schooling by Australia’s state, territory and Commonwealth education ministers next year provides an opportunity to reflect on the purposes of schooling in the 21st century. </p>
<p>It’s hard to find fault with Minister Tehan’s <a href="https://ministers.education.gov.au/tehan/updating-melbourne-declaration">statement</a> that “Australia needs a shared agenda across the country to ensure alignment between policy, practice and delivery” and that young people need “a quality school education, tailored to individual needs”. </p>
<p>But it’s also true the 2008 goals were <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/education/let-s-end-our-neo-liberal-school-testing-fixation-20181213-p50m3q.html">never achieved</a> because it was never properly implemented.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explaining-australias-school-funding-debate-whats-at-stake-100023">Explaining Australia's school funding debate: what's at stake</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Grand goals are well and good, but we need to also provision for implementation and work hard to make it happen. This means time, resources, clarity on each stakeholder’s role in creating an excellent and equitable schooling system (which enables all young Australians to become successful learners, confident and creative individuals), and active and informed citizens. </p>
<p>It’s time to commit to action and cooperation, regardless of who wins the 2019 elections.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108079/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bronwyn Hinz is Director of Research and Development for Pivot Professional Learning where she works with key schooling stakeholders across Australia, from students to senior government officials. Pivot has partnerships and pilot projects with the Victorian Department of Education and Training, the Bastow Institute for Educational Leadership, the NSW Department of Education, the Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, Sydney Catholic Schools, Teach for Australia and more. Bronwyn does not directly receive funding from these bodies, nor does Pivot or its partners or clients benefit directly from this article. </span></em></p>2018 was a mixed bag for schooling policy in Australia, with new ministers, a new organisation and auspicious anniversaries. It’s worth reflecting on the year that’s been.Bronwyn Hinz, Director of Research and Development, Pivot Professional Learning; and Honorary Fellow, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1067722018-11-22T18:54:03Z2018-11-22T18:54:03ZFactCheck: does Victoria have Australia’s lowest rate of public school funding?<blockquote>
<p>Victoria has the lowest funding rate for public schools of any state in Australia.
<strong>– Victorian Greens state election pamphlet, circulated in the seat of Melbourne, November 2018</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/246337/original/file-20181120-161627-1q4s2q4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Victorian Greens state election pamphlet, November 2018.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Australian Greens party <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/greens-pledge-extra-205bn-for-public-schools/news-story/961f84e65d97abe4c319166239ae1402?from=htc_rss&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=TheAustralian&utm_content=SocialFlow">this week</a> outlined its federal public education policy, saying it would spend an extra A$20.5 billion on public schools over the next 10 years, legislate to remove the cap on Commonwealth contributions to the sector, and cancel what it described as special deals for private schools, among <a href="https://greens.org.au/sites/default/files/2018-11/POLICY%20INITIATIVE-%20Funding%20Public%20Schools.pdf">other proposals</a>. </p>
<p>In the lead-up to Saturday’s Victorian election, the Victorian Greens shared campaign pamphlets arguing the state’s education funding needed to be brought up to the national average, stating that “Victoria has the lowest funding rate for public schools of any state in Australia”.</p>
<p>We asked the experts to check the numbers.</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>In response to The Conversation’s request for sources and comment, a spokesperson for the Victorian Greens provided the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>According to the most recent publicly available information from the Productivity Commission’s <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/child-care-education-and-training/school-education">Report on Government Services 2018</a>, recurrent funding per student in Victoria in 2015-16 was the lowest in the country at A$13,301 per student, which is A$1,589 lower than the national average of A$14,890.</p>
<p>The next lowest spending state is Tasmania, spending A$14,372 per student, and the highest spending state is Western Australia at A$17,306.</p>
<p>The relevant figures can be found in the <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/348/rogs-2018-partb-chapter4-attachment.xlsx?1542152525">attached table</a> at tab 4A.14.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The statement made by the Victorian Greens is correct: Victoria does have the lowest funding rate for public schools of any state or territory in Australia. Total government funding for Victorian government schools in 2015-16 was A$15,656 per student. </p>
<p>Victoria has had the lowest per student government funding for public schools in Australia for at least a decade, due to relatively low levels of state government funding compared with other states and territories. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, Victorian students’ performance on national and international assessments is generally above average.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Response to the sources provided by the Victorian Greens</h2>
<p>The figures provided by the Greens spokesperson are not the total government funding for Victorian public schools; they are state government funding only. </p>
<h1>How is school funding allocated?</h1>
<p>All schools in Australia — government (public) and non-government (Catholic and independent) — receive public funding from both the federal government and their respective state or territory government. </p>
<p>Under the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0%7E2012%7EMain%20Features%7EGovernment%20responsibilities%20in%20education%7E103">Commonwealth Constitution</a>, school education is the responsibility of state governments. As such, most government funding for schools comes from state governments.</p>
<p>In 2015-16 (the most recent year of finalised accounts provided by the Productivity Commission), total government funding for schools was <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/child-care-education-and-training/school-education/rogs-2018-partb-chapter4.pdf">A$55.7 billion</a>. This comprised 28% from the federal government and 72% from state and territory governments. </p>
<p>(The funding figures for government schools include a non-cash accounting element called <a href="https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2826">user cost of capital</a> that is not included in non-government school funding figures. This complicates comparisons between the government and non-government sectors, but doesn’t substantially affect state-by-state comparisons of government schools).</p>
<p>However, the balance of funding sources in the government and non-government school sectors is very different.</p>
<p>Non-government schools receive most of their funding from the federal government, whereas government schools receive most of their funding from state and territory governments. </p>
<h2>Funding for government schools</h2>
<p>In 2015-16, <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/child-care-education-and-training/school-education/rogs-2018-partb-chapter4.pdf">86%</a> of funding for government schools came from state and territory governments, and 14% from the federal government. The latter was an increase over the past decade from the <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/child-care-education-and-training/school-education/rogs-2018-partb-chapter4.pdf">9%</a> of federal funding for government schools in 2006-07. </p>
<p>In Victorian government schools, the federal government’s share of funding increased from <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/child-care-education-and-training/school-education/rogs-2018-partb-chapter4.pdf">9% to 15%</a> in the decade to 2015-16.</p>
<p>This increase in the federal government contribution is largely the result of the various <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-passage-of-gonski-2-0-is-a-victory-for-children-over-politics-79828">iterations</a> of the <a href="https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2017/05/rr26.pdf?">school funding model</a> that arose from the <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/review-funding-schooling-final-report-december-2011">Gonski review</a> of school funding in 2011.</p>
<p>The current funding model under the <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/australian-education-act-2013">Australian Education Act 2013</a> has two components: a base level of funding, and additional loadings for disadvantage. All government schools are allocated 100% of the base level, while non-government schools have their base level adjusted according to the socioeconomic status of the school population.</p>
<p>The loadings — which are allocated for socioeconomic disadvantage, indigenous students, students with limited English language proficiency, students with disabilities, and small/remote schools — are not subject to any means-test adjustments. </p>
<p>The funding model sets each school a theoretical or aspirational <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/what-schooling-resource-standard-and-how-does-it-work">Schooling Resource Standard</a> (SRS) that combined federal and state/territory funding should meet. As the SRS represents a large increase in funding for some school sectors, it is being <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/how-will-schools-transition-new-funding-arrangements-be-calculated">phased in</a> over several years.</p>
<h2>What’s Victoria’s share?</h2>
<p>While both levels of government produce budget forward estimates projected over four years, it’s not possible to predict funding levels or enrolments with sufficient precision to know whether Victorian government schools will continue to have lower per student funding than other states in the future.</p>
<p>In 2015-16, total government funding for Victorian government schools was A$15,656 per student – the lowest rate in Australia. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/fRelL/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="527"></iframe>
<h2>Does lower funding mean poorer outcomes?</h2>
<p>No, lower average funding does not necessarily mean lower average performance. </p>
<p>Victorian government and non-government school students have been at least above average and often among the highest achieving states in the <a href="http://reports.acara.edu.au/NAP/NaplanResults">National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy</a> (NAPLAN), frequently outperforming the higher funded schools in the Australian Capital Territory.</p>
<p>In the <a href="https://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/21/">Program for International Student Assessment 2015</a> (PISA), Victoria’s average performance in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy was among the top three states and territories (but Victoria had relatively low proportions of high-achieving students).</p>
<p>In the <a href="https://research.acer.edu.au/timss_2015/1/">Trends in International Maths and Science Study 2015</a> (TIMSS), the average performance of Victorian students in maths and science in Years 4 and 8 was either equal first or second among Australian states and territories. <strong>– Jennifer Buckingham</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Blind review</h2>
<p>The verdict is correct: Victorian government schools have the lowest level of government funding of any state. This is true when all government funding is counted (as the fact-checker correctly argues it should be, given the original statement) or just state government funding (the figures provided by The Greens.)</p>
<p>Comparing funding as a percentage of Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) gives a more nuanced comparison of relative funding, by taking into account the individual needs of each school. But it doesn’t change the answer: in 2016, Victorian government schools got just <a href="https://twitter.com/peter_goss/status/1065488300780089344">82% of their SRS target</a>, 6 percentage points lower than the next lowest funded state.</p>
<p>It’s even harder to make a clear link between funding levels and student outcomes. The data provided on average achievement levels in NAPLAN, PISA and TIMSS cover all school sectors, not just government schools. State-wide averages do not account for the fact that Victoria has fewer disadvantaged students than many states. And while it is formally true that Victoria is in the top three in PISA and top two in TIMSS, Victoria’s performance was not statistically higher than the national average in any of these international tests in 2015. Determining the impact on outcomes of Victoria’s low funding levels is a subject for another discussion. <strong>– Peter Goss</strong></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106772/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and Grattan uses the income to pursue its activities.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Buckingham 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>Were the Victorian Greens correct about pubic school funding? We asked the experts to check the numbers.Jennifer Buckingham, Senior Research Fellow, The Centre for Independent Studies; Associate Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/957812018-05-03T20:20:39Z2018-05-03T20:20:39ZWhat democratic schools can teach us about how to implement Gonski 2.0<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217183/original/file-20180502-153914-qlhydd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Democratic schools are student centred, with individualised learning.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gonski 2.0 makes 23 <a href="https://www.appa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/20180430-Through-Growth-to-Achievement_Text.pdf">recommendations</a> to change Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/gonski-review-attacks-australian-schooling-quality-and-urges-individualised-teaching-approach-95764">education landscape </a>. The federal government has <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/the-gonski-20-vision-to-shakeup-schools/news-story/526cb97bb5992cb509bbf50e379c486e">accepted</a> all of those recommendations. </p>
<p>David Gonski will present his report at the special <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/the-gonski-20-vision-to-shakeup-schools/news-story/526cb97bb5992cb509bbf50e379c486e">COAG meeting</a> on May 4. The federal education minister will need to secure the support of all states and territories. </p>
<p>While these recommendations suggest major change to current education practice, democratic schools have been implementing many of these ideas for <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/education/where-all-are-equal-20100729-10x6z.html">40 years</a>. They provide a model for how states and territories could proceed.</p>
<h2>Democratic schools and their philosophy</h2>
<p>Democratic schools are <a href="https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042815005881/1-s2.0-S1877042815005881-main.pdf?_tid=9ed12756-da95-4bfa-a195-9659039016a5&acdnat=1525131292_a98a5b1f0c539d8a616a23e91e6dbf32">student-centred</a>, with individualised learning and progression plans. They <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/380572">avoid age grouping or “year levels”</a>. These schools put <a href="http://www.appstate.edu/%7Enelsenpj/rcoe/2400Fall11/Welcome_files/Apple&Beane95.pdf">individual student’s needs</a> at the heart of the school and the <a href="https://www.eudec.org/Democratic+Education">learning</a>. They report <a href="http://www.kinma.nsw.edu.au/178-primary">student’s learning</a> and progression in relation to students as individuals. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gonski-review-reveals-another-grand-plan-to-overhaul-education-but-do-we-really-need-it-93119">Gonski review reveals another grand plan to overhaul education: but do we really need it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Democratic schools operate in <a href="https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/List_of_democratic_schools.html">many countries</a> across the <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1v3zlskHzh-9cpgbw-_CibDnXzK8&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C-61.25920635&z=1">world</a>. They are based on a belief we need to work against a <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Democratic-Schools-Second-Powerful-Education/dp/0325010757">cookie-cutter</a> approach to education. These schools <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220671.2013.823365?src=recsys&journalCode=vjer20">individualise instruction</a> and base learning on the <a href="http://democraticeducation.org/index.php/features/what-is-democratic-education/">individual needs of the learner</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217184/original/file-20180502-153884-1an1nv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217184/original/file-20180502-153884-1an1nv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217184/original/file-20180502-153884-1an1nv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217184/original/file-20180502-153884-1an1nv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217184/original/file-20180502-153884-1an1nv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217184/original/file-20180502-153884-1an1nv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217184/original/file-20180502-153884-1an1nv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Democratic schools report learning and progression.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Tech giant Apple is an <a href="http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-8/michael-apple-on-ideology-in-curriculum">advocate</a> for democratic schools. They argue that by implementing the democratic schools’ model, we can achieve greater social cohesion, improve social mobility and ensure a fair and equitable education for all. </p>
<p><a href="http://education.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-80">Others</a> have found, for more than <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/443842">40 years</a>, these schools successfully foster in students a sense of success and an ability to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/200808/children-educate-themselves-iv-lessons-sudbury-valley">manage their learning</a>. These <a href="https://wicklowsudburyschooldotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/sudbury-vs-old-school2.png?w=640">skills</a> are predictors of <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x">later life success</a>.</p>
<h2>Gonski’s recommendations</h2>
<p>In his recent review, Gonski made several recommendations that are aligned with democratic education. The <a href="https://www.appa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/20180430-Through-Growth-to-Achievement_Text.pdf">three priorities</a> are:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>measure growth and learning based on where students start, not based on their age</p></li>
<li><p>ensure children are engaged and connected learners prepared for a changing world</p></li>
<li><p>make the system adaptive, innovative and improve it to meet students’ needs.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>All of these recommendations are already implemented in democratic schools. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217186/original/file-20180502-153884-1gqw93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217186/original/file-20180502-153884-1gqw93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217186/original/file-20180502-153884-1gqw93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217186/original/file-20180502-153884-1gqw93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217186/original/file-20180502-153884-1gqw93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217186/original/file-20180502-153884-1gqw93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217186/original/file-20180502-153884-1gqw93.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">While we still know little about how the recommendations will be implemented in practice, we can learn a thing or two from democratic schools.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These schools are adaptive to <a href="https://sudburyschool.com/content/sudbury-model-education">student’s needs</a>, in innovative <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/01/kids-arent-widgets-the-radical-thinking-that-offers-a-way-forward-after-gonski">curriculum, assessment, reporting</a> and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317544606_Education_for_Social_Justice_in_a_Free_and_Democratic_School">behaviour management</a>. </p>
<p>The report also calls on early learning to provide a seamless transition into school, as is the case where preschools and primary schools are connected. Kinma School, for example, provides a model of how <a href="http://www.kinma.nsw.edu.au/kinma-preschool/transition-to-school">transition</a> can be effectively managed from pre- to primary school. They have the children visit throughout the year to familiarise themselves with teachers, other kids and the environment, and allow parents to stay in the classroom with their child until the student feels comfortable on their own.</p>
<p>The Gonksi report states education should equip “every student to grow and succeed in a changing world”. As noted by many democratic schools, there’s no way of knowing what students need to know. So, they allow students to determine their <a href="http://www.pinecommunityschool.org/day-to-day/curriculum">overarching topics of study</a>, to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/01/kids-arent-widgets-the-radical-thinking-that-offers-a-way-forward-after-gonski">pace and manage their learning</a> based on their <a href="https://theconversation.com/principal-school-doesnt-work-for-most-kids-32733">strengths, interests and needs</a>. They also focus on the development of <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0973184913411145">problem solving</a> and students’ abilities to be change makers in the community.</p>
<p>There is also an emphasis on timely, ongoing feedback in the report. Democratic schools argue <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220671.2013.823365?src=recsys&journalCode=vjer20">feedback to learners</a> is more important than one-off assessments. Feedback, as opposed to assessment, allows students to manage their learning in <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0ahUKEwjs4sfQpOPaAhUBG5QKHd2nBbQQFghuMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifescienceglobal.com%2Fpms%2Findex.php%2Fijcs%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F3890%2F2244&usg=AOvVaw30BpSIQ0eg0EM_xHfNiYrE">partnership</a> with teachers and facilitators.</p>
<p>Further, technology is vital to Gonski’s recommendations. The report notes it can be used to enhance and measure students’ learning. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217188/original/file-20180502-153878-1wbzx24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217188/original/file-20180502-153878-1wbzx24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217188/original/file-20180502-153878-1wbzx24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217188/original/file-20180502-153878-1wbzx24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217188/original/file-20180502-153878-1wbzx24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217188/original/file-20180502-153878-1wbzx24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217188/original/file-20180502-153878-1wbzx24.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There is already evidence of democratic schooling working in practice.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In democratic schools, <a href="https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ754046.pdf">technology is central</a> to the development of the <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF03024954">individual as a learner</a>, to <a href="http://eugenesudburyschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/EugeneSudburySchoolHandbook.pdf">accessing ideas</a> and information that was previously unavailable. It also democratises the role of the <a href="http://www.pinecommunityschool.org/philosophy/democratic-education">teacher as facilitator</a> and not an overarching expert in all things.</p>
<p>Some democratic schools in the US use <a href="https://sudburybeach.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/is-altschool-the-future-of-education/">technology to manage teacher development</a> by videoing teachers in class and helping them use that data to improve their performance.</p>
<h2>It can be done, and done well</h2>
<p>Some may argue many of these reforms are <a href="http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/gonski-20-wont-help-schools-20180430-h0zg0e">impossible to implement</a>. But there is evidence of elements working in practice, <a href="https://theconversation.com/principal-school-doesnt-work-for-most-kids-32733">in Australia</a> and <a href="https://www.tallgrasssudbury.org/blog/2017/8/14/but-does-it-work">overseas</a>. </p>
<p>Democratic schools are already working within the Gonski recommendations, including the multi-age philosophy at <a href="http://www.kinma.nsw.edu.au/kinma-primary">Kinma</a>, <a href="http://currambena.nsw.edu.au/">Currambena</a> and <a href="http://www.pinecommunityschool.org/">Pine Community School</a>. There is also a noticeable approach to flexibility, at <a href="https://tc.vic.edu.au/our-philosophy-in-depth/">Templestowe College</a> in secondary and senior secondary school. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/democratic-schooling-teachers-leave-them-kids-alone-24669">Democratic schooling: teachers leave them kids alone</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The importance of the learner is central to Gonski’s report and to wider discussions about how we engage students in education that benefits them and the community in the 21st century. While we still know little about how the recommendations will be implemented in practice, we can learn a thing or two from democratic schools.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95781/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca English 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>Democratic schools already employ some of the recommendations from the Gonski report, chief among them individualisation of teaching.Rebecca English, Lecturer in Education, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/937222018-03-22T04:16:52Z2018-03-22T04:16:52ZCatholic schools aren’t all the same, and Gonski 2.0 reflects this<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211483/original/file-20180322-165583-13xaejj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In the debate about Catholic school funding, it needs to be recognised that not all Catholic schools are the same.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=QED6NQLrTlDywMMEYjb53g-1-13">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bill Shorten <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/20/public-school-lobby-criticises-labors-arbitrary-250m-for-catholic-schools">is being accused</a> of buying support from the Catholic sector to win the seat of Batman, by appearing to promise Catholic schools A$250 million in the first two years of a Labor government. The Catholic sector says this money goes a way to restoring the funding lost in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-passage-of-gonski-2-0-is-a-victory-for-children-over-politics-79828">Gonski 2.0 reforms</a>. Public and independent schools are outraged at the perceived favouritism.</p>
<p>Part of the key to making sense of this seemingly endless debate is to recognise that Catholic schools are not all the same. Even more important is that government funding, under the Gonski 2.0 model, will reflect the actual socioeconomic mix of each school.</p>
<p>Batman, for instance, is a diverse electorate, which provides an interesting case study. The Catholic schools serving the highest proportion of educationally disadvantaged students will either be unaffected by Gonski 2.0, or will attract more government funding. Those with more students in higher socioeconomic groups will be affected – but this is fair policy.</p>
<h2>How schools funding works</h2>
<p>Under the new schools funding model, often called Gonski 2.0, a <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/what-schooling-resource-standard-and-how-does-it-work">school resourcing standard</a> (SRS) is calculated for each school. This target level of funding incorporates three elements.</p>
<p>The first is a level of base funding per student for all schools. In 2018, this is A$13,764 per secondary school student and A$10,953 per primary student. </p>
<p>The second is additional needs-based funding based mainly on the characteristics of each school’s students. This is measured in terms of low socio-economic status (SES), disability, and language background other than English.</p>
<p>The third element is an estimate of the capacity of parents who send their children to non-government schools to contribute towards the cost of schooling. This ranges from 10% of the base funding for low-SES schools to 80% for high-SES schools. This means Catholic and independent schools with poorer parents get more government funding than those with more affluent parents, even before individual student need is taken into account.</p>
<p>The estimated parental capacity to contribute is based on <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/2017_and_2018_ses_scores_for_publication_11oct17_-_updated_20.11.17.pdf">each non-government school’s SES score</a>. This is calculated by looking at the <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aea2013210/s54.html">average socioeconomic makeup</a> of the areas where a school’s parents live.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211487/original/file-20180322-165550-4elkfw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211487/original/file-20180322-165550-4elkfw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211487/original/file-20180322-165550-4elkfw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211487/original/file-20180322-165550-4elkfw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211487/original/file-20180322-165550-4elkfw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211487/original/file-20180322-165550-4elkfw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211487/original/file-20180322-165550-4elkfw.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 with an SES score of less than 100 will either be unaffected, or have their funding increased, under Gonski 2.0.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/thoughtful-elementary-students-sitting-classroom-143627596">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A non-government school with students from a mix of average neighbourhoods would have an SES score of 100. In 2018, under Gonski 2.0, parents of a primary student in such a school would be expected to contribute about A$1,750 (16% of the base funding). This would be roughly twice as much for secondary school (A$3,484 or 25%).</p>
<p>A non-government school with students from very affluent neighbourhoods might have an SES score of 120-130. The expected parental contribution would range from A$6,700-A$8,760 for primary schools, and A$9,500-A$11,000 for secondary schools.</p>
<p>A non-government school whose families come from battling neighbourhoods might have an SES score of about 80. For such a school, parents would be expected to contribute the minimum 10% of base funding, or A$1,095 for primary students and A$1,376 for secondary students.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/confused-about-changes-to-school-funding-heres-what-you-need-to-know-78455">Confused about changes to school funding? Here's what you need to know</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>These are huge differences. Changing the SES score of a non-government secondary school by just one point means about A$300 more or less government funding per student. For non-government primary schools, this is worth between A$200 and A$400 per student. </p>
<p>This naturally influences school fees. When government funding is low, fees will typically be high. When government funding is high, schools can afford to set low fees.</p>
<h2>From Gonski 1.0 to Gonski 2.0</h2>
<p>The original Gonski model (in 2013) treated Catholic schools as a homogeneous group. They were allocated a “system-weighted average” score based on the state the school was in, such as <a href="http://www.csnsw.catholic.edu.au/school-funding-explained-in-five-easy-steps-no-really/">a score of 101 in NSW</a>. </p>
<p>Primary schools that came under this score had an expected parental contribution of 13.5%. Regardless of how advantaged a Catholic primary school might be, the formula never expected parents to contribute more than A$1,400. </p>
<p>This enabled all Catholic primary schools to keep their fees low – often in the range of A$2,000-A$3,500 even for the most highly advantaged schools and regardless of parents’ actual ability to pay. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, a highly advantaged independent primary school would need to have fees of at least A$8,000 per year to have adequate resources to educate its students.</p>
<p>Gonski 2.0 removed the system-weighted average. Funding for Catholic schools will still be handed over to each state as a lump sum, and each Catholic diocese will retain the right to allocate funding across its schools. But the calculation of the school resourcing standard for each school will take into account the huge differences in parents’ financial means.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-funding-work-in-the-catholic-school-system-78469">Explainer: how does funding work in the Catholic school system?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The Batman case study</h2>
<p>So back to Batman - where this latest funding fight has erupted. The northern part of the electorate is mainly covered by the generally working-class suburb of Reservoir. The middle is split between Preston and Thornbury, both of which have gentrified over recent years.</p>
<p>The southern end includes Northcote, Alphington, Fairfield and Clifton Hill, once home to Italian nonnas but now dominated by professionals keen to live close Melbourne’s centre. There are 13 Catholic primary schools in Batman. The SES scores range from 92 in Reservoir to 117 in Alphington. </p>
<p>Six socially diverse schools in the northern end of Batman have an SES score of less than 100. So their funding is unaffected, or even increased, under Gonski 2.0. Two other schools in the north have an SES score of just over 100. Most of their students (78%) come from families that are more advantaged than average, <a href="http://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/About_icsea_2014.pdf">based on their parents’ education and occupation</a>, and only 4% come from the most disadvantaged quarter of families. Their expected capacity to contribute will increase by less than A$1,000.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-passage-of-gonski-2-0-is-a-victory-for-children-over-politics-79828">The passage of Gonski 2.0 is a victory for children over politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Three schools in the middle of the electorate have an SES score of 108 or 109. These will be affected more: their expected capacity to contribute will increase by about A$2,000. </p>
<p>Two small schools at the southern end have an SES score of 115 or above. Their expected capacity to contribute will increase by about A$4,000 per student. But this would have a very different impact across the two schools, because one appears to serve advantaged families (70% of students from the most educationally-advantaged quartile and only 1% from the least), while the other is much more socially diverse (10% from the least advantaged quartile and another 20% from the second-lowest). </p>
<p>This highlights some of the limitations of the current SES score, which is one reason why it is so important to improve it in the <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/review-socio-economic-status-ses-score-methodology">current review</a> by the recently appointed <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/national-school-resourcing-board">National School Resourcing Board</a>.</p>
<h2>A national picture</h2>
<p>The nationwide picture is similar to that of Batman. For Catholic schools with the lowest SES scores, nearly three-quarters of their students come from families that are less advantaged than average. For Catholic schools with the highest SES scores, this proportion is well under 10%.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211498/original/file-20180322-165574-tqdmgb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211498/original/file-20180322-165574-tqdmgb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211498/original/file-20180322-165574-tqdmgb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211498/original/file-20180322-165574-tqdmgb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211498/original/file-20180322-165574-tqdmgb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211498/original/file-20180322-165574-tqdmgb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211498/original/file-20180322-165574-tqdmgb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211498/original/file-20180322-165574-tqdmgb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Educationally disadvantaged students are the bottom two quartiles of the socio-educational advantage (SEA) metric, a student-level measure of parental education and occupation that is reported on MySchool.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Grattan Institute</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Looking at the most educationally disadvantaged quartile of students, Catholic schools look even more similar to independent schools with the same SES score.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211499/original/file-20180322-165564-m0w5tt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211499/original/file-20180322-165564-m0w5tt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211499/original/file-20180322-165564-m0w5tt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211499/original/file-20180322-165564-m0w5tt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211499/original/file-20180322-165564-m0w5tt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211499/original/file-20180322-165564-m0w5tt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211499/original/file-20180322-165564-m0w5tt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211499/original/file-20180322-165564-m0w5tt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Educationally very disadvantaged students are the bottom quartile of the socio-educational advantage (SEA) metric, a student-level measure of parental education and occupation that is reported on MySchool.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Grattan Institute</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In fact, for the 21 Catholic primary schools with an SES score of 125 (where the capacity to contribute curve tops out), only about 20 students out of 5,500 come from the bottom quartile. It is hard to argue these schools are socially diverse, or serving the poorer students, arguments sometimes made to justify the need to keep their fees low. </p>
<p>So, not all Catholic schools are the same, and we should stop talking about them as if they were.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93722/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and Grattan uses the income to pursue its activities.</span></em></p>Catholic schools say they’re losing money under Gonski 2.0, but this is only true for schools serving students in affluent areas – those in poorer areas will either be unaffected, or get more.Peter Goss, School Education Program Director, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/916232018-02-11T19:11:17Z2018-02-11T19:11:17ZWhy the Commonwealth should resist meddling in schools<p>Australia’s education debate is shifting at last, from how much money governments should spend on schools to how best to spend the money for the benefit of students.</p>
<p>After winning parliamentary approval for the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/news/the-passage-of-gonski-2-0-is-a-victory-for-children-over-politics/">Gonski 2.0</a> schools funding deal (the “how much”), the Turnbull Government has commissioned the “<a href="https://www.education.gov.au/review-achieve-educational-excellence-australian-schools">Gonski 2.0 Review</a>” to advise on how to spend the money wisely (the “how best”).</p>
<p>But the extra Commonwealth money going to schools (A$23 billion over the next 10 years compared to previous Coalition policy) is only 3% of all government spending on schools over the decade. It should not be used as an excuse for the Commonwealth to intervene more heavily in school education policy.</p>
<p>The Grattan Institute’s new report, <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/home/school-education">The Commonwealth’s role in improving schools</a>, examines what the Commonwealth should do if it really wants to boost student outcomes. </p>
<p>And the answer is: not very much.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-passage-of-gonski-2-0-is-a-victory-for-children-over-politics-79828">The passage of Gonski 2.0 is a victory for children over politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>States are better placed to drive reforms</h2>
<p>The states run schools, as well as providing most of the funding. Heavy-handed Commonwealth intervention is likely to be counterproductive, costly and confusing. </p>
<p>Most of the big reforms needed are within the responsibilities of state governments. For example, all the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/investing-in-our-teachers-investing-in-our-economy/">evidence</a> shows effective teaching has the largest impact on student achievement. The biggest advances will be made when teachers know what works in the classroom, and how they can adapt their methods to better <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/targeted-teaching-how-better-use-of-data-can-improve-student-learning/">target their teaching</a> to the particular needs of their students. </p>
<p>For this to happen, teachers need <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/towards-an-adaptive-education-system-in-australia/">better support from the “system”</a>: for example, better teacher development and greater standardisation of classroom materials so individual teachers don’t have to reinvent the wheel. </p>
<p>In school education, the states and territories are the “system” managers. Driving reforms such as these from Canberra would be difficult.</p>
<h2>Federal funding conditions aren’t the way to go</h2>
<p>Australia must learn from its history. Our report shows imposing prescriptive funding conditions on states and territories has been tried before, with little benefit. </p>
<p>Commonwealth interference can destroy policy coherence and simply increase red tape. The Commonwealth has few ways to independently verify if change is actually happening in the classroom, so adding an extra layer of government policies that chop and change only disrupts schools and teachers. </p>
<p>For example, the <a href="http://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia-2011/national-initiatives-and-achievements/partnerships">2008-2013 National Partnership agreements</a> for school education included a number of prescriptive and input-based conditions. These increased the administrative and compliance burden of states, and created instability in schools when the funding and initiatives stopped abruptly five years later. </p>
<p>Before looking to new reforms, the Commonwealth government should first deliver its existing responsibilities more effectively. These include initial teacher training, the national curriculum and national student testing. All require constant attention, and some require urgent reform.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/changes-to-school-funding-your-questions-answered-77243">Changes to school funding – your questions answered</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Prioritise a few national reforms only</h2>
<p>If determined to act, we suggest the Commonwealth focus strategically on a small number of national reforms only. It is far better to focus on a few actions with a high chance of success. </p>
<p>We suggest the Commonwealth only pursue reforms that meet all of three criteria: the evidence shows it’s a good idea, the government can make it happen, and Commonwealth intervention will help. While many Commonwealth ideas are good in theory, many fall down on whether they can be readily implemented by state governments and actually lead to change in practice. </p>
<p>For example, in 2016 the Commonwealth signalled an intention to require all schools to use explicit teaching. While <a href="http://www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au/crash-course-evidence-based-teaching/explicit-teaching/">backed by evidence</a>, this type of Commonwealth policy requirement is unlikely to lead to change without a raft of complementary state government policies. These include the right training and school support for teachers to switch to explicit teaching. It would be difficult for the Commonwealth to independently verify, and it also creates confusion by coming in over the top of state policies on effective teaching methods. </p>
<p><strong>Commonwealth intervention must satisfy three criteria</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205817/original/file-20180211-51710-bubo8h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205817/original/file-20180211-51710-bubo8h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205817/original/file-20180211-51710-bubo8h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205817/original/file-20180211-51710-bubo8h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205817/original/file-20180211-51710-bubo8h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205817/original/file-20180211-51710-bubo8h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205817/original/file-20180211-51710-bubo8h.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided/Grattan Institute</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Four suggestions for new national reforms</h2>
<p>We have four suggestions for new national reform areas where there are benefits of scale and coordination. These only to be pursued if state government’s have strong “buy in” and there is close collaboration in design and delivery:</p>
<p><strong>1. Create a new national school education research organisation</strong> to investigate what works to drive school improvement and to spread the word across schools, states and sectors. The new body should be charged with lifting the standard of education research in Australia, establishing a long-term research agenda for school education, and promoting key findings across the country. It could link up all research on education for people from birth through to age 18, so policy makers and the community better understand the continuum of learning, from early childhood to school and vocational education.</p>
<p><strong>2. Invest more in measuring new, non-cognitive skills</strong> such as teamwork and resilience, in the classroom. At present, Australia focuses much more on old, foundational skills such as literacy and numeracy, which are only one element of what we expect from 21st century schooling.</p>
<p><strong>3. Develop better ways to measure student progress</strong>, for national bench-marking and for use in the classroom. NAPLAN seeks to measure students’ learning progress in core literacy and numeracy skills at the national level, but NAPLAN gain scores are not easy to interpret when comparing the progress of different student groups.</p>
<p><strong>4. Invest in high-quality digital assessment tools</strong> for the classroom, so teachers know what their students know and how much progress their students have made.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gaps-in-education-data-there-are-many-questions-for-which-we-dont-have-accurate-answers-65241">Gaps in education data: there are many questions for which we don't have accurate answers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Resist over-reach</h2>
<p>The extra Commonwealth money for schools under Gonski 2.0 is welcome. The shift in the education debate towards how best to use the extra money is still more welcome. </p>
<p>But for Australian students to get the most benefit, the Commonwealth must resist the temptation to over-reach by intervening heavily in school education policy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91623/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and Grattan uses the income to pursue its activities.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julie Sonnemann 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>The shift in the education debate from “how much” to “how best” is a welcome change, but for students to feel the full benefit the federal government must resist intervening.Julie Sonnemann, Research Fellow, Grattan InstitutePeter Goss, School Education Program Director, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/658752016-09-22T20:30:14Z2016-09-22T20:30:14ZGonski model was corrupted, but Labor and Coalition are both to blame<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138744/original/image-20160922-11668-uig7tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Education Minister Simon Birmingham is calling for a new education funding model to replace Gonski.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The school funding wars are set to erupt again when federal, state and territory education ministers meet in Adelaide on Friday.</p>
<p>Federal education minister Simon Birmingham will use the <a href="http://www.scseec.edu.au/Council/EC-Meetings.aspx">Education Council</a> meeting to argue for a new post-2017 federal funding model to replace the current <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-gonski-anyway-13599">“Gonski model”</a> established under Labor.</p>
<p>Birmingham came out <a href="https://theconversation.com/birmingham-prepares-for-fundamental-changes-to-labors-gonski-funding-model-65828">with guns blazing on Thursday</a>, arguing current arrangements are inequitable, overly complex and represent a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/fix-needed-on-gonski-corruption-says-simon-birmingham/news-story/9fb7057cf4a6fc55cf669aa7271bbbe1?login=1">“corruption”</a> of the ideals set out in the <a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOh8KLqqLPAhXEdD4KHdldCQEQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.education.gov.au%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fdoc%2Fother%2Freview-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFL_985IKRpf0e21txDImY9O3TRTQ&sig2=JSkFUiJpwEoa7LgaCUpp3A">2011 Gonski Report</a>.</p>
<p>The Coalition wants its new model to be needs-based and nationally consistent, but is also offering much less cash than the Gonski model, and wants to attach <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/quality_schools_acc.pdf">a range of new conditions</a> to how the money can be spent.</p>
<p>This <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-coalitions-real-agenda-for-australian-schools-53308">“less cash, more caveats”</a> model is a hard sell, and states and territories are ready for a fight – especially powerful states such as New South Wales that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/nsw-education-minister-adrian-piccoli-slams-productivity-commissions-national-education-report-20160906-gr9rul.html">remain ardent supporters</a> of the Gonski model. </p>
<h2>The current funding mess</h2>
<p>The Coalition is absolutely right in suggesting the ideals guiding the Gonski school funding reforms have been corrupted.</p>
<p>The Gonski report was designed to clean up Australia’s opaque and complex system of school funding and address significant inequalities by establishing a new needs-based funding model. </p>
<p>The report made a compelling argument to introduce a “base rate” level of funding per student, known as the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS), with extra loadings on top based on a number of <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00067">equity categories</a>.</p>
<p>The model Labor introduced did reflect this core structure, but then messy politics got in the way at the point of implementation. </p>
<p>In order to convince states and territories to sign on to the reform, different deals were done with different jurisdictions, and Labor promised that <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/prime-minister-julia-gillard-says-private-schools-will-get-more/story-fn59nlz9-1226453690310">no school would lose a dollar</a> under the plan.</p>
<p>Instead of a needs-based model, therefore, the result was a perversion of the Gonski ideal – an inconsistent patchwork of approaches across the nation that protected the vested interests of non-government schools.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/fix-needed-on-gonski-corruption-says-simon-birmingham/news-story/9fb7057cf4a6fc55cf669aa7271bbbe1?login=1">Federal government modelling</a> has been used to argue that under the current system, schools with exactly the same demographics and equity needs receive different funding in different states and territories.</p>
<p>This is smart politics by the Coalition: turning Labor’s argument for equitable funding on its head by arguing Gonski is far from equitable. </p>
<p>Of course, as the opposition education spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/fix-needed-on-gonski-corruption-says-simon-birmingham/news-story/9fb7057cf4a6fc55cf669aa7271bbbe1?login=1">pointed out</a>, it was under the Coalition (not Labor) that the final three states (Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory) signed onto the Gonski reform, which further contributed to national inconsistency.</p>
<p>So the Coalition’s attempts to heap all the blame on Labor for the current state of funding incoherence reflects a strong case of selective memory.</p>
<h2>Can the federal government produce ‘real’ needs-based funding?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.senatorbirmingham.com.au/Latest-News/ID/3215/Press-Conference-Adelaide">Birmingham suggests</a> the Coalition’s new model will “target need” and “treat states equitably”. </p>
<p>However, any truly needs-based model will invariably require a reduction in the already high levels of government funding provided to many elite non-government (Catholic and independent) schools. </p>
<p>This has been a thorn in the side of past Coalition and Labor governments, which have consistently caved to pressure from vested interests.</p>
<p>For example, well before Labor promised no school would lose a dollar, the Coalition did exactly the same thing in 2001 when it introduced its <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/schoolsfunding.pdf">socioeconomic status (SES) model</a> under Prime Minister John Howard. </p>
<p>Both sides of politics, therefore, are guilty of such fiscal populism, whereby no one “loses”, even though funding is supposed to be assigned according to need. </p>
<p>This is a classic tale of politics driving policy. </p>
<p>Such a position is also untenable in a time of contracting budgets, and growing social, economic and educational inequalities.</p>
<p>There is also the difficulty of trying to get national consistency within a federal system in which states and territories ultimately control schooling. <a href="http://www.senatorbirmingham.com.au/Latest-News/ID/3215/Press-Conference-Adelaide">As Birmingham himself noted</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>States and territories will always be free under our Constitution to fund schools in their state or territory as they see fit.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, while the federal government provides Gonski funding, states and territories each have different needs-based funding models, and remain the dominant funders of public schools.</p>
<p>So unless all states and territories adopt the same funding formulas, there will always be difference, no matter what the federal government does.</p>
<h2>The policy and political challenges ahead</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/fix-needed-on-gonski-corruption-says-simon-birmingham/news-story/9fb7057cf4a6fc55cf669aa7271bbbe1">warning</a> by NSW education minister Adrian Piccoli – that any reduction in the federal funding NSW receives would mean “war” – speaks precisely to the policy and political challenges ahead.</p>
<p>Not only is developing a new funding policy a great challenge in itself, but seeking to enact that policy in a volatile political climate is a fraught undertaking. </p>
<p>The Education Council meeting will no doubt ignite the most recent battle in a long and protracted war over school funding – one that is seemingly without end. </p>
<p>Birmingham’s challenge is undoubtedly colossal. He is trying to achieve what no federal education minister has done before him – establish a truly national needs-based funding model – but with less money and more caveats.</p>
<p>The armies have gathered in Adelaide. The battle lines are drawn. We await for the dust to settle.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65875/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Glenn C. Savage receives funding from the Australian Research Council under the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA) scheme for his project titled 'National schooling reform and the reshaping of Australian federalism' (2016-2019). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Lewis 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>Instead of a needs-based model, we ended up with an inconsistent patchwork of approaches across Australian states and territories that protected the vested interests of non-government schools.Glenn C Savage, Senior Lecturer in Education Policy and ARC DECRA Fellow (2016-19), Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of MelbourneSteven Lewis, Research Fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/565062016-03-22T19:39:10Z2016-03-22T19:39:10Z50 years after The Lucky Country, Australia’s sustainability challenge remains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115949/original/image-20160322-32323-1k4mbm4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australians are some of the worst wasters in the developed world. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Waste image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>More than 50 years ago <a href="http://www.australianbiography.gov.au/subjects/horne/interview4.html">Donald Horne</a>, then working in an advertising agency, described Australia as “a lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck”. The phrase “the lucky country” quickly became part of the language, though <a href="http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/lucky-country">its message was often misrepresented</a>.</p>
<p>Horne’s 1964 book sounded three loud warnings about Australia’s future: the challenge of our geographical position, the need for “a revolution in economic priorities”, and the need for a discussion of what sort of country we want to become. </p>
<p>Those warnings are even more urgent today after 50 years of inaction by our second-rate leaders. I’ve <a href="http://www.uqp.uq.edu.au/Book.aspx/1381/The%20Lucky%20Country?%20Reinventing%20Australia">revisited Donald Horne’s ideas and updated them</a> for the 21st century. An additional complication is the accumulating evidence that we are not living sustainably.</p>
<h2>Heading backwards?</h2>
<p>The need for change was underlined by a 2015 <a href="https://sustainable%20development.un.org">UN report on sustainability</a>. Australia ranks 18th of the 34 developed countries, below the UK, New Zealand and Canada, based on indicators covering economic, social and environmental progress. </p>
<p>We are among the worst of the affluent countries on resource use, waste production, greenhouse gases released per unit of economic output, and our obesity rate. </p>
<p>We are also well below average on social indicators such as education level, gender pay gap and proportion of women in parliament, as well as economic indicators such as the poverty rate and the degree of inequality.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the top four countries were the Scandinavian nations of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. The United States ranked 29th. It is a reminder that only ideologues with no concern for evidence could still be seeing the United States as a model to which we should aspire, rather than <a href="http://www.publishing.monash.edu/books/nl-9781921867927.html">the much more successful Scandinavian approach</a>.</p>
<p>The challenges of our location include how we develop relationships with our Asian neighbours beyond simple economic dealings; reconciling our history of indigenous dispossession; and our foreign policy and defence strategies in the complex world of the Asia-Pacific. </p>
<p>Our education system still has a strong bias toward our European past, with few young people studying any Asian language and even fewer having any real understanding of the complex social history of China, Japan, Indonesia or India.</p>
<p>Most of our leaders know something about the complex history of Europe and the essential differences between France and Germany, between Spain and Italy, between the Scandinavian countries and those further south. </p>
<p>By contrast, <a href="http://www.academia.edu/1827868/Knowing_Asia_The_political_economy_of_Australias_Asia_literacy_">general assertions are still made about the region we live in from a position of ignorance</a>. It remains true, as Horne said half a century ago, that we see the region simply as an economic machine from which we can make money.</p>
<h2>Chipping away at innovation</h2>
<p>Horne called for a revolution in economic priorities, moving away from being “a stupid country” that exported minerals and farm produce, “investing in education and science” so that we would be better equipped for the world of the twenty-first century. </p>
<p>Instead we have further run down our manufacturing base, mainly by <a href="http://www.ausinnovation.org/">opening up our markets to cheaper imports</a>. We have failed to invest in science and education to become competitive in emerging industries. </p>
<p>CSIRO has been steadily run down and <a href="https://theconversation.com/csiro-climate-cuts-will-trash-a-decade-of-hard-work-with-the-bureau-of-meteorology-and-universities-55152">recent changes</a> seem aimed at turning it into a second-rate consulting, organisation, rather than a model of public-sector applied science for the public good. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.igiveagonski.com.au/">Gonski reforms would go some way to redress our failure to invest</a> in the education of our young people, but the coalition’s political agenda looks like reinforcing the past trend of slipping further behind other countries in the region. </p>
<p>The best possible investment in our future is educating all our young people to the limit of their ability, rather than the limit of their parents’ income or political clout.</p>
<h2>The perils of population</h2>
<p>Australia has changed fundamentally from the Anglo-Celtic enclave of the 1950s. We need to have a serious public discussion about societal values, population growth and what kind of country we’d like to become, including our relationship with the British monarchy. </p>
<p>As one extreme example of the issues we should be discussing, politicians almost all believe that it is good to have a <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/products/9780702239090/bigger-or-better-australia-s-population-debate">rate of population growth higher than any other advanced country</a>, ignoring the evidence of the social costs of this approach. I discussed these issues in a previous book, <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/products/9780702239090/bigger-or-better-australia-s-population-debate">Bigger or Better? Australia’s Population Debate</a>. </p>
<p>Urban infrastructure is failing to keep pace with the unsustainable rate of population growth, which is also causing social tensions. A few sectors benefit from population growth – retail, housing, land speculation – but there is little evidence the community as whole is better off. </p>
<p>Our governments claim to be in control of our borders because they prevent relatively small numbers arriving by boat, while ignoring the impacts of a total legal arrival of 250,000 or more, or even cheekily claiming it to be evidence of their superior approach to economic development.</p>
<p>Of course, the huge level of migration creates jobs, but is also brings in a proportionate number of people looking for those jobs. We should recognise that migration has costs as well as benefits.</p>
<h2>Are you feeling lucky?</h2>
<p>Horne’s three warnings must now all be filtered through the lens of our precarious environmental situation. The extreme weather patterns that come with climate change, the loss of biodiversity, the breakdown of the Earth’s ecosystems and our unsustainable use of finite resources, all affect our future prospects.</p>
<p>A recent <a href="https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/support/reports-and-plans/2015/australia-2050-vol-3.pdf">Academy of Science project</a> found strong consensus for “a future Australia that is more caring, community-focused and fair than present-day Australia”. That would be a truly lucky country, a wonderful legacy to future generations.</p>
<p>It is <a href="http://www.blackincbooks.com/books/big-fix">still possible for us to live sustainably</a> and make Australia both a model for the developed world and a beacon of hope for the developing nations in our region. That will require conscious policy choices involving the community rather than the present obsession with markets, the mindless pursuit of endless growth and integration into a globalised economy that puts our well-being in other hands. </p>
<p>In that sense, our future is in our hands. Our actions will determine whether we really become a lucky country.</p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.uqp.uq.edu.au/Book.aspx/1381/The%20Lucky%20Country?%20Reinventing%20Australia">The Lucky Country? Reinventing Australia</a> by Professor Ian Lowe was published by UQP in March 2016.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56506/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Lowe 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>Australia still rests too heavily on its luck, and not enough on its brains.Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/538122016-01-29T00:14:20Z2016-01-29T00:14:20ZLabor has put Gonski back on the table, but should we be excited?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109553/original/image-20160128-27140-19z99ec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Labor has announced it would fully fund Gonski if it wins government.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After the most comprehensive review of school education funding for over 40 years, followed by an exhaustive Senate <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Report/index">inquiry</a> in 2014 – it looks like <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-gonski-anyway-13599">Gonski</a> is once again back on the table. </p>
<p>Labor <a href="https://theconversation.com/bill-shorten-promises-labor-would-implement-the-full-gonski-53815">has announced</a> it would commit to fully funding Gonski, with a reform package costing A$37.3 billion over the next decade.
But is this actually what the <a href="http://www.betterschools.gov.au/review">Gonski review</a> recommended?</p>
<p>Additional money recommended by the Gonski review was meant to go to schools with the most in need: Indigenous, rural and remote, disabled and socio-economically disadvantaged students. </p>
<p>Instead it has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-gonski-anyway-13599">left to the states</a> and the Catholic and independent school systems to distribute this money.</p>
<h2>Gonski timeline</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?tag=alan-reid">future</a> of public education in Australia is at stake. Funding policies have for too long neglected the concept of need and foregrounded the principle of entitlement. This has led to increasing amounts of public money going to private schools, with a consequent expansion of that sector at the expense of public education.</p>
<p>Under current Coalition government policy, we have <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Report/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/schoolfund_ctte/report/d02.pdf">continued to see</a> an increasingly privatised education system. </p>
<p>Previous federal minister Christopher Pyne is on the <a href="http://www.csa.edu.au/resources/csnpf-2014/ministers-address-christopher-pyne">record</a> as stating that “we have a particular responsibility for non-government schooling that we don’t have for government schooling.</p>
<p>"The emotional commitment within the federal government is to continue to have a direct relationship with the non-government schools sector. I think the states and territories would prefer that as well.”</p>
<p>The Liberal Party has consistently rejected the Gonski review conclusion that increased spending leads to improved education outcomes in relation to socio-economic disadvantage. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull recently <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-schools-plan-sneaky-mean-tricky-andrews-government-20151229-glw8gj.html">stated</a>: “Funding is important, but there is a lot more to it [improved student achievement]. The key element is teacher quality.” </p>
<p>The conservative side of politics <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3899668.htm">believes</a> there is no equity problem to address in Australian education. The Liberal Party relies on conservative researchers’ <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-29/donnelly-bill-shorten-has-backed-the-flawed-gonski-model/7123588">evidence</a> denying any causal link between socioeconomic status and student academic outcomes.</p>
<p>The best-performing education systems are those that combine <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-equity-debate-a-fair-go-for-australian-schools-5609">equity</a> with quality. They give all children opportunities for a quality education. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109554/original/image-20160128-27177-1r0jnbr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109554/original/image-20160128-27177-1r0jnbr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109554/original/image-20160128-27177-1r0jnbr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109554/original/image-20160128-27177-1r0jnbr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109554/original/image-20160128-27177-1r0jnbr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109554/original/image-20160128-27177-1r0jnbr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109554/original/image-20160128-27177-1r0jnbr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia has a significant gap between its highest- and lowest-performing students.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Peled</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why the funding is needed</h2>
<p>Educational failure imposes high costs on society. Poorly educated people limit economies’ capacity to produce, grow and innovate. School failure damages social cohesion and mobility, and imposes additional costs on public budgets to deal with the consequences – higher spending on public health and social support and greater criminality, among others. </p>
<p>For all these reasons, improving equity in education and reducing school failure should be a high priority in all OECD education policy agendas.</p>
<p>Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham <a href="http://www.educatoronline.com.au/breaking-news/govt-responds-to-labors-gonski-pledge-211112.aspx">repeats</a> the furphy that state and federal spending on schools grew by more than 100% in real terms between 1987-88 and 2011-12. This clever accounting includes the massive boost to school building programs that was part of the Labor government’s response to the world fiscal meltdown.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.mceetya.edu.au/mceecdya/anr/">National Reports on Schooling</a> in Australia show that government spending per student in Australia was A$8,115 in 1999-2000 ($11,731 in 2012) and $13,544 in 2008-09 ($14,637 in 2012). That is a real increase of only 24.7%. Over the same period government expenditure on education as a percentage of total government expenditure in Australia fell from 14.2% to 12.9%.</p>
<p>According to World Bank <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS">figures</a>, Australia’s spend on education as a proportion of GDP, around 5%, has <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/public-spending-on-education-total-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html">remained constant</a> over that time.</p>
<p>Yet Australia has gone backwards in absolute and relative terms, including in international literacy and numeracy rankings. </p>
<p>Over the past decade, the performance of Australian students in international assessments has <a href="https://theconversation.com/latest-tests-show-pms-2025-education-goal-is-in-doubt-11292">declined</a> at all levels of achievement compared to international benchmarks. At the same time we have witnessed a <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-gonski-gone-we-can-expect-more-demand-for-private-schools-52760">massive shift</a> in federal and state funds to the private sector of schooling. </p>
<p>The proportion of Australia’s lowest-performing students are in danger of not meeting minimum standards of achievement.</p>
<p>Australia has a significant gap between its highest- and lowest-performing students; far greater than in many OECD countries. The <a href="http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/programs/pathways/youthpartnerships/Schooling%20Challenges%20and%20Opportunities.pdf">link</a> between low levels of achievement and educational disadvantage, particularly among students from low socioeconomic and Indigenous backgrounds, is well accepted by most researchers. </p>
<h2>A fairer system?</h2>
<p>It’s important to remember that this money comes from all taxpayers, including the 1.4 million workers on a minimum wage who are supporting well-funded private schools. </p>
<p>With 80% of disadvantaged children attending government schools around the country, it is therefore no surprise that these teachers are struggling to overcome generational poverty and disadvantage.</p>
<p>While Commonwealth funding for non-government schools rose from around $3.50 for each dollar spent on public schools to around $5 between 1997 and 2007, in the past decade government funding to independent schools has increased by <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/elite-schools-with-huge-profits-shouldnt-get-generous-funding/story-fn56aaiq-1226013788272">112%</a>.</p>
<p>In fact, Canberra now gives more money to private schools than it does to universities – more than $36 billion in federal funds went to non-government schools in the period 2009-2013. Recent <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/closing-the-wrong-gaps">research</a> predicts that most Catholic schools will soon receive more public money per student than public schools.</p>
<p>Federal government funding for high-fee private schools is <a href="http://www.saveourschools.com.au/funding/fee-and-funding-increases-give-elite-private-schools-a-massive-resource-advantage">six to ten times</a> greater than the additional funding provided to disadvantaged schools.</p>
<h2>Labor’s commitment to funding education</h2>
<p>Despite being touted as “school funding reform”, the opposition’s announcement in fact merely maintained the status quo. What was needed was a bolder political ambition for a fairer system, one that doesn’t take from the poor to give to the rich.</p>
<p>But the goal of a fairer Australia, at least, has been hampered from the start. </p>
<p>Once the Gillard government committed to the Catholic and independent school lobbies that not one of their schools would lose a single dollar under the reforms, the opportunity for a fairer, genuine needs-based school funding system was lost.</p>
<p>We <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/specials/saul/eight.htm">have to ask</a>, can we remain a functioning democracy without a strong public education system?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53812/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Zyngier receives funding from the Australian Research Council</span></em></p>Labor has announced it will commit to fully funding Gonski, with a reform package costing $37.3 billion over the next decade.
But is this actually what the Gonski review recommended?David Zyngier, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/436242015-06-22T05:46:15Z2015-06-22T05:46:15ZLeaked school funding proposals: should we be worried?<p>The <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-school-reform-paper-proposes-cutting-federal-funding-20150621-ghtkkz.html">leak of four reform proposals</a> for Australian schooling from a confidential draft of the Green Paper on the <a href="https://federation.dpmc.gov.au/">Reform of the Federation</a> has triggered panic and confusion across the country. But while the proposals may seem worrying at first glance, they need to be put in context.</p>
<p>First, these are not policy announcements. They are merely the next step in the long, exhaustive White Paper process, following the launch of the <a href="http://federation.dpmc.gov.au/issues-paper-4">issues paper exploring roles and responsibilities in education</a> late last year. </p>
<p>Discussion and feedback from that paper has been digested by the White Paper Taskforce in the Prime Minister’s department, and now have taken some rudimentary form as a collection of policy reform options in a draft of the Green Paper. </p>
<p>These options are now the subject of confidential and collaborative discussions with Australia’s state and territory governments – discussions intended to critique, elaborate, amend and refine. Following these revisions, the Green Paper will be publicly released for everyone else to view and have their say.</p>
<p>The Green Paper is a <a href="http://federation.dpmc.gov.au/faq-page#n168">consultation document outlining a range of possible solutions</a> to the key problems as assessed by the government. Public submissions are encouraged. </p>
<p>Only after all of this feedback, and yet more research, more consultation with stakeholders and further discussions with the states, will the Commonwealth release the end product – the White Paper – next year. </p>
<p>This document will officially state the government’s preferred policy settings and approach on government roles and responsibilities in education, health, housing and financial relations. Even White Papers, however, are far from implemented policy: they are just preferred policy settings.</p>
<p>Second, the proposals leaked to Fairfax Media are not at all surprising to those that read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/federal-government-to-take-a-back-seat-in-education-35714">background “issue paper” on federalism in education</a>, which repeatedly argued that schooling outcomes would likely be improved if the Commonwealth returned some or all of its responsibilities in school education to the states. It also raised the possibility of alternative funding structures.</p>
<h2>Proposal 1: make states and territories responsible for all schools</h2>
<p>This could improve the targeting and effectiveness of education funding and programs. But it must be accompanied by commensurate funding from the Commonwealth to the states. </p>
<p>Having two levels of government making funding and program decisions independently distorts policymaking, dilutes the effectiveness of programs and distracts schools from their own cohesive and tailored plans for enhanced learning. </p>
<h2>Proposal 2: make states responsible for public schools, and Commonwealth non-government schools</h2>
<p>This could exacerbate the inequities and policy perversions created by two levels of government pulling independent policy levers independently, and provide incentives to reduce expenditure at the expense of the other level.</p>
<h2>Proposal 3: reduce Commonwealth involvement in schools, without significant structural change</h2>
<p>This is the most likely scenario of the four draft reform options, and depending on the detail it could see significant improvement. Productive collaboration between states and Commonwealth could enhance targeting of needs-based funding and by extension equity and excellence throughout all school systems. </p>
<h2>Proposal 4: make the Commonwealth the dominant funder of all schools</h2>
<p>This would be unlikely and unwise. The <a href="http://www.appa.asn.au/content/gonski-report/Review-of-Funding-for-Schooling-Final-Report-Dec-2011.pdf">Gonski Review of School Funding</a>, and the Commonwealth government itself, both repeatedly state that policy experience and expertise in schooling is held by the states, not the Commonwealth. </p>
<p>Connected to this fourth draft proposal was a suggestion that wealthy families pay fees to send their children to public schools and that Commonwealth funding for schools be connected to family ability to contribute. This fee impost could incentivise families to shift to private schools, exacerbating the residualisation in Australia’s school system from the public system to private schools.</p>
<p>Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne quickly distanced himself from this proposal: </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"612754950314024960"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"612761844189507585"}"></div></p>
<p>However, public schools around the country already charge a variety of fees and levies. In most states, schools can legally charge for things <a href="http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20150211-School-costs/20150211-School-costs-presentation.pdf">“not directly related to providing free instruction”</a>.</p>
<p>Excursions, uniforms, music instruction, and school photos usually incur extra costs. On top of that, many schools ask for money for building funds and more. School principals cite inadequate government funding as the reason for these parent payments.</p>
<p>In 2013, Victorian parents of public school students <a href="http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/latest_reports/2014-15/20150211-school-costs.aspx">paid</a> A$310 million to schools – an average of A$558 per student. This was an increase of A$70 million, or 29%, since 2009. Schools in wealthier areas charge and collect much more than this. Schools educating disadvantaged families charge far less and have a low collection rate. </p>
<p>The Victorian Auditor General’s Office <a href="http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/latest_reports/2014-15/20150211-school-costs.aspx">found</a> “parent payments have become essential to the provision of free instruction in government schools”; “schools are charging parents for items that should be free”; and the Victorian Department of Education:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… has no oversight on what items and how much schools charge parents.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We need to do away with the myth that public education is free and talk about how government and communities can <a href="http://www.mitchellinstitute.org.au/reports/the-shared-work-of-learning/">work together to better support schools and students</a>. Schools have been operating without necessary support for too long. Greater coordination, collaboration and support is urgently required.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43624/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bronwyn Hinz is a member of Need to Succeed, which advocates for needs-based, sector-neutral school funding, and has spoken at their Victorian symposium.</span></em></p>The leak of four reform proposals for Australian schooling has triggered panic and confusion across the country. But while at first glance the proposals may seem worrying, they need to be put in context.Bronwyn Hinz, Policy Fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Health and Education Policy (Victoria University) & PhD Candidate, School of Social and Political Sciences & Melbourne Graduate School of Education, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/293152014-08-07T02:48:19Z2014-08-07T02:48:19ZSenate committee backs Gonski<p>With very <a href="http://www.whyallanewsonline.com.au/story/2421491/senate-committee-urges-government-to-reinstate-gonski-model/">limited</a> <a href="http://www.educationhq.com.au/news/10816/keep-gonski-funding-scheme-senate-report/">media</a> attention, the Australian public could be excused for not even knowing about the Senate Select Committee that handed down its <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Report/index">report</a> on equity and excellence in Australian schools last month.</p>
<p>The committee took <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Report/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/schoolfund_ctte/report/e03.pdf">evidence</a> over four months from around Australia. Almost 100 individuals and groups representing various school systems, teacher unions and subject associations, teachers and academics and, in some cases, state and territory governments appeared. It received 445 written <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Report/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/schoolfund_ctte/report/e01.pdf">submissions</a>. Over 2500 submissions came from individual principals, teachers, parents, students and community members through a campaign run by the Australian Education Union. </p>
<p>The report found:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Over the past decade, the performance of Australian students had declined at all levels of achievement compared to international benchmarks. Furthermore, a concerning proportion of Australia’s lowest-performing students were found not to be meeting minimum standards of achievement.</p>
<p>Australia has a significant gap between its highest and lowest-performing students; far greater than in many OECD countries. [and] identified an unacceptable link between low levels of achievement and educational disadvantage, particularly among students from low socioeconomic and Indigenous backgrounds.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The committee’s majority (Labor and Green) members recommended the federal government honour the commitments made under the National Education Reform Agreement and agreements with participating states and territories and reintroduce the fifth and sixth years of the Gonski school funding reforms. </p>
<p>Among its eight <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Report/a04">recommendations</a> was the introduction of an appropriate indexation rate for school funding. It also calls for an annual “report card” from the Department of Education. This would detail the breakdown of school funding including funding provided to states and territories.</p>
<p>The evidence given to the committee clearly shows the complexity of previous, pre-Gonski funding arrangements; and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/gonski-review-time-for-a-new-vision-for-australian-education-5340">ground-breaking consensus</a> achieved by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/gonski-school-funding-moves-forward-but-leaves-much-behind-10981">Gonski report</a>.</p>
<p>The committee found that the Abbott government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbotts-gonski-backflip-will-wreck-school-funding-accountability-16662">changes</a> to school funding arrangements will be detrimental to Australian schools, students and to the broader Australian community. In particular, the changes will put at risk adequate funding for those students most at need - for example, students with disability.</p>
<p>The best-performing education systems are those that combine <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-equity-debate-a-fair-go-for-australian-schools-5609">equity</a> with quality. They give all children opportunities for a good quality education. The report concluded that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Educational failure also imposes high costs on society. Poorly educated people limit economies’ capacity to produce, grow and innovate. School failure damages social cohesion and mobility, and imposes additional costs on public budgets to deal with the consequences – higher spending on public health and social support and greater criminality, among others. For all these reasons, improving equity in education and reducing school failure should be a high priority in all OECD education policy agendas.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Gonski hijacked?</h2>
<p>A very interesting <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Report/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/schoolfund_ctte/report/d02.pdf">dissenting report</a> from government senators rejected the findings of the majority. While agreeing that adequate funding is essential for any education system to operate effectively, they said it is only a means to an end and that end must be to improve education quality. </p>
<p>Nationals committee member Bridget McKenzie <a href="http://www.educationhq.com.au/news/10816/keep-gonski-funding-scheme-senate-report/">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We believe in targeting funding, not just throwing buckets of money at it.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Gonski review failed as a public inquiry on multiple fronts: in terms of process; improving public debate; promoting agreement and in providing clear evidence for its recommendations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The LNP senators concluded:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Gonski report was hijacked, by vested interests, by well-meaning but not
always well-informed commentators and others.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The LNP senators challenged the Gonski review conclusion that increased spending leads to improved education outcomes in relation to socio-economic disadvantage. They relied on evidence presented by economists (and columnists for The Australian) <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/why-i-dont-give-a-gonski-for-more-school-spending/story-fnbkvnk7-1226459316708">Judith Sloan</a> and Henry Ergas. <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Report/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/schoolfund_ctte/report/d02.pdf">Professor Ergas</a> and Kevin Donnelly, co-chair of the National Curriculum review, are on the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-16/donnelly-school-disadvantage/4132814">record</a> denying any causal link between socioeconomic status and student academic outcomes.</p>
<p>Stating that “there is no evidence that spending is a predictor of education performance”, the government senators rely on flawed <a href="http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/target30/t30.09.pdf">research</a> by Jennifer Buckingham from the Centre for Independent Studies. They declared that Australia is a high-equity country with socio-economic background being less important in affecting student performance than the OECD average.</p>
<p>The report <a href="http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/target30/t30.09.pdf">School Funding on a Budget</a> is full of statistical and ideological obfuscations. Buckingham fails to mention that while government funding for school education has increased, 27% of all government funds now flow to private schools. Government spending on private schools increased faster in the past decade than for public schools. Private schools on average get $1.2 million a year more funding from all sources than public schools.</p>
<h2>What then for the future?</h2>
<p>After the most comprehensive review of school education funding for over 40 years - the Gonski review - here we are back at the very beginning with nothing to show. An exhaustive senate inquiry again supports the complete implementation of the Gonski recommendations. </p>
<p>The future of public education in Australia is at stake here. Under the current Coalition government policy, clearly expressed in the minority <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/School_Funding/School_Funding/Report/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/schoolfund_ctte/report/d02.pdf">report</a>, we will continue to see the residualisation of public education and an increasingly privatised education system. This will only serve to further advantage the privileged sections of our community. </p>
<p>So much for the end of the age of entitlement.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The sentence “This declared that Australia is a high-equity country with socio-economic background being less important in affecting student performance than the OECD average” was meant to start with “They” and has been corrected.</em> </p>
<p><em>This article was further amended on August 8 to remove a reference to statistical “errors” in a report referenced in the article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/29315/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Zyngier receives funding from the Australian Research Council</span></em></p>With very limited media attention, the Australian public could be excused for not even knowing about the Senate Select Committee that handed down its report on equity and excellence in Australian schools…David Zyngier, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/273692014-06-08T21:10:00Z2014-06-08T21:10:00ZIs education better off in state or federal hands?<p><em>The federal budget reignited debate over federal-state relations with a decision to cut $80 billion funding for the state responsibilities of schools and hospitals over the coming years. So how can federal-state co-operation in education make Australia a better country?</em></p>
<hr>
<p>It is not surprising that the financing of education in Australia has been a hot topic for decades. Almost everyone is affected or connected in some way to it. Considerations have been made about performance standards and equity in attaining desired standards, but these issues have tended to morph into “give us more money” and “who should pay”. </p>
<p>This focus on finance has enabled centralists to move the federal government more into the management of education institutions with the use of its stronger financial situation. </p>
<p>However, this is limited by the constitution, which gives states responsibility for education. The centralist wish for eliminating state involvement is fanciful, since there is little chance of any constitutional change.</p>
<h2>What’s the alternative?</h2>
<p>The alternative approach is to decentralise the financing of education to allow decisions to be made by those closest to the action. Both the Gonski review <a href="http://www.appa.asn.au/content/gonski-report/Review-of-Funding-for-Schooling-Final-Report-Dec-2011.pdf">final report</a> and the Commission of Audit <a href="http://www.ncoa.gov.au/">report</a> proposed the adoption of decentralisation through the principle of subsidiarity. </p>
<p>A decentralised approach essentially involves the federal government minimising its role to national co-ordination, <a href="https://theconversation.com/securing-australias-future-education-19606">leaving the states to manage education</a>.</p>
<p>With regard to schooling, the overall objective should be that school sector authorities in each state have sufficient recurrent finance to give all of their students the same opportunity to achieve minimum performance standards at each school level, culminating in Year 12 graduation. This could be achieved by a small group in Canberra with responsibilities:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>to set minimum student performance standards for each school level;</p></li>
<li><p>to develop a school sector funding model based on resource policies (student-teacher ratios, average teacher salary package, other recurrent costs, and expected private financial input);</p></li>
<li><p>to recommend financial allocations to each school sector in each state, within defined financial limits and taking account of sector differences and future financial sustainability; and</p></li>
<li><p>to monitor average sector student performance and to research the reasons for school sectors that are slow to improve.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The federal government would take the group’s financial recommendations to the states to determine agreed contributions, which would then be placed in each state’s coffers. A state would retain the amount earmarked for government schools, distribute the Catholic sector funds to the Catholic authorities, and distribute funds for the independent school sector to a school registration authority in the state for distribution.</p>
<p>School sectors would report annually to the school registration authority in their state and to the federal government, explaining the method of allocating funds to their schools and on changes in student performance standards.</p>
<p>The federal government should be the dominant funder of the universities and the vocational education sector due to their importance for Australia’s international reputation. </p>
<p>Decentralisation in the form of more reliance on market prices is contained in the recent federal budget. States, however, should still be responsible for vocational education providers that operate only within one state.</p>
<h2>Some associated issues with the current system</h2>
<p>Each state needs to address the issue of equity across their upper secondary programs in schools and vocational education institutions. Governments across Australia should consider compulsory schooling or equivalent being extended from 17 years of age to completion of Year 12 or equivalent program.</p>
<p>Currently, states do not have the funds to match their education financing needs. A growth tax could could resolve this. </p>
<p>Some time ago the GST was introduced for similar reasons. An increase in the GST rate, however, is unlikely to occur given the difficulty of obtaining general public support. An alternative is to redirect an agreed percentage of income tax to the states for particular areas such as education. </p>
<p>It must be hoped that sorting out decentralised education funding arrangements will lead to a renewed focus on what is done with the money – namely, ways to improve educational outcomes for all students.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Further reading:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/reforming-the-federation">The Reforming the Federation series</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27369/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin Gould has received funding for doctoral research from Central Queensland University.</span></em></p>The federal budget reignited debate over federal-state relations with a decision to cut $80 billion funding for the state responsibilities of schools and hospitals over the coming years. So how can federal-state…Kevin Gould, Researcher in Economics of Education, CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/216132013-12-22T20:33:59Z2013-12-22T20:33:59Z2013, the year that was: Education<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38156/original/v8tsswrw-1387344553.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">This year saw turbulent times –from childcare centres to universities.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Dan Peled</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For most education watchers, this year has rushed by in a policy blur. So much so that we thought we had better launch our very own shiny Education section just to help you keep on top of things. </p>
<p>The launch of the Education section – an area close to our hearts – meant we could finally give education issues pride of place.</p>
<p>And what a time to do it – yes, this year was <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/gonski-review">the year of Gonski</a>. And whether it was a <em>conski</em> or <em>goneski</em>, this one word – derived from businessman David Gonski’s review into schools funding – went from symbolising a policy vision to becoming a political football in a few short months.</p>
<p>In amongst some spectacular political flip-flopping and mishandling from <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-government-plays-fast-and-loose-with-trust-and-truth-20918">both sides of politics</a>, the basics of <a href="https://theconversation.com/ditching-gonski-whats-so-unfair-about-funding-based-on-need-20795">the funding reforms</a> managed to hold on – <a href="https://theconversation.com/gonski-is-gone-but-can-anything-be-salvaged-20704">sort of</a>. Our authors tried to cut through the morass and explain <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australian-education-highly-equitable-20815">the equity</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/battling-disadvantage-through-gonski-will-it-work-13697">disadvantage problem</a> in Australian education and the reasons the Gonski panel looked into <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-gonski-anyway-13599">schools funding in the first place</a>. </p>
<p>As inequity hit our policy debate, private school girl Ja'mie hit our airwaves, reminding us of <a href="https://theconversation.com/like-no-offence-but-jamies-private-school-stereotypes-will-make-you-laugh-and-cry-19324">the stereotypes</a> that we still harbour about private and public schools. </p>
<p>Our best-read education story since our launch was one that went back to basics – <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-kids-cant-spell-and-why-spelling-tests-wont-help-20497">why some kids can’t spell and why spelling tests won’t help</a>.</p>
<p>In fact, literacy and student performance became a flash-point this year because Australia’s results from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-pisa-results-show-education-decline-its-time-to-stop-the-slide-21054">Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/naplan-improvements-for-indigenous-students-but-not-everyone-is-taking-the-test-21475">National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN)</a> were underwhelming to say the least. </p>
<p>Because of this, we saw the revival of an old debate about the best way to teach children to read and write. Some said phonics, some said whole of language but back in the classroom, the best approaches still <a href="https://theconversation.com/lost-for-words-why-the-best-literacy-approaches-are-not-reaching-the-classroom-19561">weren’t getting to where they’re needed</a>. </p>
<p>In all that pessimism about literacy, the big picture globally is quite different, in fact literacy rates overall are on the up. So we wondered – <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-would-a-more-literate-world-look-like-18420">what would a more literate world look like?</a> It turns out, pretty much everything from crime rates to global health would improve.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/fragile-progress-in-early-childhood-education-could-be-undone-19718">National reports</a> confirmed the importance of early childhood education at a time of big change in the sector. But reforms to increase salaries for some childcare workers and to improve the quality of early childhood education began to <a href="https://theconversation.com/policy-outlook-coalition-set-to-slow-progress-in-early-childcare-and-learning-19297">unravel</a>.</p>
<p>After having five ministers in just one year, Australian universities also saw their fair share of ups and downs. Despite promises of smooth sailing for the sector, we saw <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-universities-suffer-to-pay-for-school-funding-13472">funding cuts</a> announced, moves towards <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-liberator-pyne-to-cut-uni-red-tape-21437">deregulation and cutting red tape</a>, the prospect of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/taking-over-universities-will-the-commonwealth-be-a-better-master-than-the-states-21520">Commonwealth takeover</a> and a review into the <a href="https://theconversation.com/pynes-higher-education-policy-rethink-should-keep-universities-doors-open-18595">uncapped system</a> just for a start. </p>
<p>But the higher education stories you were interested in looked at the real life experience of university life, including for those poor <a href="https://theconversation.com/doing-a-phd-can-be-a-lonely-business-but-it-doesnt-have-to-be-19192">lonely PhD students</a>, and a reality check on the use of <a href="https://theconversation.com/drugs-for-grades-the-realities-of-academic-doping-19764">so called “smart drugs” and academic doping</a>. </p>
<p>Technology in education was another a big ticket item. If last year was the “year of the MOOC” – as the New York Times put it – then this year saw some of the hype around so called Massive Open Online Courses fizzle. In fact, one of our best read articles took <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-failure-of-udacity-lessons-on-quality-for-future-moocs-20416">a closer look</a> at one of the MOOC experiments – Udacity – and why it’s failing to fulfil the big promise of democratising higher education.</p>
<p>The prospect of getting rid of teachers and replacing them with <a href="https://theconversation.com/cloud-schooling-why-we-still-need-teachers-in-the-internet-age-19872">“schools in the cloud”</a> also got you reading, as did our continuing coverage of <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/open-access">all things open access</a>.</p>
<p>We also shed some light on the state of <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/maths-and-science-education">maths and science education</a> in Australia with our series of expert articles – culminating in some <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-stream-maths-and-science-education-symposium-15204">heavy-hitting policy talk in Canberra</a>. And it was a good thing too, as it turns out not many young people <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-young-people-really-know-about-climate-change-19754">really understand</a> climate change.</p>
<p>So without further ado, here’s our top five best read since Education launched…</p>
<h2>The top five most-read stories since launch</h2>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-kids-cant-spell-and-why-spelling-tests-wont-help-20497">Why some kids can’t spell and why spelling tests won’t help</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/new-pisa-results-show-education-decline-its-time-to-stop-the-slide-21054">Lost for words: why the best literacy approaches are not reaching the classroom</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/doing-a-phd-can-be-a-lonely-business-but-it-doesnt-have-to-be-19192">Doing a PhD can be a lonely business but it doesn’t have to be</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/ditching-gonski-whats-so-unfair-about-funding-based-on-need-20795">Ditching Gonski: what’s so unfair about funding based on need?</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/gonski-is-gone-but-can-anything-be-salvaged-20704">Gonski is gone but can anything be salvaged?</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21613/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
For most education watchers, this year has rushed by in a policy blur. So much so that we thought we had better launch our very own shiny Education section just to help you keep on top of things. The launch…Bella Counihan, EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/212102013-12-06T21:05:00Z2013-12-06T21:05:00ZCurriculum, equity and resources: how we got lost in the Gonski debate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/37068/original/ttcnndyx-1386288750.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gonski isn't everything and we need to refocus the debate back to equity.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">School image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been a big week for education. Amidst all the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gonski-backflip-12b-more-for-schools-20131202-2ym3u.html">confusion</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-01/abbott-on-gonski/5127330">politics</a> on school funding of the last week there have been a couple of repeated mantras by the federal education minister – namely that we need a <a href="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/11/30/13/23/pm-denies-breaking-school-funding-pledge">“robust curriculum” and a “focus on teacher quality”</a>. </p>
<p>That these phrases are used in relation to the Gonski schools funding issue is somewhat misleading. </p>
<p>Yes, <a href="http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australian-education-highly-equitable-20815">equity is a big issue</a> in Australian education. If you had any doubts, you just have to look at <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-pisa-results-show-education-decline-its-time-to-stop-the-slide-21054">the latest PISA results</a> and what they show about <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-pisa-slump-is-big-news-but-whats-the-real-story-20964">the equity gap</a> in Australian education. It showed that top socioeconomic group of students and those in the bottom group are separated by as much as two and a half years of schooling. </p>
<p>The Gonski review was explicitly <a href="http://apo.org.au/research/review-funding-schooling-final-report">a funding review</a>. Its approach to improving equity was limited by its terms of reference that were influenced by the view that all that matters is school resourcing. </p>
<p>Yes, resources are very important, but there is more. Misinformed catchphrases like <a href="http://theconversation.com/a-political-education-hijacking-the-quality-teaching-movement-9017">“improving teacher quality”</a> or a “robust curriculum” are unlikely to cut it in the debate we really should be having about improving equity.</p>
<p>The narrow terms of reference of Gonski, and ensuing debates solely about funding, are a far cry from the complex view of educational equity that existed a few decades ago. Through the Commonwealth Schools Commission we had programs like the <a href="http://ura.unisa.edu.au/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=51737">Disadvantages Schools Program</a> and the Country Areas Program. These programs recognised that the very nature of schooling was an important part of the problem.</p>
<p>This is where Pyne’s mantra of a robust curriculum and teacher quality come in. Such statements assume a single and universal curriculum, and positions teaching quality in direct relationship to teaching that curriculum. Previous generations of equity thinking, and decades of educational sociology, show us that in fact this view of curriculum is a big part of the equity problem.</p>
<p>If we assume there is one curriculum, the key questions become who decides what it is? On what authority? Whose interests does it serve? And most importantly, what knowledge is of most worth?</p>
<p>Curriculum is a consensus about what we believe are the most important things that we know about the world, and our nation, at this point in time that we want to pass on to future generations. In the end it is only ever a representation of our world – time doesn’t allow us to pass on everything. Predictably then we end up with debates about what is in and what is out – examples being the endless debates about “the classics” or the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/liberals-pick-a-fight-over-history-wars-again-20131107-2x473.html">“history wars”</a>.</p>
<p>The problem is that the formal curriculum has been shown to be biased towards the interests of the most advantaged groups in society. In this way curriculum can be seen to serve their interests and not the interests of the least well off in society. Put another way, it reflects a world that is familiar to some students (often from well off families with well educated parents) and totally foreign to others (including many working class families and Aboriginal Students).</p>
<p>The Australian Curriculum to date has tried hard to balance the needs of both groups – the jury is still out on how well it has achieved this.</p>
<p>So what does Pyne mean when he talks about a robust curriculum? Clearly he is suggesting that he feels the present version isn’t <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/say-after-the-minister-old-is-new-again-20130927-2ujhn.html">robust at all</a>. But by implication what he is implying is a curriculum that is universal and aligns with one set of cultural values.</p>
<p>To be clear I’m referring here to the curriculum as the broad social and cultural project of schooling across all the subjects students are introduced to at school. This is much wider than the narrow literacy, numeracy or scientific literacy measured in PISA, as reported this week, or NAPLAN. They are a type of curriculum, specifically key skills. </p>
<p>But they are only one part of any students’ education. I’m sure most people would want their students to learn more than these skills over their 13 years at school.</p>
<p>This wider view of curriculum impacts on those skills though, and the equity debate that has begun, as these skills are taught through cultural knowledge, e.g. the western scientific world view and the stories or examples used. If students can’t see themselves in <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-02/top-student-teachers-targeted-for-work-in/5129940?section=qld">these stories</a> it’s much like teaching spelling by reciting a list of random words, akin to remembering a series of PIN numbers, <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-kids-cant-spell-and-why-spelling-tests-wont-help-20497">rather than teaching their meaning</a>.</p>
<p>The issue of curriculum and disadvantage wasn’t on the table in Gonski. In fact the word “curriculum” only appears 35 times in the main report. Only twice does the report refer to curriculum as an issue of disadvantage.</p>
<p>Presumably some of the funding can be used to assist teachers make this
“robust” curriculum relevant to students. But that’s a double equity hit – to do so for students who can’t easily see themselves in that world takes much longer than for those for whom it is their world. Teachers are then measured and judged as “quality” by how well they get students through this curriculum (and improve our international rankings) rather than how many students they introduce new understandings of the world to.</p>
<p>In the end, the rhetoric of a robust curriculum and quality teaching linked to equity and international rankings ensures schools further serve the interests of the most advantaged. A true focus on equity instead starts with looking at curriculum for the least advantaged.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21210/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Roberts 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>It’s been a big week for education. Amidst all the confusion and politics on school funding of the last week there have been a couple of repeated mantras by the federal education minister – namely that…Philip Roberts, Assistant Professor (Curriculum Studies), University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/208152013-12-04T19:45:34Z2013-12-04T19:45:34ZFactCheck: is Australian education highly equitable?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36582/original/j94pxjhx-1385941817.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Education minister Chris Pyne says the Gonski model was addressing a problem that doesn't really exist in Australian education: equity.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/ Nikki Short) NO ARCHIVING</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p><strong>“The OECD says that we are a high equity nation in terms of our students… I don’t believe there is an equity problem in Australia.” – Education Minister Christopher Pyne, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3899668.htm">Lateline interview</a>, 26 November 2013.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the heat of <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gonski-backflip-12b-more-for-schools-20131202-2ym3u.html">political tensions around school funding</a>, Education Minister Christopher Pyne has been forced to respond to longstanding debates about equity in Australian education. </p>
<p>On ABC’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3899668.htm">Lateline last week</a>, Pyne said Australia is a “high equity nation” according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). He also said he does not believe there is “an equity problem” in our country.</p>
<p>So what does the OECD actually say about equity for Australian students? And is there a broader equity problem in education? </p>
<h2>What the OECD says</h2>
<p>The OECD measures education equity through a diverse range of indicators, but its most prominent is its <a href="http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/">Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)</a>. This measures a worldwide sample of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics and science and the latest PISA results were released <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-pisa-results-show-education-decline-its-time-to-stop-the-slide-21054">this week</a>. </p>
<p>The OECD ranks nations in terms of <em>quality</em> (the comparative level of PISA performance) and <em>equity</em> (the correlation between students’ socio-economic background and performance). According to this framework, a perfectly equitable system is one in which socio-economic background factors have no bearing on student performance.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, no such system exists. <a href="http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/50293148.pdf">OECD data</a> shows conclusively there is always a correlation between background factors and performance. In <em>relative terms</em>, however, some nations (such as Hong Kong and Finland) can be considered more equitable than others. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/pisa-2012-results-excellence-through-equity-volume-ii_9789264201132-en#page11">latest PISA data</a> does describe Australia as “high quality, high equity” as our performance was above the OECD average (quality) and student background has a less significant impact on performance than the OECD average (equity). </p>
<p>But this “high quality, high equity” characterisation is very misleading, as Australia is only more equitable in relative terms. In other words, we are only marginally more equitable than others in a context of documented inequality. </p>
<p>More importantly, when the latest PISA data is broken down further, Australia appears far from equitable. For example, <a href="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2012-results-excellence-through-equity-volume-ii_9789264201132-en">OECD data suggest</a> young Australians in the lowest socio-economic quartile perform much worse on PISA than the rest and those in the highest quartile perform significantly better. </p>
<p>In fact, a difference, equivalent to around <a href="http://www.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/pisa2012">two-and-a-half years of schooling</a>, separates the maths, reading and science scores of students in the highest socio-economic quartile and students in the lowest socioeconomic quartile.</p>
<p>Significant gaps in student achievement are also evident by gender, indigenous and immigrant status. State and territory differences are also marked. As the graph below shows, some Australian states are much less equitable than others when it comes to mathematical literacy, including Tasmania and the Northern Territory, which fit into the “low quality, low equity” quadrant. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36797/original/ny2733f4-1386064017.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36797/original/ny2733f4-1386064017.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36797/original/ny2733f4-1386064017.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36797/original/ny2733f4-1386064017.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36797/original/ny2733f4-1386064017.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36797/original/ny2733f4-1386064017.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36797/original/ny2733f4-1386064017.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/36797/original/ny2733f4-1386064017.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=651&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Source: https://www.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/pisa2012.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In addition to PISA, there are many other equity indicators used by the OECD. <a href="http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/50293148.pdf">School drop-out data</a>, for example, shows nearly a third (29%) of Australians between the age of 25-64 have not attained a senior school certificate — a figure worse than most countries, including Estonia (11%) and Slovak Republic (9%). </p>
<p>The Australian education system is also deeply stratified. <a href="http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/50293148.pdf">OECD data shows</a>, for example: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Young Australians in the top socio-economic quartile are around three times more likely to attend a private school than those in the bottom quartile. </p></li>
<li><p>Disadvantaged young people are more than seven times more likely to attend a disadvantaged school than an advantaged one.</p></li>
<li><p>Australian schools in high socio-economic areas are much more likely to have better quality educational resources.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Another relevant indicator is national expenditure on education, reported as a percentage of gross domestic product. On this measure, Australia is below the OECD average of 6.3%. In fact, Australia is less generous than many low-income countries, including Mexico.</p>
<h2>Is there a broader ‘equity problem’?</h2>
<p>The second part of Pyne’s claim suggests there is not an equity problem in our nation. Aside from the preceding OECD data, this claim is inaccurate. </p>
<p>The evidence tells a time-worn story: if a young person goes to a well-resourced private school or a public school in a high socio-economic area, they are much more likely to do better on a wide range of indicators, including academic performance, entry to further education or training, and post-school employment.</p>
<p>There are multiple data sources that attest to this. </p>
<p>In terms of student achievement, for example, NAPLAN results (available on the <a href="http://myschool.edu.au">My School website</a>) show clear patterns of disadvantage in terms of gender, race, socio-economic background and geographical location.</p>
<p>These patterns of disadvantage are further evident in terms of school completion and post-school destination data, documented in post-school surveys such as <a href="http://education.qld.gov.au/nextstep/">Next Step</a> in Queensland and <a href="http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/research/pages/ontrack.aspx">On Track</a> in Victoria. </p>
<p>Young people from poorer backgrounds are also much more likely to take vocational pathways that lead to relatively poor post-school outcomes, whereas young people from wealthier backgrounds are much more likely to attend university and achieve <a href="https://www.mup.com.au/items/119746">better post school outcomes</a>. </p>
<p>Beyond “hard data”, it is important not to ignore the experiential dimensions of educational inequality. Since Connell and colleagues published <a href="http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=94&book=9780868611327"><em>Making the difference: Schools, families and social division</em></a> in 1982, decades of research in sociology of education have documented the lived experiences of inequality in Australian education.</p>
<p>The everyday experiences of educators and students in remote schools or many public schools in Sydney’s Western suburbs, for example, contrast dramatically with those in our nation’s elite private schools.</p>
<p>These contrasts reinforce the fact that young people don’t arrive at the school gate with the same chances.</p>
<h2>Verdict:</h2>
<p>On the first part of Pyne’s claim, he is technically correct when he says the OECD describes us a “high equity” country but this is misleading. Whilst OECD data suggests a lower correlation between student background and performance compared to the OECD average, inequalities based on student background are still pronounced. There is also a diverse and complex range of additional inequalities in the Australian education system.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>The article is an accurate assessment of Pyne’s claim. As the comparative OECD information shows, Australia is only just above the average on equity measures. But in Australia - as in so many other countries - life chances continue to be largely determined by parental (especially a father’s) income and occupation. </p>
<p>The problem with Australian education equity is that there are a range of multiplier effects. That is, a boy from a low socio-economic background, who goes to a poorly-resourced school and lives in a low socio-economic status suburb in Tasmania for example, tends to do substantially worse than a girl from a higher socio-economic status background, going to a selective or elite private school and living in a high socio-economic status suburb in the ACT, especially in an area like literacy. All of those factors have a significant influence on their educational outcomes.</p>
<p>In the end, Pyne’s claim there is no equity issue in Australian education is simply not correct. <strong>- Peter West.</strong></p>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” that doesn’t look quite right? The Conversation’s FactCheck unit asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they really are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20815/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>“The OECD says that we are a high equity nation in terms of our students… I don’t believe there is an equity problem in Australia.” – Education Minister Christopher Pyne, Lateline interview, 26 November…Glenn C Savage, Researcher and Lecturer in Education Policy, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/204142013-12-03T03:28:12Z2013-12-03T03:28:12ZPyne finds extra Gonski money, but how should it be spent?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36729/original/d99bqpkm-1386031435.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Gonski money is back with an extra boost for some states that have signed up. But schools need to look for simpler solutions</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>During the Cold War, both the Soviets and the Americans were trying to develop a way to write in space. American entrepreneurs spent <a href="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1">an unknown sum</a> developing a “space pen”, while the Soviets initially just used a pencil. </p>
<p>Clearly, the American pen was technologically the most advanced tool while the Soviet pencil was basic. Yet, each was capable of writing in a zero gravity environment.</p>
<p>As we see the government once again do a black flip on Gonski funding and giving an extra <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gonski-backflip-12b-more-for-schools-20131202-2ym3u.html">$1.2 billion to states</a> that have now signed up, the question is: how should the money be spent? </p>
<p>Do we really need to spend money on a high-tech educational solution, like the Americans did? Or should we focus, like the Soviets, on achieving a similar outcome with substantially less? </p>
<p>Far too often governments in Australia, at both a state and federal level, believe that the best way to solve a problem in education is to throw money at it. Unfortunately, while they may have all the right intentions, the problem is their actions have not always culminated in improved student outcomes. </p>
<p>For example, in 2007-08, the federal government spent roughly <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/schoolsfunding.pdf">A$12,000 per student</a> in government schools. Yet in spite of this expenditure, over the years there has been a relative decline in student outcomes and as a result, student performance in Australia has either <a href="http://clearinghouse.aitsl.edu.au/Citations/db905a92-7b38-4e45-b319-a0e500bbc2c5">stagnated or fallen behind</a>.</p>
<p>The question at hand is not why students have fallen behind but rather how have schools used their funds to try to improve outcomes?</p>
<p>As Australian education experts Allan Luke and Felicity McArdle outline in <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/20570/">a recent journal article</a>, the professional development and educational consultant industry has expanded greatly in recent years. It is now a multi-million dollar educational enterprise.</p>
<p>This situation has been further compounded through the introduction of standardised testing. School administrators, who are trying to improve their school’s scores on standardised tests, are looking to this army of well-paid educational consultants because, too often, they themselves are unable or incapable of analysing their own school data. </p>
<p>As Dean of Education at the University of Western Australia <a href="http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=research_conference">Professor Helen Wildy</a> notes, many principals don’t use data for decision making because they lack confidence in interpreting it. Instead they are more likely to use it for marketing or promoting their schools, not for school improvement.</p>
<p>No matter how the Gonski funding model unfolds, there is a danger that, like the Americans, schools will opt to focus on high-end cost programs, controlled and implemented by a sea of educational consultants, to address their challenges. When instead what they should be doing is to find ways in which they could take on direct ownership of the challenges confronting their schools. </p>
<p>After all, these educational consultants are not in the “business of education” but rather the “education business”. Schools need to seek out home grown solutions; solutions from within the organisation – ones that would like be just as effective but less expensive. </p>
<p>Stanford’s Linda Darling-Hammond <a href="http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3876732?uid=22053&uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=3&uid=67&uid=22036&uid=62&uid=5909656&sid=21103004711453">suggests</a> that schools need to become action research areas. What Darling-Hammond proposes is that highly skilled administrators, in conjunction with equally skilled teachers, explore together the challenges facing their schools.</p>
<p>This approach reflects a great deal more ownership, and as such, will facilitate school-based solutions to school-based challenges. It will in effect see people who are really in the “business of education” – the people who use pencils, if you will – given the opportunity to make real changes for the better. </p>
<p>Consequently, if current and future administrators lack the skills to undertake the necessary research within their schools, simply giving money to schools may in a number of instances not have the desired impact. </p>
<p>We may well find their schools throwing money at educational consultants to deliver a quick-fix to their long standing problems. No matter what happens with school funding, making sure the funds go towards ‘pencil’ solutions is vital.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20414/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Tony Richardson 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>During the Cold War, both the Soviets and the Americans were trying to develop a way to write in space. American entrepreneurs spent an unknown sum developing a “space pen”, while the Soviets initially…Dr Tony Richardson, Tutor in Education, University of the Sunshine CoastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/210252013-12-02T19:32:04Z2013-12-02T19:32:04ZFrom Gonski to gone to Gonski again: school funding future remains uncertain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36663/original/htdtjt4b-1385960977.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's not too often you see a backflip on a backflip, but education minister Christopher Pyne has managed it.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Stefan Postles</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It seems we’re in Gonski groundhog day. The repeated backflips and policy position switches from the Abbott government – only three months into its term – have been astounding.</p>
<p>After announcing <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/back-to-drawing-board-for-gonski-says-christopher-pyne/story-fn59nlz9-1226767435893">last week</a> they would dump <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-gonski-anyway-13599">the so-called Gonski model</a> and the former government’s deals with the states, this latest announcement sees three new states sign up and the government honouring the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-02/abbott-gonski/5129118">other state deals again</a>. </p>
<p>But the government is only committing to four years of these agreements, not the original six promised by the Gillard government – leaving the states missing around 70% of the funding they were first promised.</p>
<p>The precious little policy detail available and rhetorical back and forth still leaves much uncertainty about the future of schools funding. But in this debacle, the real aims of the Gonski review’s recommendations have been forgotten.</p>
<h2>Forgetting Gonski</h2>
<p>For six years the Coalition has repeatedly <a href="http://www.pyneonline.com.au/media/transcripts/doorstop-parliament-house-14">told</a> us that the Howard government’s model for school funding was working.</p>
<p>They said the schools were getting the money they needed, and education minister Christopher Pyne even recently claimed that he believed there was <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3899668.htm">no equity problem</a> to address in Australian education. </p>
<p>This made the government’s school funding reforms – which saw a fairer funding system based on need based on <a href="http://www.betterschools.gov.au/review">David Gonski’s review</a> – unnecessary. </p>
<p>Now the coalition says it will go through with the Gonski model but it will strip the “command and control” aspect of the <a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013A00067">Australian Education Act</a> – the legislation underpinning the reforms. These were always a major roadblock for Queensland, Northern Territory and West Australian in signing up to the Labor scheme.</p>
<p>This simply gave federal oversight of tax-payer contributed funds. In fact, it is exactly the stronger governance and accountability that the Gonski Review originally recommended.</p>
<p>In this latest announcement, Pyne and prime minister Tony Abbott have also dropped the requirement that the states co-contribute funds – another key plank of the Gonski reforms. This leaves the newly signed up states to take as much as they like out of school funding while the commonwealth pours money in. </p>
<p>Over the last few years, most states have ripped money out of public education, to the tune of billions of dollars. The fact that the co-contribution requirement has gone will mean more state funding could go, leaving state schools, that have the most disadvantaged students, worse off.</p>
<h2>Command and control</h2>
<p>Pyne and Abbott both repeatedly said they don’t want to interfere with how states run their schools. But this sits oddly with another part of their electoral program.</p>
<p>Abbott went to the election with his <a href="http://www.liberal.org.au/real-solutions">Real Solutions</a> booklet as his core political platform. Its “Delivering better education” policy seeks to encourage “state schools to choose to become independent schools, providing simpler budgeting and resources allocation and more autonomy in decision making”.</p>
<p>The rationale to justify the drive for more school autonomy is driven by a misguided belief that it improves student results.</p>
<p>Victoria, which led the world in <a href="http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000771.htm">increasing autonomy</a>, has not performed above New South Wales, which was until recently the most centralised.</p>
<h2>The funding argument</h2>
<p>In anticipation of further falls in Australia’s performance in the latest Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results - due out tonight - Pyne has once <a href="http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/education_isn_just_about_pumping_Hvscrsy9FEXLunYmqjkRjN">again</a> reiterated the <a href="http://www.pyneonline.com.au/media/transcripts/doorstop-sydney">furphy</a> that while education funding has increased 44% in the last decade, education standards have declined. </p>
<p>He argues that resources are not the issue but teacher quality, principal autonomy and parental engagement. </p>
<p>This nonsensical figure, estimated by <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/spending-billions-is-the-wrong-fix-for-our-failing-schools/story-fn59niix-1226583841041">Ben Jensen</a> of the Grattan Institute, has been used by politicians of all sides. But the facts are that apart from the 2008-09 spending that helped save Australia’s economy from meltdown, according to <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS">World Bank</a> figures, Australia’s spend on education as a proportion of GDP has <a href="http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/public-spending-on-education-total-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html">declined</a> from 4.9% in 1999 to 4.4% in 2011.</p>
<p>Figures also <a href="http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/australia-spends-less-on-education-oecd/story-e6frfku0-1226136156465">show</a> that only 71% of Australian government spending goes to public schools. The majority of the increase in government school funding over the past decade has gone to private schools. Since 2010, more than A$5 billion has been removed from public education in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.</p>
<p>Significantly, Commonwealth funding for non-government schools rose from around $3.50 for each dollar spent on public schools, to around $5 per dollar since 1997. In 2009, the Commonwealth provided 74% of all government net recurrent funding for the Catholic sector and 73% in the independent sector. Canberra now gives more money to private schools than it does to universities: more than $36 billion in federal funds has gone to non-government schools in the period 2009-2013.</p>
<h2>If it ain’t broke, why fix it?</h2>
<p>“If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” – this has been the Liberal Party mantra since the Gonski review commenced. Abbott and Pyne are ideologically wedded to increasing funding for independent schools as their priority, as part of their “school choice” program. We also know that they fundamentally dislike the Gonski model and don’t see any problem in the inequitable school funding model we have at the moment.</p>
<p>They are now faced with the dilemma of having to stick to some form of the “Gonski-lite” program of the previous government for at least the next four years and through at least one election. It’s clear, they’ve changed their position for political expediency. But this latest announcement doesn’t mean their problems have gone away, they are now only delayed. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21025/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Zyngier receives funding from Australian Research Council </span></em></p>It seems we’re in Gonski groundhog day. The repeated backflips and policy position switches from the Abbott government – only three months into its term – have been astounding. After announcing last week…David Zyngier, Senior Lecturer Faculty of Education, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/209572013-11-29T05:29:21Z2013-11-29T05:29:21ZStates say Pyne’s changes to target public schools as bitter old debates become new<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36500/original/p5vjp6m3-1385695104.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Why are we going backwards on the schools funding debate?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Student image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After a tense meeting in Canberra today, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-29/pyne-drops-education-overhaul-bombshell-on-states-during-heated/5124968">education state ministers</a> raised concerns that the new federal government changes to school funding would see cuts only target public schools. </p>
<p>The NSW education minister Adrian Piccoli told reporters that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Commonwealth has implied that if there is a reduction in funding for states that signed up to the Gonski plan the reduction may well only come out of public schools.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/pyne-doesnt-want-gonski-slanging-match/story-e6frfku9-1226768367656">just one week</a>, education minister Christopher Pyne has managed to travel the whole debate on schools funding back in time to the old arguments about state versus private schools. </p>
<p>The Gonski review, and the subsequent Labor Better Schools plan, were serious attempts to move away from this stale debate and create a policy that was sector blind. </p>
<p>Now, tragically it seems, we are back running around in circles over the same tired ideas.</p>
<h2>A long history</h2>
<p>The history of government funding of public and private schools is a long and complicated one. These divisons go back to the nineteenth century and reach a heightened pitch in the 1960s with the fight over <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/time/episodes/ep7.htm">state aid</a>.</p>
<p>Whitlam’s Labor government came to power in 1972 with some broad attempts to start new directions in education. Whitlam made much of the idea that education funding would be allocated on the basis of need, not ideology. <a href="http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=research_conference_karmel">The Karmel Report</a> was drawn up and a Schools Commission established to give some kind of fairness to allocation of funds. </p>
<p>However, the devil was in the detail, and Catholic bishops successfully resisted the idea that any Catholic school would get less money. So the system was never perfect.</p>
<p>In the Howard years, a new model was drawn up. Funds were allocated more generously to private schools. As a result, many new schools sprang up, including low-cost Anglican schools, Islamic schools and specialist schools. <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/19/1074360697635.html">According to The Age</a>, from 1999 to 2002, the number of full-time students attending non-government schools jumped more than 20%, compared with a 1% increase in government school enrolments.</p>
<p>One of the aims of this exercise was to attract the votes of middle-class “aspirational” parents. Another aim was to decrease the power of the teacher unions. Then-prime minister John Howard also cleverly gained the support of the talkback radio hosts. He <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/19/1074360697635.html">said</a> parents were moving their children out of government schools because the state system is “too politically correct and too values-neutral”.</p>
<p>In the 2004 election campaign, opposition leader Mark Latham said Labor would reduce funding for schools which were already well-funded. It became a political debacle with savage attacks from talkback radio hosts who ranted about “hit lists” and “class warfare”.</p>
<p>The debate shook Labor strategists and commentators said it cost Latham the election.</p>
<p>Even though, as it turned out, Latham’s policy was <a href="http://inside.org.au/lathams-list-was-a-hit-in-the-polls/">approved by 66% of voters</a>. And <a href="http://inside.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Explaining-Howards-Success.pdf">subsequent analysis</a> by election expert Murray Goot found Labor lost the election, not because of its education policies, but because of interest rates and other economic arguments.</p>
<p>Still, the experience was difficult and the lesson was writ large for any future politicians attempting to reform how schools were funded. School reform was not for the faint of heart.</p>
<h2>A dangerous debate</h2>
<p>The Gonski review, initiated by the previous Labor government, tried to move the debate on from discussions about private versus public funding.</p>
<p>The review, led by businessman David Gonski, painstakingly sorted through the evidence. Finally, there was a genuine attempt to make funding more equitable. But again, no school would be worse off, as then-prime minister Julia Gillard promised. Labor was nervous about rousing the shock jocks, who were already in <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/no-more-juliar-pms-office-demands-respect/story-fncynjr2-1226595426891">full cry against her</a> as a woman and as a leader.</p>
<p>A start could have been made much earlier but instead Labor’s last minute efforts meant the government was still trying to sign agreements just before the election. And then it only managed to sign up a few of the states. </p>
<p>Christopher Pyne has <a href="http://www.afr.com/p/national/government_of_no_surprises_rewrites_YFgxK864VRKFbRIi44ovzN">now reversed his election position</a>, and abandoned the Gonski program.</p>
<p>We have yet to see the evidence for his claims that the model is “unworkable” or a “shambles”. To my knowledge, no eminent educational experts have yet agreed. </p>
<p>But now, we seem to be back in the dark days of state versus private schools. Pyne needs to think carefully before he heads down this path, otherwise it could raise up bitter hatreds that will cut across Australian society. It will lead to envy of the wealthiest schools and their endowments. </p>
<p>It should be left behind as a historic relic, much like the old hostilities between Protestant and Catholic that once existed in Australia.</p>
<p>After all, does this bitterness help us educate kids who will have to compete among our hard-working Asian neighbours? When will we put kids’ needs first, and tired old arguments last? </p>
<p>The airwaves need to be noisy with education experts and others explaining why this old debate is no longer needed. It should be obvious that our most disadvantaged kids in the most disadvantaged schools need funding most urgently. </p>
<p>If we Australians are to educate our kids properly, we must truly move on from this pointless bickering over public and private. Only then can we give our kids fair and effective schools.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20957/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter West 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>After a tense meeting in Canberra today, education state ministers raised concerns that the new federal government changes to school funding would see cuts only target public schools. The NSW education…Peter West, Lecturer in Education, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/207252013-11-28T19:08:32Z2013-11-28T19:08:32ZBack to the drawing board on Gonski: no logic in abandoning school reforms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36346/original/68rrjgs2-1385594567.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government still needs to address the underlying problems that the Gonski reforms sought to address.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Dan Peled</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Education minister Christopher Pyne says it’s necessary to go “<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/back-to-drawing-board-for-gonski-says-christopher-pyne/story-fn59nlz9-1226767435893">back to the drawing board</a>” on schools funding and abandon the previous government’s funding reforms – commonly known as the Gonski model.</p>
<p>After calling the Gonski model “unimplementable”, Pyne said that by the end of next year, the Coalition will develop a new funding model. It is unclear what this “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/christopher-pyne-new-school-funding-model">flatter, simpler, fairer</a>” policy Pyne is advocating will really look like. Yesterday, he ruled out a return to the Howard SES model but in previous interviews, he has remained <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3898688.htm">ambiguous</a>.</p>
<p>There certainly were flaws in the Labor government’s interpretation of the Gonski review’s recommendations, including the <a href="http://theconversation.com/more-money-for-the-classroom-or-for-bureaucrats-14213">way it distributed funds</a> and sourcing the money from the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-13/gonski/4627278">higher education sector</a>.</p>
<p>But Minister Pyne, before we go “back to the drawing board”, let’s have another look at why the Gonski Review was initiated and why we allegedly need further debate on funding models.</p>
<h2>Why was the Gonski Review initiated?</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-gonski-anyway-13599">Gonski Review</a> cost taxpayers thousands of dollars, consisted of six expert panelists, met with hundreds of professionals and stakeholders, and compiled more than 7000 written submissions from the public. </p>
<p>The review came about because ever since the existing funding model was introduced by the Howard government in 2001, known as the socio-economic status (SES) model, a large volume of peer-reviewed academic research concluded that the funding model was <a href="http://research.acer.edu.au/aje/vol52/iss2/4/">“unhelpfully complex and exceedingly opaque”</a>. </p>
<p>The socio-economic status (SES) model funds schools within the private sector. A large part of this funding is based on the number of enrolments within a school. Or in other words, cash for customers. Schools also receive money as based on their socio-economic status (SES) score. This “score” measures the <em>cohort</em> of students, not the individual, and bases a score on the residential address of the cohort. As Gonski panelist Kathryn Greiner commented, this score lacks accurate data and leads to inefficient funding. </p>
<p>There are three different streams of funding within this SES model and it is almost impossible to tell where funds are coming from or going to.</p>
<p>Hence, one of the primary aims of the Gonski Review is to achieve transparency of funding. This cannot be understated. Surely, we want to know where our taxpayer dollars are going? Due to recurrent grants based on average cost measurements and confusing indexation arrangements, it is not always clear which level of government is <a href="http://www.afr.com/rw/2009-2014/AFR/2012/02/20/Photos/c396c252-5b66-11e1-b121-7532de62367a_schooling%20funding.pdf">providing funding</a>.</p>
<p>Indeed, our current funding system completely lacks coordination and this leads to a duplication of funding efforts. In other words, some get more, some get less. </p>
<p>This matters because Australia is not hitting the A grade when it comes to educational achievement. The global ranking system – <a href="http://www.oecd.org/pisa/">the Programme for International Student Assessment</a> – shows that Australia has recorded consistent declines in educational achievement for the last ten years. </p>
<p>The gap between our high and low achievers is increasing. What’s more, Australia demonstrates a stronger relationship, when compared with our OECD neighbours, between educational achievement levels and socio-economic status.</p>
<h2>Funding advantage, not disadvantage</h2>
<p>This is the primary point to consider when thinking about our current funding model and comparing it to the proposed funding model. Currently, Australia spends more on advantage and less on disadvantage. </p>
<p>In comparison to other OECD countries, <a href="http://www.afr.com/rw/2009-2014/AFR/2012/02/20/Photos/c396c252-5b66-11e1-b121-7532de62367a_schooling%20funding.pdf">Australia spends above-average on private schools</a>, meaning the Independent and Catholic sector. Australia also spends less taxpayer dollars on public schools in comparison to what the average OECD country spends, even though this is where you’ll find most of the disadvantaged students. </p>
<p>There is no other country in the OECD world that funds independent schools as favourably as Australia does. The majority of OECD countries retain an independent sector that is truly “independent”. Our independent school is government-dependent, in that it garners almost half of its net-recurrent income from taxpayer subsidies – 45% in total. </p>
<h2>The Gonski model</h2>
<p>Of course, the Gonski funding model is contentious. It proposes to attribute more money to where it is needed. It adds funding loads to individuals with a disability or students who live in a remote area, possess lower English language proficiency, amongst others. The Independent school sector feels threatened by the proposed model and are scared of losing funding (which increased under the Howard SES model).</p>
<p>The Abbott government has absolutely no interest or intention in modifying the current funding system. Previously, Abbott declared that the Gonski reforms were unnecessary, as there is nothing fundamentally wrong with <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-says-no-need-for-gonski-funding-reforms-20130421-2i7wy.html">our funding system</a>. </p>
<p>They will continue to delay the Gonski funding for as long as they can, and Minister Pyne will continue to claim outlandish claims, entirely lacking in research-based evidence. They will do whatever they can to delay and disrupt the Gonski funding model. Their purpose is to increase the scope of education privatisation and the Gonski funding model will do the opposite.</p>
<p>Keeping in mind that the most successful systems are those that “<a href="http://www.oecd.org/education/school/overcomingschoolfailurepoliciesthatwork.htm">combine quality with equity</a>”, we need to ask ourselves, which model is fair and equitable? If the government doesn’t acknowledge the underlying problems that the Gonski model sought to address, it’s hard to see how a fairer system can develop.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20725/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Rowe 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>Education minister Christopher Pyne says it’s necessary to go “back to the drawing board” on schools funding and abandon the previous government’s funding reforms – commonly known as the Gonski model…Emma Rowe, Lecturer/PhD Candidate in The Faculty of Education, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/207822013-11-27T02:32:55Z2013-11-27T02:32:55ZLegally binding or not? Why breaking the Gonski funding deals matters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36241/original/hnyxt923-1385515954.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Coalition government's deal with the states over schools funding should not be broken so easily. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Tim Dornin</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Education minister Christopher Pyne has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-26/pyne-adamant-gonski-school-funding-needs-overhaul2c-despite-st/5116978">announced</a> the new government will dump the agreements with the states on the Gonski school funding reforms, negotiated by the former Labor government. </p>
<p>Pyne has said the new government is <a href="http://www.pyneonline.com.au/media/transcripts/press-conference-parliament-house">planning major changes</a> and a possible return to a Howard-era system after 2014. Having each invested many months negotiating the finer points of a Gonski deal, this dramatic change in policy has understandably raised the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/states-furious-over-double-backflip-on-gonski-funding-20131126-2y881.html">ire of a number of the states</a>.</p>
<p>In the public media battle that has ensued, some curious legal claims have been made by both sides. Pyne has suggested that the Commonwealth is <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/schools-funding-not-at-risk-pyne/story-e6frfku9-1226767614412">not bound by agreements</a> negotiated with Victoria and Tasmania because those states had failed to “sign” a final agreement with the Commonwealth. This is despite the fact that Tasmanian premier Lara Giddings insists that a final deal was reached verbally with then-prime minister Kevin Rudd prior to the election. </p>
<p>In contrast, NSW education minister Adrian Piccoli maintains that his state has signed a “binding agreement” and therefore that it must be honoured by the Commonwealth. NSW premier Barry O'Farrell has reportedly written to prime minister Tony Abbott seeking assurances that NSW will maintain its funding quota on this basis.</p>
<p>So, to support their positions, it appears that everyone is resorting to claims about the legal status of the agreements reached prior to the election. But what exactly is an intergovernmental agreement? Is it legally binding like a contract? Does it matter that Victoria and Tasmania did not sign one while New South Wales did?</p>
<p>In Australia’s federal system, intergovernmental co-operation is critical to achieving policy objectives. This is primarily because the powers of each level of government are limited by the Constitution. Therefore, combining the authority of both by consensus can overcome constitutional constraints and assist in achieving regulatory consistency across jurisdictions. </p>
<p>The need for intergovernmental cooperation is also exacerbated by what is known as a “vertical fiscal imbalance”. This means that while the Commonwealth possesses most of the capacity to raise tax revenue, the states hold most of the legislative powers to spend in critical policy areas. To achieve policy objectives, therefore, there must be significant transfer of revenue from the Commonwealth to the states. This often involves extensive negotiation and intergovernmental agreements. </p>
<p>In recent times, intergovernmental agreements have formed the basis for a number of high-profile collaborative breakthroughs. For example, in 1995, intergovernmental agreements provided the backbone for a national regulatory framework for trade practices and competition policy. </p>
<p>In 1999, intergovernmental agreements were successfully negotiated in relation to the distribution of GST revenue to the states. Most recently, in 2013, the Commonwealth reached <a href="http://www.coag.gov.au/node/506">agreement</a> with the “Basin states” over the ongoing use and protection of the Murray-Darling River Basin.</p>
<p>Common law contracts and intergovernmental agreements do have some features in common. For example, they can take verbal or written form, or be made up of a combination of both. Also, in the instances when they are formally drafted, it is not uncommon for the parties to “sign” them to show that they represent the final terms agreed in negotiations. </p>
<p>On the other hand, there are key aspects of intergovernmental agreements that make them very different from contracts. The most critical of these is that while a contract derives its binding nature from an intention to form legal relations, intergovernmental agreements are almost always political undertakings only. For this reason, the High Court has recognised that in most cases, intergovernmental agreements do not contain legally enforceable obligations. </p>
<p>Accordingly, in legal terms, it is likely to make little difference whether NSW “signed” an agreement with the Commonwealth while Victoria and Tasmania did not. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, there is an important qualification. Although intergovernmental agreements do not generally operate like legally binding contracts, it is arguable that they should be accorded similar respect by the parties to the arrangement. This is because they play a critical role within the contemporary federal system, often leading to them being described as embodying “soft law”. </p>
<p>In the absence of due respect for the finality of arrangements, the willingness of political actors to place reliance on these agreements may collapse entirely. No agreement could be guaranteed to hold any value beyond the next federal or state election. That could have serious and debilitating ramifications for medium and long-term planning and implementation in some of the most critical policy fields. </p>
<p>Governments then, should not be so quick to dismiss these agreements. It may be more prudent to pay heed to the wider institutional impact of embarking on significant changes to collaborative arrangements before actually doing so. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20782/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shipra Chordia receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>Education minister Christopher Pyne has announced the new government will dump the agreements with the states on the Gonski school funding reforms, negotiated by the former Labor government. Pyne has said…Shipra Chordia, Director of the Federalism Project, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/207042013-11-26T19:08:52Z2013-11-26T19:08:52ZGonski is gone but can anything be salvaged?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36132/original/8tfchm4b-1385440100.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New education minister Christopher Pyne has effectively dumped the Gonski model of school funding.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Federal education minister Christopher Pyne has managed to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/barry-ofarrell-criticises-christopher-pyne-over-gonski-20131126-2y7fu.html">upset the states</a> and the education community <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/back-to-drawing-board-for-gonski-says-christopher-pyne/story-fn59nlz9-1226767435893">with his declaration</a> to “go back to the drawing board” on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-gonski-anyway-13599">Gonski funding scheme</a>. </p>
<p>Although Pyne’s announcement will feel like a bombshell to many, some in the education community saw it coming. During the election, Pyne switched from saying not very much on school funding, to only committing a Coalition government to four years of funding under a “unity ticket” on education. But the previous government’s agreements with the states were for six years, with the bulk of the money going out to schools in the last two years, beyond the forward estimates. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/education-minister-christopher-pyne-breaks-prepoll-promise-on-school-funding-20131126-2y6mz.html">his statements</a>, Pyne has said the new funding scheme is unimplementable and will need to be changed to a “flatter” and “simpler” system after 2014. While Pyne has emphasised that the funding envelope will remain the same, the Coalition’s election commitment that no school will be worse off under the new arrangements is in doubt.</p>
<p>So if the Coalition government is going to start anew, what should happen next?</p>
<h2>It’s not the money that matters</h2>
<p>Money alone doesn’t deliver quality schooling. Post-war governments poured money into school systems, on the assumption that more resources would automatically deliver better schools, only to have this dispelled by <a href="http://hanushek.stanford.edu/">researchers</a> in the 1980s who demonstrated the weakness of the link between additional funding and school performance.</p>
<p>Finland’s education system consistently outranks other OECD countries, even though their proportion of GDP allocated to school education is <a href="http://www.oecd.org/edu/Finland_EAG2013%20Country%20Note.pdf">only slightly above</a> the OECD average.</p>
<p>Anything post-Gonski in Pyne’s simpler, flatter alternative to be developed over the next year, will need to therefore address more than just the overall dollar amount given to schools. </p>
<h2>Quality is key</h2>
<p>If Pyne is going to dismantle Labor’s school funding scheme, then his alternative needs to foster <a href="http://clearinghouse.aitsl.edu.au/Citations/a36e78c3-6069-4d3f-971b-a08600fda0c6">quality teaching and learning</a>. </p>
<p>Policies and practices to promote school improvement were the central focus of both the <a href="http://www.coag.gov.au/schools_and_education">National Partnership Agreements</a> negotiated by the federal government in 2008 and the Gonski scheme, within its comprehensive national school improvement plan. </p>
<p>Pyne <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-26/pyne-adamant-gonski-school-funding-needs-overhaul2c-despite-st/5116978">has promised</a> there will be “less control from Canberra” but has said very little about the urgent need for national school reform. In contrast, the existing agreements are based on agreed plans with education systems to implement <a href="http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-best-performing-schools-come-out-on-top/">best practice in school improvement</a>. </p>
<p>Let’s hope Pyne’s desire to produce a “flatter” and “simpler” funding model does not result in the abandonment of agreed policy goals such as encouraging schools to focus on educational attainment; raising expectations among students, teachers and parents; making teaching more student-centred and responsive to individual learner needs; and delivering education in partnership with other service providers and with the school’s external community. </p>
<h2>The tail should not wag the dog</h2>
<p>The Coalition’s argument that it is trying to wind back the Commonwealth government’s role by dismantling the previous federal government’s <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/13-08-29%20The%20Coalition%27s%20Policy%20for%20Schools%20-%20policy%20document.pdf">“command and control”</a> system is misleading. Under the Australian Constitution, the federal government has no responsibility for education. </p>
<p>While the federal government’s right to provide funding for schools has been upheld by the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1981/2.html">High Court</a>, it has no power to intervene in the running of schools or systems. Yet since the 1960s, national governments of both political persuasions have tried to influence Australian schooling through federal funding schemes with onerous conditions attached, which are widely discredited as ineffectual attempts to get “the tail to wag the dog”. </p>
<p>The former Labor government repudiated this approach in its first term, when it abolished all but one of a raft of long-standing Commonwealth schools programs in 2009. Under the National Partnership Agreements negotiated with each state and territory during 2008, a dozen federal schools funding programs were rolled into single bilateral agreements. </p>
<p>The only federal program remaining was the recurrent funding scheme for non-government schools, which was retained pending the outcome of the Gonski review in 2011. </p>
<p>This program was finally abolished with the passage of the Australian Education Act in 2013, which saw all recurrent funding rolled into the National School Improvement Plans from 2014 - the funding agreements that Pyne now labels “a mess”.</p>
<p>Ironically, the Coalition government appears intent on introducing a new federal program that intervenes explicitly in the management of state education systems, through its A$70 million <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/13-08-29%20The%20Coalition%27s%20Policy%20for%20Schools%20-%20policy%20document.pdf">Independent Public Schools Fund</a>. In addition to this initiative, Pyne <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/new-broom-pyne-ready-to-reshape-curriculum-20130927-2ujk8.html">has also announced a federal government takeover</a> of all national data collection and reporting functions, which to date has been managed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority <a href="http://www.acara.edu.au/default.asp">(ACARA)</a>, a federal agency governed by a board comprised of state and territory education authorities and education stakeholders.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.pyneonline.com.au/media/speeches-media/speech-to-the-national-conference-of-the-independent-education-union-of-australia-canberra">one of his first speeches</a> as education minister, Pyne announced his intention to transfer all the “data, reporting and compliance functions” currently performed ACARA to the federal education department - a decision that sits oddly with his professed commitment to less “command and control” by the Commonwealth.</p>
<h2>A legacy gone</h2>
<p>The funding agreements now being reviewed by Pyne were based on a bipartisan national consensus between state and federal governments which recognised the need for school reform and was committed to evidence-based school improvement. </p>
<p>They represent the culmination of efforts by both Labor and Coalition governments since the late 1980s to move beyond the “blame game” that was typical of federal interventions in the past. Given <a href="http://www.coagreformcouncil.gov.au/reports/education/education-australia-2012-five-years-performance">current concerns</a> about the performance of Australian schooling, the new federal education minister places much at risk by trampling over this legacy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20704/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Watson is a Professor and Director of the Education Institute at the University of Canberra. In this role, she undertakes policy research for federal and state departments of education and the non-government schools sector. She is currently leading a long-term evaluation of a National Partnerships program for the NSW Department of Education. The views expressed in this article are her own.</span></em></p>Federal education minister Christopher Pyne has managed to upset the states and the education community with his declaration to “go back to the drawing board” on the Gonski funding scheme. Although Pyne’s…Louise Watson, Professor and Director, The Education Institute, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/207952013-11-26T19:08:39Z2013-11-26T19:08:39ZDitching Gonski: what’s so unfair about funding based on need?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36165/original/3vj36vks-1385461031.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The new government has fundamentally mislead the Australian public on school funding.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a bitterly disappointing move, it looks as though the government will now undo the vital Gonski school funding reforms of the previous Labor government.</p>
<p>But perhaps it should come as no surprise. </p>
<p>For six years the Coalition has repeatedly <a href="http://www.pyneonline.com.au/media/transcripts/doorstop-parliament-house-14">told</a> us that the Howard government’s model for school funding - the so-called SES (Socio-Economic Status) model was working.</p>
<p>They said the schools were getting the funding they needed and as education spokesperson Christopher Pyne <a href="http://www.pyneonline.com.au/media/transcripts/doorstop-parliament-house-14">described it</a>, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.</p>
<p>This made the Labor government’s school funding reforms, first discussed formally under the <a href="http://www.betterschools.gov.au/review">David Gonski review for schools funding</a>, unnecessary. It was, they said, “all feathers and no meat”, “unworkable and grotesquely expensive”.</p>
<p>But just a few days before the election the Coalition made a back-flip. Opposition leader Tony Abbott <a href="http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/News/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9332/Joint-Press-Conference-Melbourne.aspx">announced</a> that he would guarantee the reforms for <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-02/coalition-to-support-gonski-school-funding/4861102">at least four years</a>.</p>
<p>Before the election Pyne trumpeted his “unity ticket” on Gonski, claiming “you can vote Liberal or Labor and you’ll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school”. He’s now back-flipped again and broken that promise, leaving open the possibility some schools would receive less funding than they do now.</p>
<p>As I predicted in <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-2013-results-and-the-future-experts-respond-17957">The Conversation</a> just after the election:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The biggest danger to public education could be a rejection of the so-called unity ticket, offering only a paltry one-third of <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/gonski-review">the proposed Gonski increase</a> in funding to disadvantaged schools after the Coalition finds a “budget black hole” and returns to the discredited <a href="https://ssp.deewr.gov.au/ssp/help/html/ses/">SES funding</a> model. This is the model they have always supported and if reinstated, it will continue to privilege the wealthiest and most elite private schools at the expense of the working class and the poor.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Gonski was the most comprehensive review of school funding in 40 years – one designed to make the system better for all kids. It called for funding to be allocated based on the needs of the students; to be topped up with additional funding to take into account types disadvantage different students experience, such as Indigeniety, remoteness, second language learners, refugee children and disability. </p>
<p>Pyne claims their new model will be “flatter, … simpler, … fairer [model] … and it will be equitable for students so that the school funding reaches those who need it the most”. But what is more equitable than the Gonski model that is blind to sector and funds students and schools according to need?</p>
<p>Liberal and Labor Premiers from NSW and SA were quick to speak out against the broken promise, calling on the federal Government to honour their Gonski commitment. </p>
<p>But some were quick to come to the government’s defence. As conservative education commentator Kevin Donnelly <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-26/donnelly-why-pyne-is-right-to-review-the-gonski-reforms/5117438">wrote</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>With its misguided emphasis on students’ socioeconomic backgrounds and its discrimination against private schools, the Gonski education reform needed to be reviewed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is also no surprise that Pyne’s reneging of the schools funding election commitment has been greeted with <a href="http://isca.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Media-Release-2013-November-25-Independent-schools-support-funding-model-improvements.pdf">cheers from the Independent Schools of Australia</a> who are set to regain the money that they lost. </p>
<p>The once in a generation opportunity to redress the incredible levels of disadvantage in public education, that has been instrumental in Australia’s fall in international test results has now been lost.</p>
<p>As Greens leader Christine Milne <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/pyne-doesnt-want-gonski-slanging-match/story-e6frfku9-1226768367656">put it</a> the previous Howard model meant “those schools who already had lots got lots more, and those who had nothing got very little.”</p>
<p>Sometimes circumstances change. “What one government does another can undo,” stated Pyne. But breaking a fundamental promise to Australian parents? Time will tell, but by misleading the Australian public, this could well be the coalition’s “Carbon Tax moment”. Meanwhile the future of Australian education is put in doubt. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/20795/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Zyngier receives funding from ARC</span></em></p>In a bitterly disappointing move, it looks as though the government will now undo the vital Gonski school funding reforms of the previous Labor government. But perhaps it should come as no surprise. For…David Zyngier, Senior Lecturer Faculty of Education, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/174672013-09-05T01:56:00Z2013-09-05T01:56:00ZGetting past Gonski: school equity beyond the election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/30017/original/zwmqjmmv-1377586727.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What comes next after the election? Maybe it's better not to watch...</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">School image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The last few years have been a rollercoaster ride for anyone who has followed the politics of school funding. There was a low after the 2007 election when Labor dragged its heels on a review, a high when it finally began under businessman David Gonski in 2010, and another when <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-gonski-anyway-13599">its recommendations</a> were widely applauded a couple of years later. </p>
<p>Through the cycles of hope and despair, the process has been repeatedly mangled by the vagaries of politics.</p>
<h2>Political will power</h2>
<p>By any standard the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling</a> was an exhaustive process, gathering all the evidence to find an acceptable way to rescue our dysfunctional framework of school funding. It will forever remain a benchmark for what is needed to restore some equity and balance to Australia’s hybrid school system. In the long term it may not be much more than that.</p>
<p>The problems it highlighted won’t go away. Bill Scales, a member of the Gonski panel <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3742876.htm">put it bluntly</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“If Australia wants to have a highly productive economy, if it wants to have well-informed citizens, then I’m afraid come [the election], whatever party is in power, they will have to confront these same dilemmas.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The reality is they probably won’t in the short term. Labor’s plan is to dribble out half the recommended funding across more schools than those that need it – over more years than it should take. The Coalition’s track record indicates little <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3547117.htm">understanding of equity</a> and the gains from investing in struggling schools - and a disinclination to find the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-02/coalition-to-support-gonski-school-funding/4861102">money beyond four years</a>. </p>
<p>Opposition leader Tony Abbott’s road to Damascus about-turn on Gonski achieved a political outcome – narrowing the gap between the two parties on education – but this is hardly convincing. No one seems to know, <a href="http://www.alp.org.au/cm55_300813">least of all shadow education minister Christopher Pyne</a>, how much will be invested by each of the states over the next few years, - not much, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-04/premier-moves-to-justify-education-job-cuts/4934768?section=wa">if Western Australia is any guide</a>.</p>
<p>Yet Bill Scales is partly right: governments will eventually have to confront the dilemmas highlighted by the review. Thanks to the review and its supporting research we know much more about these gaps. Using publicly available data we can show that the social and related academic gaps between schools are widening to the point where even Gonski’s solutions may increasingly be seen as too little, too late.</p>
<p>Some of this data, in particular the socio-educational status index for each school, comes from the My School website. Whatever else we might say about My School, it now enables useful comparisons between schools grouped by their <a href="http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Guide_to_understanding_ICSEA.pdf">Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA)</a> – in effect a measure of the socio-educational status (including parent’s occupationand educational levels) of each school’s enrolment.</p>
<p>So what happens when we map changes in student achievement against schools grouped in this way?</p>
<h2>Mapping disadvantage</h2>
<p>We can find out by taking a closer look at Victoria where readily available Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) data shows the changing distribution of high-end academic results, represented by <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/compare-school-scores">VCE study scores over forty</a>.</p>
<p>There are 384 schools with more than 250 students that had students sitting for the VCE in 2003 and 2011. Between those years only the schools with the most advantaged students, increased their percentage of high scores. The percentage of high scores in the other groups of schools fell away as the measured advantage of their enrolled students also declined. The percentage of high VCE scores in the most disadvantaged schools, already low in 2003, fell the most – by over 20% in just eight years.</p>
<p>The conventional explanation driven by both sides of politics is that it is about school quality. This would suggest that most of the teachers and leaders of lower ICSEA schools have somehow collectively dropped the ball and become less successful. The policy solution is to apportion credit or blame, sometimes followed by a mix of carrot and stick policies in an attempt to lift performance.</p>
<p>Nor is the trend isolated to government schools. While sample sizes are small, the handful of low ICSEA private schools have also tended to fall behind in the VCE stakes. Government schools lost more, but they are already at the bottom of every local school hierarchy, being the only schools obliged to enrol all students, regardless of family background and level of prior achievement.</p>
<p>From other sources we know that more advantaged students have tended to shift out of schools dealing with <a href="http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/2013/BPrestonApril13.pdf">higher levels of disadvantage</a>. As a part consequence Australia has close to 60% of advantaged students now attending advantaged schools.</p>
<p>The shift to non-government schools is well known – but also evident is <a href="http://www.tasa.org.au/conferences/conferencepapers07/papers/201.pdf">the shift of enrolments</a> from lower to higher SES government schools.</p>
<p>My School readily shows that low SES schools with Year twelve students in Victoria are 20% smaller than high SES schools. For years we have known that <a href="http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/individual/publication84719">student movement has increased</a> their density of disadvantaged students. What is alarming is the pace of the change and its compounding impact on both disadvantaged and advantaged schools.</p>
<p>The trend certainly reflects what <a href="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/markets-in-education_5km4pskmkr27-en">other research indicates</a>: firstly that parents choose schools on the SES of their enrolment as well as achievement indicators , secondly that when faced with competition school principals primarily seek to increase their density of “desirable” students.</p>
<h2>Losing out</h2>
<p>How many students are attending schools which are losing out in this brave new market of schools?</p>
<p>In Victoria two thirds of the schools below the average ICSEA value have experienced a decline in the proportion of high Year 12 scores. If this is replicated across Australia, over 400,000 students attending around 700 secondary schools are similarly placed, struggling to achieve in increasingly residualised schools.</p>
<p>Many of these students begin school already far behind. They may sit in classrooms devoid of the student role models found in the schools of their parents’ era. In worrying numbers they drift away from school before the end of Year twelve. Their teachers are overwhelmingly committed but inexperienced and staff turnover is high. Their schools are usually close to the bottom of any achievement rank, and often cop criticism or, at best, pious but ineffectual hand-wringing. Their communities have lost much of the cultural capital essential to the future success of their children.</p>
<p>Greater funding, if carefully applied, can shift the achievement, enrolment profile and image of these schools. Certainly the evidence shows that such an investment can make a difference to student achievement. The investment and achievement is essential to entice middle class families back to their local schools.</p>
<p>Labor lost many opportunities created by the Gonski review. Its cautious “no-loser” mantra has blunted any chance to make a difference in anything but the long term. The Coalition shows every indication of not understanding the problem and is at best lukewarm about the limited solutions in train. The hollowing out of low SES schools will continue, something for which we’ll all pay a price.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is an edited excerpt from the chapter on school education by co-authors Jane Caro and <a href="http://cpd.org.au/author/chris-bonnor-2/">Chris Bonnor</a> AM, in <a href="http://cpd.org.au/pushingourluck">Pushing our luck: ideas for Australian progress</a>, a new book to be published by the Centre for Policy Development.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17467/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jane Caro 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>The last few years have been a rollercoaster ride for anyone who has followed the politics of school funding. There was a low after the 2007 election when Labor dragged its heels on a review, a high when…Jane Caro, Lecturer, School of Communication Arts, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/167152013-08-06T01:06:36Z2013-08-06T01:06:36ZGonski watered down: how does the current policy compare?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28698/original/rdhzrcs4-1375746993.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kevin Rudd may be king of the kids, but how does his Better Schools policy compare with the original Gonski review of schools funding?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/James Elby</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been a very long road for those wanting school funding reform. But it looks as though now the government version of the <a href="http://www.betterschools.gov.au/review-funding-schooling">Gonski review</a> is here to stay.</p>
<p>Five states and territories are now on board, with Victoria <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/victoria-signs-on-but-deal-has-a-cost-20130804-2r7q4.html">signing up</a> just this weekend. Opposition leader Tony Abbott too has reversed his previous position and will now <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-02/coalition-to-support-gonski-school-funding/4861102">guarantee the funding model</a> for at least four years (while making some changes to the federal ministers powers). </p>
<p>The new system will follow the basic model outlined under the Gonski review – that is, moving to a per student resource standard with extra funding given to schools with higher numbers of disadvantaged students.</p>
<p>But how do the new arrangements with the states compare to the recommendations of the original Gonski’s report?</p>
<p>The foremost recommendation of the Gonski report - to replace the outdated, opaque and overly complex funding of schools - has been achieved. The current policy position also follows another core recommendation, that the money follows the students and is based on need. Compare this to the current multiple funding models, only one of which is based on a measure of a school’s need.</p>
<p>The government has also broadly followed Gonski’s estimated base amount. The panel said this would be need to be around A$10,500 per secondary and $8,000 per primary student. The amount has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-14/gillard-announces-details-of-gonski-education-reforms/4627910">now been set</a> for $12,193 per secondary and $9,271 per primary student.</p>
<p>But there are major differences. First, the total cost. The original Gonski report estimated if these arrangements had been implemented in full during 2009, the additional cost to governments would have been about $5 billion per year. Now, with phase-in periods extending (for instance, Victoria only needs to reach 95% of the schooling resource standard by 2022), the amount thins out. The federal government estimates an additional $9.8 billion over six years from 2014‑15 (or around one and a half billion per year).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28688/original/r226pyjh-1375735724.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28688/original/r226pyjh-1375735724.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28688/original/r226pyjh-1375735724.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28688/original/r226pyjh-1375735724.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28688/original/r226pyjh-1375735724.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28688/original/r226pyjh-1375735724.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28688/original/r226pyjh-1375735724.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Funding is increasing, but isn’t $5 billion anymore.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Australian government. http://budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/glossy/gonski_policy/html/gonski_overview_02.htm</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Recommendation 25 in the original report called for transitional funding that recognised the need for extensive negotiation. And the deals have been somewhat flexible. For instance, under its recent compromise deal, Victoria does not have to increase annual education spending by 3% until 2016, two years later than the Commonwealth had initially demanded.</p>
<p>The government has also modified Gonski’s recommendations on the loadings for students with specific needs. The report recommends loading for students from the bottom quarter of low-income families. The government has expanded this to include students in the bottom half of the socioeconomic measure. Also, every Indigenous student now attracts extra funding. The wider application of the loadings provided extra funding for a further 875,000 students from low-income families as well as a further 31,900 indigenous students.</p>
<p>Students with disabilities have not received as much attention. The original report promises nationally consistent data collection on students with disability has been established and an appropriate funding loading developed. In the meantime, an interim loading has been calculated via estimation. Governments have paid lip service to a solution. For example, the Commonwealth and South Australia agreed to improved the measure and funding of students with disability.</p>
<p>There has been more clear progress on the recommendation to negotiate with Independent and Catholic systems. These schools are <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/catholic-schools-sign-up-to-gonski/4837944">now on board</a>. The Australian government will, as recommended, have a greater role in funding government schools, while the states will give more to non-government schools. This agreement includes the caveat that independent schools with disadvantaged students that had received national partnerships or targeted program funding over the past three years would not lose funding when these programs were cut. </p>
<p>The next step is to design a new measure of wealth that assesses the capacity of the parents enrolling their children in non-government schools to contribute financially towards the school’s resources. Gonski originally recommended a National Schools Resourcing Body that would regulate such decisions. But this idea was scrapped in September 2012. The representative advisory group – which would have provided advice to the body on schooling matters — was also binned.</p>
<p>There has been so much fanfare around the funding that other recommendations have played second fiddle. For example, Gonski pushes for increased data collection, but we have yet to see if the promised annual State of Our Schools report will suffice. Same with philanthropy. Gonski dedicated seven pages to donations, but there has been no visible increase in charitable donations.</p>
<p>What of the Gonski recommendation to allow School Planning Authorities to coordinate new school buildings and expansions? And other details, like creating a national definition of the maintenance and minor works responsibilities? Both seem to have fallen by the wayside.</p>
<p>And there is the issue of the federal ministers powers. In many ways, the government’s reforms also expands the role of the federal government. For instance, it would develop a National Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs, a literacy and numeracy assessment for student teachers, and the Australian Curriculum.</p>
<p>But states have raised the red flag and bargained hard to limit the expansion of federal powers. Even the Gonski report encouraged states and territories to make deals that reflected specific funding and educational requirements of that jurisdiction. Victoria has taken this one step further and demanded that the Commonwealth incorporate regulations into the legislation that constrain the Commonwealth from unilaterally intervening in schools. </p>
<p>This check on Federal power ensures that education remains a state and local issue. Indeed, former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Terry Moran sees Victoria as being ahead of the game <a href="http://theconversation.com/terry-moran-in-conversation-full-transcript-10187">in terms of devolving responsibility</a>.</p>
<p>As with any political proposition, there has been give-and-take. It is heartening to see that the bare minimum—reform of a woefully antiquated funding formula—has been accomplished. The funding is nowhere near what was promised, but at least the stage has been set. Now the fine balance of state responsibility without compromising the education of disadvantaged students begins.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/16715/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Squirrel Main 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>It’s been a very long road for those wanting school funding reform. But it looks as though now the government version of the Gonski review is here to stay. Five states and territories are now on board…Squirrel Main, Researcher, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.