Prev
Next

School funding review faces an uphill battle

Chris Bonnor

by Chris Bonnor

01 Aug 05:45am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Funding, School, Ses, Unions

41 comments

Barely a week goes by without yet another controversy about the funding of schools, most recently over high-fee school profits and school assets.

Photo:Herald Sun.

High-fee schools in particular aren’t excited by the prospect of increased scrutiny of either on the My School website.

But such scrutiny might be delayed for some time and this might ease their discomfort: In the time it takes to get the information correct they’ll be able to flex their considerable lobbying muscles to make sure it doesn’t happen. 

And every recurring controversy about school resources adds to the pressure on the current review of school funding to sort it all out. The review team, led by David Gonski, has been handed an almost impossible task: to reform a system which is becoming a significant barrier to educational achievement facing students and facing the whole country.

Rising to this task, the review has signaled that differences in educational outcomes should not be the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions. But even under favourable circumstances this would challenge those schools and their lobbies which have been advantaged by decades-long arrangements: differences in wealth and power are now an endemic feature of Australia’s schools.

Even if the review panel can create a better balance it will face the orchestrated wrath of those who even suspect they’ll be dudded – with the fate of its recommendations in the hands of a government under permanent siege – or an Opposition firmly aligned with non-government schools.

Most of the talk about resources for schools focuses on the funding available to schools and how it is used: we have talked forever about rich schools, poor schools and everything in-between. The school funding system certainly needs reforming - but differences in total school income (per student) seem unrelated to student outcomes, at least as measured by student test scores available on My School.

Money still matters, but not in the way we have long thought – and this will be the biggest challenge for the funding review. Money matters because it is linked to another critical resource which is very unevenly distributed between schools. This resource is the students enrolled in each school.

Students bring their own academic and social qualities to school – and these individual qualities contribute to the achievement of schools. But collectively students also contribute to the socio-educational status (SES) of the school. In turn, a school’s SES impacts on the achievement of its students.

In other words, schools and their students gain a double benefit if they enrol students who are advantaged: from the advantaged students both as individuals and as a group. The flipside is that other schools and their students face a double disadvantage. When we divide up this resource of students between schools it amounts to a zero-sum game: some schools and students win, others lose.

We’ve known this from work done by the OECD, we now know it from research conducted in Australia. It is concerning: in Australia the proportion of between-school performance explained by the background of the students attending the school is around 68 per cent, much higher than the OECD average. 

To what extent is this resource of students distributed unequally between schools? My School data shows the socio-educational difference, created by enrolments, between schools. We now have an entrenched and linked social and academic hierarchy of schools.

How and why does this resource of students come to be distributed in unequal ways?  Firstly, parents with the means to choose - mainly by being able to pay fees - enrol their children in some schools in preference to others. Secondly some schools also choose, either actively or passively, to serve some students/families and not others.

A significant difference between schools lies in who they are obliged (or choose) to enrol. Some schools can access a raft of enrolment discriminators: fees, scholarships, interviews, tests, prior school records, referees, religion etc. Others are obliged or choose to enrol all local students. Most, but not all, the former are private schools - and most, but not all, the latter are public schools.

The importance of money and funding lies not so much in who gets what - but in where it comes from and how this process impacts on schools. When much of a school’s income comes from school fees the school will inevitably enrol from the more advantaged families. They may or may not want this – it just happens.

The argument about money then becomes more complex. Faced with the growing social and academic divides between schools - and the equity challenges this creates – is the role of government to reduce these gaps or to make things worse? How far can we continue to allow private-sourced funding to distort equity? How and where should public funding be directed if we want to create greater equity in student outcomes?

When push comes to shove - which it will at the end of the year – will there be enough commitment to really reform a framework of schools riddled with unequal obligations, various funding models, levels and rationales, uneven rules and accountabilities, varying levels of accessibility - and in many cases unequal amounts of money?

The only certainty is that, if little or nothing is done, current inequities in student outcomes will only increase, along with all the personal, community and national consequences. We have an opportunity for reform - but the prospects for success are very bleak.

Most commented

41 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Dave says:

      06:29am | 01/08/11

      Another week, and more private school bashing by the jealous and the ignorant…

      Reply

    • Frank Golding says:

      09:38am | 01/08/11

      What a quality response, Dave!  That really contributes to the discussion.  Why do those who have the least to say say it quickest and so often?

    • Chris L says:

      05:22pm | 01/08/11

      @Frank - because they don’t have to waste time thinking about it first.

    • Cynical says:

      08:20am | 01/08/11

      yes lets just keep throwing money at the private schools who already have wonderful facilities like airconditioned classrooms, the latest technology, large playing fields and indoor heated swimming pools.  Government school don’t need these facilities as they cater to the masses, let them sit in rotting buildings where heaters don’t work and airconditioning is an open window, let them have older technology, they are not tomorrows leaders so they don’t matter.

      Reply

    • Que says:

      09:12am | 01/08/11

      “they are not tomorrows leaders so they don’t matter.” - please. Want a tissue? Stop acting like a victim.

      Parents that send their kids to private schools pay their taxes (and some) and invest their time and further money in the school. If you want to take away funding of private schools then give back all of the tax dollars that is paid to government for this purpose. We’ll see just how much money is left for the public system after that.

    • Barry says:

      11:15am | 01/08/11

      *Yawn* Tired old fallacies don’t make good arguments.  I’d like to actually see some statistics on how many private schools have indoor heated swimming pools.  I know of 5 private schools in my area, which all have lower or equal standard facilities to the local major public school.

    • Sharron says:

      10:19pm | 01/08/11

      Parents of private school students pay extra to ensure good facilties and quality education. They contribute to building funds and donate money for the facilities (over and above the school fees) If public school parents value education and want better facilities, why don’t they dig into their pockets and contribute to upgrading their school faciltiies

    • Jeff says:

      12:09am | 02/08/11

      Reply to Que - tax dollar returns for services you don’t use? Fallacious argument - I don’t use public transport but don’t demand a subsidy for my car, or my garage. I tend to buy books and don’t use the library as much as others so I’ll just take a partial refund thanks.
      I don’t have a disabled child - money back please.
      Getting the picture?

    • shep says:

      06:34pm | 02/08/11

      Every single child in Australia should have exactly the same amount of money allocated to their education.  What parents choose to contribute over and above this amount is nobodies business but theirs.  Its about a culture of sacrificing so that your children have better than you.  Its not rocket science and objections to this are just the politics of envy.  Why should anyone care, if someone else chooses to supliment the paltry amount the Govt spends on Education.  If the Government had its way noone would be able to rise above - at all costs we need to stifle excellence in all its forms.

      Overwhelmingly the parents I know that paid buckets to send their kids to private schools did so for the dicipline and the ability to have a say in the process and the outcomes - even if it came at a personal cost to them.  Try and have a say in the public education system - try and sit there while your child’s one chance at education is interrupted by the need to include all forms of misbehaviour lest we offend someone.  The sooner all schools are private the better, the Government clearly couldnt run a raffle.

    • John the Zombie says:

      08:31am | 01/08/11

      I have been to both pvt and public schools and find that pvt school dont just provid a better education with teacher willing to invest thier own time to students but also parents play a greater role in fundraising and sporting activities at these schools.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      05:25pm | 01/08/11

      Probably this increased enthusiasm rubs off onto their kids. I can see why parents paying for the education of their children will be more engaged in the process.

      Personally I think this just comes back to the idea of needing a licence before breeding.

    • Que says:

      08:32am | 01/08/11

      Many proponents of reducing private school funding are in fact advocating that the private school standard be brought down to the public school standard to decrease the ‘between-school performance’ - great. Now we can all be mundane - good outcome. Great way to grow a nation. 

      Geez, I moved from Sweden to get away from these extreme left policies. This mad government is trying to turn us into a eastern European socialist utopia with all of the misery that comes with it.

      Get rid of this government before it does any more damage.

      Reply

    • Emily says:

      11:12am | 01/08/11

      your implication Que, is that it is right and fair that the children who’s parents have the best resources to invest in education and who pay more taxes should rightly have a better education environment then other children. Get real- if we resign ourselves to this we are saying some babies when born are inherently more deserving then others to success due to their parentage. Elitism much? All that achieves is a constant widening of the gap between rich and poor, and does nothing to advance us as a nation.

    • Que says:

      12:26pm | 01/08/11

      @Emily So everyone is poorly educated yet equal. Another example of left symbolism?

    • Ads says:

      02:39pm | 01/08/11

      Emily - some babies are born with more entitlement. Its a fact. A baby born in Africa has less than one born here. The world isn’t fair. Get over it.

      This debate is really pointless. It should be (special needs schools aside) all schools get the same $/capita regardless of public private. Everyone pays taxes, and everyone is entitled to education.

    • Kassandra says:

      03:51pm | 01/08/11

      Not all private schools are the same. Some have extensive resources and facilities and these are paid for by the parents of the students. If you want heated indoor pools and all the rest it will cost you upwards of $20,000 a year - on top of your tax which is likely to be considerable if you can afford those kinds of fees. This is the stereotype.

      Not all public schools are the same. Entry to some is so competitive that parents have their offspring coached privately to within an inch of their lives to give them an edge over other kids. Some of these will win scholarships to the private schools with the heated indoor pools.

      Both systems of schools have a minority which are extremely discriminating and highly sought after for different reasons. If your kid gets in bravo. If not they will still get an education which is excellent, whether it is at a “normal” private or public school.

      And that’s how it should be. The rest is just petty envy and class warfare.

    • Que says:

      08:32am | 01/08/11

      Many proponents of reducing private school funding are in fact advocating that the private school standard be brought down to the public school standard to decrease the ‘between-school performance’ - great. Now we can all be mundane - good outcome. Great way to grow a nation. 

      Geez, I moved from Sweden to get away from these extreme left policies. This mad government is trying to turn us into a eastern European socialist utopia with all of the misery that comes with it.

      Get rid of this government before it does any more damage.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      08:42am | 01/08/11

      Any private organization that accepts the taxpayer dollar should be subject to full and thorough auditing of their accounts by the government as part of conditions set for funding. After all they are under no obligation to accept the taxpayer dollar….

      Reply

    • Mark G says:

      09:27am | 01/08/11

      Shane,

      Fine, but public schools should have that same scrutiny.

      Why does it matter where private schools spend the money? as long as they produce results who cares? Even if you force them to only spend public money on things directly associated with education such as books ect. They will just direct all their public money to these items and direct all their private many to ovals, gyms ect. Auditing of accounts produces nothing more than clean books. You seem to assume that public schools have perfectly clean books and don’t engage in wasteful spending.

    • Cat says:

      10:11am | 01/08/11

      They are already accountable, to a much higher degree than state schools, there a massive conditions set on recieving the funding for private schools. Might want to research the issue.

    • Ian1 says:

      11:31am | 01/08/11

      If the taxes parents pay cannot go towards the schooling of their child in a private school, then it is likely more children will present to the state system.  There isn’t really any more room in the state system for this.  Further, those who are the top performers in the state system may not seem as golden alongside the influx of former private students who’ve been indoctrinated into the work hard, study hard mentality.  Seems a case of oneschool for all, not just the kitsch.

    • Jeff says:

      12:14am | 02/08/11

      I think what Shane means is that full scrutiny of their enrolment, suspension and expulsion procedures should followed and they should adhere to the same conditions as public schools - which means taking all comers who can pay the fees, ensuring a proper process is followed for expulsion - full documentation and oversight from another authority.
      There are many other conditions that public schools are required to operate under that do not apply to private schools.

    • kate says:

      02:53pm | 03/08/11

      Any private organization that accepts the taxpayer dollar should also obey the law and pay taxes.  Unlikely religions which are exempt from land tax, have charitable tax status, and are free to sack or expel gay & lesbian students and teachers.

    • Mark G says:

      09:11am | 01/08/11

      This article is your typical socialist rant. I do like how you have attempted to replace money for socio-education advantage. What you are basically saying is that we need a more evenly distributed socio-educational landscape in schools. This may give greater opportunity to those kids in a low socio-educational group but the problem is it also severely disadvantages those in a high socio-educational groups. Thus is the failing of most socialist ideologies. Drag everyone down so the lower socio-economic/educational groups can be closer in advantage to the higher groups. This has been the ultimate demise of most socialist governments. You don’t drag down the upper class you only end up dragging down the middle class and ultimately increase the divide. We don’t live in the 19th century. Advantage is not determined by family heritage anymore. Any remaining reminisce on that has been swept away in a tide of entrepreneurialism and dot com millionaires. Advantage is something families fight for. The right to sent their kids to a better school is part of that. The thing I love about Australia is that despite being a capitalistic country, ANYBODY can claw their way to the top given the right motivation.

      From my perspective (and I know this will stir up some on the Punch) there is nothing wrong with a Socio-educational divide as long as that divide is kept in reasonable control and state schools are well funded enough to produce a minimum level of curriculum. The top kids will always be successful no matter what school they went to. Disadvantage does not equal destiny in Australia. If private schools want to produce an improved curriculum to benefit the higher achievers within their system then that’s fine. Stopping the rewarding of high achievers because you think that rewards are not fair to poor achievers is stupidly socialist.

      On the government funding issue. The majority of private school students (despite what is often pandered in the media) are not rich upper class. They are mostly from middle class backgrounds. Traditionally the middle class are the biggest tax payers as a percentage of their overall income. Why should they not reap some benefit from this tax burden? Taxes are about building large scale infrastructure (including schools) to support all people in our country. Taxes are not about the rest of society ONLY supporting the low socio-economic/educational groups to prevent any possible inequality. While taxes do have an income redistribution function, this is not their only goal. The government needs to determine the best system for Australia’s future as a well educated and competitive nation. Not how they can drag down the advantaged so that everyone can be equal.

      Reply

    • Mumofmany says:

      02:27pm | 01/08/11

      An excellent post, Mark G.  One of the reasons I home educate my children is because of the dumb-downed curriculum on offer at schools.  This has been done primarily so that the under-achievers have a better chance at learning.  However, from experience in the classroom, the only thing that has been achieved is a lowering of the overall standard of educational outcomes.  Those who have trouble learning still do, because it is not the content but the way they learn that is the problem, coupled with the lack of support at home and early childhood experiences (in some cases).  But now the average and above-average students do not receive the standard of education that previous generations did because we try and cater to the lowest common denominator - the quality, or lack thereof, of spelling and grammar of Gen Ys is evidence of this.

      slightly unrelated - but those of us who educate our children at home don’t receive any funding.  We pay taxes too…

    • Craig of North Brisbane says:

      04:19pm | 01/08/11

      Oh, those poor rich children!  You’ve really tugged at my heartstrings Mark, my eyes are welling up as we speak.  I shall have to have my butler bring me the tissues, and have cook make up truffle and caviar this evening to cheer myself up.

    • AdamC says:

      04:46pm | 01/08/11

      Way to go with the class warfare spiel, Craig.

    • AdamC says:

      09:51am | 01/08/11

      I have never understood the argument that students with different characteristics should receive the same education. After all, the edustablishment are usually the same people who scream the loudest about the benefits of diversity in wider society.

      The way the author has presented the statistics suggest that it is not so much that students from better off homes benefit from better schools with better facilities, but actually the other way around. This does not surprise me. Educators should stop trying to use education to enable ‘class mobility’ - it simply won’t work without ‘dumbing down’ the process in favour of the less able.

      Excellence is more important that equity in education.

      Reply

    • Economist says:

      09:57am | 01/08/11

      Clearly the education system has faied given the first few comments. The author is talking about equality and its importance. Australia’s rating change recently in the PISA test results from Hgh Equity to Low Equity. Why is equality important, because a quick look at international comparisions shows that countires with high equity achieve better results. http://www.geographic.org/country_ranks/educational_score_performance_country_ranks_2009_oecd.html

      Why is it that the socialist utopia of Australia, Canberra, outperforms every other State across the board? Furthermore why is it that when you take into account the the socio-economic background of student that the PISA results show no statistically signficant difference between PISA test scores between independent, Catholic and public. http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/PISA-2009-In-Brief.pdf. Because clearly parental involvement and resourcing is important. 

      Given that funding is important, what Bonner shows is an inherent bias in the funding model that potentially benefits the well resourced comparatively to the less well resourced. Of course there are other issues other than funding, but clearly if Australia wants to remain an educational leader, addressing inequality in education is important.  Education should be above the cuture wars between the left and the right.

      Reply

    • Economist says:

      10:15am | 01/08/11

      Whoops Canberra is not a state, it’s the ACT.

    • Cat says:

      11:15am | 01/08/11

      I would like to see due spotlight given to the other major factors as well, it is good that we are examining funding (not only how much and where but HOW it is spent and on what) but we seem to have this awful habit of adopting practises which have been proven to make matters worse elsewhere. If we only focus on funding and resources we can create more problems than we solve - eg. one big school rather than 3 small schools might be easier to resource, but a large school environment tends to create more cracks for disadvantaged students to slip through - leading to the interesting creation of multiple schools within schools being trialed in the US to try and combat some of these issues.

    • Michael N says:

      11:19am | 01/08/11

      I don’t think the nomenclature with regard to the ACT is damaging to your argument, the point is still a valid one. Although the ACT has a unique demographic being that it is almost completely middle-class (or very few rich and very few poor if you will).

      As for “narrowing the gap”, provided it involves lifting the bottom line as opposed to dragging down the top, it has my full support.

    • Ian1 says:

      11:12am | 01/08/11

      Needless to say, I hope to be able to emulate those parents/guardians who have made the financial sacrifices and enrolled their children where behaviour management is exactly that.  Thankfully, the taxes they pay can still subsidise the costs of schooling for their children.  The Gillard/Brown wealth redistribution team will have Hell to pay should they start barking up this tree looking to steal those taxes away.

      Reply

    • Peter#1 says:

      12:36pm | 01/08/11

      What’s the matter Chris, my comment not to your liking?
      Well, never mind, it has been published on the Open Thread, so anyone can read it there.
      In the meantime, maintain the public school rage.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      01:52pm | 01/08/11

      Wasn’t it reported on the weekend that Cranbrook school has $107 million dollars in assets, (true, that is not cash in the bank, but infrastructure and amenities) but, get this, they actually made a profit.
      That’s right, a profit, (sorry Derryn.)
      And I think about $10 million. That’s not bad you know, especially as these schools get taxpayer government funding.
      So who then gets the dividend ? The taxpayer ?
      I’d like mine now.
      I like, however, the idea of private education. It breeds variety in schooling practices and outcomes, but the problem lies in the amount of money given to these schools. They do not need so much, and irrespective of a percentage promise made by this or any other Government, some funds should be withheld.
      And if they get strapped for cash, a paper-run or Scouts bob-a-job undertaken by the school body is a jolly good way to make friends and meet people.

      Reply

    • Sharron says:

      10:28pm | 01/08/11

      Look at the Cranbrook school website where they correct the misreporting. To quote: “Cranbrook’s surplus for educational activities in 2010 was $425,484, not $7.3 million, as stated in the article.”  Schools have to budget for all sorts of contingencies. To not make a small profit which can be used in the case of an unforseen incident is poor accounting.

      Parents have contributed their own money IN ADDITION to school fees to raise funds for new building works. This can’t be counted as “profit”. Why don’t public school families pay a bit out of their own pockets to improve school facilities like the private school parents do?

    • Dan from the working class says:

      02:00pm | 01/08/11

      Private schooling is a choice.
      I believe this choice should entail the full cost by the user and not subsidized by the Government, who provide a similar system for free (or very little cost).

      If the state system is not good enough for your little precious, then don’t expect the taxpayer to help fund your choice.

      Our taxes should cover the government schools - not the private ones. (Private schools make profits)

      Reply

    • Que says:

      05:48pm | 01/08/11

      Fine. Give me back the portion of my taxes that go to schooling. I’m sick of supporting people like you.

    • James2539 says:

      02:45pm | 01/08/11

      All children should have the same dollar subsidy spent ( per child) on them, no matter if they attend either a private or a state school. Afterall, if they attended state schools it would still cost the government
      This would neccessarily mean private school attendees would receive somwewhat less.
      Private school kids attend these schools by choice, and should pay for the privelege through their fees.
      State schools should be well equipt to a reasonable standard ( heated pools? meh) so that the choice is not too difficult.
      If private schools wish to offer heated pools, astoturf playing fields etc, so be it. They fund them, not the state.

      Reply

    • Kayte says:

      05:36pm | 01/08/11

      Our local public high school is appalling, because all the students who go there are of a low-socio economic background, many of the students are aboriginal.  Now everyone sends thier kids to private school.  I personally was privately educated, my kids are in private education.  And I believe that yes we do have a crises in our education.  I have no idea how we can ever fix this, because the writer is correct, education outcomes are based on socio-economic background, and I can’t think of any parent who would sacrifice thier childs future, by putting them in a public school that pools kids from a low-socioeconomic background on the philosophy that education can become equaliser of our society.  Private school funding is not the issue, the attitude of society as a whole is the issue isn’t it?
      BTW “My School” is a disgrace.  All it does is further create a divide between the fortunate and unfortunate, the government already knew some schools were massively underperforming - do we really need to shame them publically? Performance outcomes are NOT dependant on teaching or resources, but almost entirely dependant of the home backgrounds of the students.

      Reply

    • MJM says:

      07:21pm | 01/08/11

      This was all predictable when State Aid was given in the 1960s.


      N\The best way forward is to take over the private sector asap. We are paying for it substantially as taxpayers anway and the sector is duplicating our public facilities.

      Forget the tapxyers’ argument…State school parents are the ones paying double taxation these days.
      One good public system and a genuinely independent system is the way to go - as in the Scandinavian countries.

      We had the possibility of this until - the 1960s.

      Wrong way, Go Back! and then go forward.

 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 25 May 13 09:41PM

RT @CrawfordFund: @farrm51 u may like 2 help spread word of our #foodsecurity journo award http://t.co/FwbMWwJmLf

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 25 May 13 12:59PM

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi…

tory_maguire

_Tors 25 May 13 12:42PM

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi…

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 25 May 13 12:03PM

Australia. Where you die for your country and get a rest area named after you http://t.co/hO6LpfwDvI

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter