Government Senators' Dissenting Report
Introduction
This dissenting report was prompted for several reasons.
First and immediately, to correct the inaccuracies and bias
in the majority report developed with a clear political agenda and which has
eschewed the evidence on school education in Australia today.
Second, and more importantly to seek to place future school
funding in relation to the Commonwealth, which is all this Senate Committee can
and should be considering, in a better context than has occurred throughout
these hearings and in the debate, if it can be called that, which preceded the
Senate Committee’s appointment.
Third, to outline core principles which should drive
Commonwealth school education policy for the future and to focus discussion and
hopefully future education policy to those issues that matter most – namely the
policies needed to improve education outcomes of students.
The Commonwealth’s funding arrangements for schools became
an area of settled public policy by the early 1970s. After years of acrimonious
partisan and sectarian debate, there was strong bipartisan support for
Australia’s unique school system where the states and territories were
responsible for school policy, and most of the funding, with additional
Commonwealth support. Such Commonwealth funding was needs based and reflected
principles of equity, fairness and choice. Irrespective of the type of
government, of course, there was a residue of confusion about how the funding
system worked, and myths abounded regarding funding models and criteria.
Sadly, this bipartisan support and rational debate was swept
aside following the release of the Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling
(henceforth called the Gonski Review) in November 2011.
Certainly, there were legitimate reasons as to why the Rudd
Government instigated the Gonski Review:
-
the current funding arrangements to states were drawing to an
end;
-
there were changes in Australia’s school population;
-
concerns about the nation’s international comparative school
education performance; and
-
the need to clarify public contributions to schooling.
Appointing a public inquiry, like the Gonski Review,
independent, expert advice to collect information, establish the facts, dispel
the myths and provide evidence based recommendations to government on school
funding. This approach by government has a long tradition in Australian public
policy.
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.
Instead, it reignited old debates, creating fissures rather
than consent and agreement. Most importantly, the Gonski Review focussed solely
on government funding. This may not have been the intention of the Gonski
Review, but nevertheless, this is what has occurred. And since its completion
in December 2011, the findings of the Gonski Review have been used by some to
further their own political/ideological purpose.
Government Senators completely agree that adequate funding
is essential for any education system to operate effectively, but it is only a
means to an end and that end must be to improve education quality. Quality of
and excellence in education must be measured in terms of student affect.
The issue is what constitutes ‘adequate’ funding for quality
education, as in other areas of public policy, is not just about expenditure
levels, but also about effectiveness and also value for money. In school
education spending levels, as international research attests, is no guarantee
of education performance. Some high-spending countries perform poorly, while
those spending comparatively less do better. Despite this evidence, any
discussion of this in the Australian context has been met with derision.
The Gonski Report was hijacked, by vested interests, by well
meaning, but not always, well informed commentators and others. Consequently,
other important policy initiatives which could affect education performance,
were ignored or obscured in this obsession about funding levels rather than
what works to improve education quality and outcomes for students. During these
last four years Australia has missed the boat and our education performance has
continued to decline. A number of witnesses made this point, but they have
largely been ignored. Ms Michelle Green Chief Executive of Independnent Schools
Victoria summarised the current school funding policy debate, and in doing so
she noted the gap in expectations:
We note that millions of dollars was spent during the 676
days between the initial announcement of the review of funding for schooling
and the final report. This gave us a lot of time to consider options. A total
of 7,357 submissions and 977 pages of interim and final reports were published.
Now, 774 days from the then government's initial response, we are discussing
the new funding model. What do we find? Independent Schools Victoria is well
known for strong economic analysis and our research, which is detailed in our
submission, clearly shows that the new funding model is based on poor evidence
that is not robust and was not thought through. The model is not sustainable
and will cause, we believe, public policy problems within the next five years
for governments and for schools—government schools as well as non-government
schools. There is a gap between people's understanding of the model, what is
actually being delivered and what is happening in schools. Our concern is that
the general public in Australia perceives that, once the funding model is in place,
the issue is resolved, but we know that there is likely to be continuing
instability, continuing questions and continuing discussions.[1]
Key principles
This dissenting report is based on four core principles:
First, quality should be the prime driver and
ultimate goal of all education policy. Although quality is often talked about
by the many interested parties involved it is rarely defined and too often it
is lost in the rhetoric about funding levels, equity (itself poorly defined and
contested) and mismatched use of evidence. While quality education is
multidimensional and hard to define this dissenting report believes its key
elements are about improving student performance in the classroom across clear
and agreed areas of education performance – literacy, numeracy and science and
in a wider range of skills and competencies that do not always lend themselves
to simplistic indicators.
Second, this dissenting report seeks to re-anchor
discussion about school funding in the realities of the Commonwealth
government’s actual constitutional responsibilities, historic roles in this
area, current responsibilities, actual capacities and the nation’s very real
current financial constraints.
This means accepting the federal system and the dominant
role of the states and territories in both school funding and school
management. According to the last available figures (2011-12) the Commonwealth
is only responsible for 15 per cent of the total expenditure of public schools
and the states for the remaining 85 per cent. Government Senators recognise
that there is a role for the Commonwealth to promote national goals and to work
collaboratively with the states and territories.
The problems of increased regulation not just on states, but
also on individual schools needs to be remembered. As will be discussed later,
such intrusion, embodied in the current Australian Education Act 2013 is
one of the problems identified by many stakeholders, but conveniently
overlooked in the majority report. The Department of Education advised the
committee of the significant response it had received to its initial
consultation work on the Australian Education Act 2013:
Mr
Cook: The states and territories have indicated a number of
areas, including things like a view that there is too much power, I guess,
delegated in the federal minister in their ability in the current act to
require states and territories to take particular courses of action, such as
policy actions, for example. There is concern about some of the specific goals
that are outlined in the act in relation to PISA growth and things like that.
It is probably fair to say generally that states and territories would have a
preference that certain aspects of the act be less specific and provide less
power to a federal minister, with the view that they are the ones who are
actually responsible for school education and for seeking improvements in
schools.
Mr
Hehir: The main sections tend to be the section 77, section 105
and section 22 sort of areas. But they are the areas where the Australian
government minister has the power. So they are the broad areas they are looking
at.[2]
Moreover, some major Commonwealth programs, while
well-intentioned have wasted funds and achieved little. For instance, the
previous government provided $540 million from 2008-12 to the states and
territories to improve literacy and numeracy to targeted schools. The
Australian National Audit Office’s (ANAO) National Partnership Agreement on
Literacy and Numeracy report examined the program and found no significant difference
in NAPLAN outcomes between schools participating in this National Partnership
and not. Further evaluation is due, but these results are not promising
notwithstanding the time lags involved.
A third principle of this dissenting report is that
parental contributions and a vibrant non-government sector adds to a nation’s
education capacities and should not be seen as an aberration or somehow
undermining the foundations of a democracy. OECD reports[3]
highlight how education systems have welcomed private investment from parents,
non-government organisations and enterprises in schools, a move driven by
economic necessity but also with the object of offering greater choice for
parents and spurring creativity and innovation within schools. Also, public funding
for privately managed schools have helped those from lower socio-economic
backgrounds exercise choice and attend schools in the non-government sector.
Again, the debate about school funding has deteriorated into a de facto attack
on the non-government sector, often distorting the facts and using statistics
selectively. Again, the Gonski Review failed to give this issue the study it
deserved.
Fourth, this dissenting report strongly supports
‘needs’ based funding and providing additional and targeted assistance to the
disadvantaged. Contrary to the majority report, "needs-based funding"
did not begin with the Gonski Review. Commonwealth school funding has always
been needs based and as will be highlighted later, as have state and territory
school funding systems. But, the effectiveness of these funding arrangements in
improving results both in Australia and internationally has increasingly been
questioned. Increasing evidence stresses the need for education policies that
focus on quality rather than just the socio-economic background of students.
The United Kingdom Government’s 2010 White Paper on Schooling (The
Importance of Teaching, The Schools White Paper) concluded:
The very best performing education systems show us that there
need be no contradiction between a rigorous focus on high standards and a
determination to narrow attainment gaps between pupils from different parts of
society; between a rigorous and stretching curriculum and high participation in
education; or between autonomous teachers and schools and high levels of
accountability. Indeed, these jurisdictions show us that we must pay attention
to all of these things at once if our school system is to become one of the
world’s fastest improving.[4]
There is need for wider debate on this issue. The fact that
in Australia despite massive funding to the disadvantaged there has been little
improvement in their education outcomes must be a real concern. We need to ask
ourselves why this is so, not in terms of seeking to reduce spending, but in
terms of seeking to make a real difference, to focus on spending that works
rather than seeing education only in terms of quantity of money rather than
quality of outcomes. Numerous witnesses highlighted the need for targeted
funding.
In summary, the remainder of this dissenting report will
focus on:
-
Reviewing the Gonski Report and its implementation
-
Education reforms that matter
-
Current government’s reforms agenda and spending program
Reviewing the Gonski Report and its implementation
Given that the whole focus of the Senate Committee’s inquiry
was essentially a review of the whether the Gonski model was being implemented
or not rather than exploring its Terms of Reference, then it is important to
revisit the Review. Evidence garnered over the course of the inquiry highlights
important basic issues concerning the original Gonski report and thus the
arguments used by a number of participants in the inquiry.
The Schooling Resource Standard
First, the key underlying concept of the Gonski
Report, the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) is used as the basis of funding
schools. According to the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social
Research, the SRS is “flawed” and “puzzling” in its assumption that there is a
close correlation between funding levels for certain reference schools that
performed at particular education standards. The Institute commented thus:
This leads us to conclude that the actual Schooling resource
Standards used in the Gonski Report are ...arbitrary, and despite the veneer of
technical sophistication in their construction, do not have a sound
methodological basis.[5]
This view was shared by others who appeared before the
Committee but unfortunately have received little attention in the majority
report.
For example at the committee's public hearing on 1 May,
Professor Henry Ergas made particular note of the Gonski Review's link between
disadvantage and student educational outcomes. His comments rated only a brief
mention in the majority report, yet the issue is clearly one which rates more
extensive consideration. For instance, Professor Ergas noted:
On that, if I may address the question that was raised with
the previous witnesses about the evidence on the relationship between SES and
school performance. The point that I was making—and it is not a point I am in
any way alone in making, and I believe that in my submission I cited at least
one other source that addresses this question in considerable detail—was that
when you look at the relationship between one variable and another you have to
try to control for the many things that are going to influence that other
variable. If you want to look at the relationship between weight and health,
you have to try to take account of whether people smoke or not in doing so. If
you do not do that, you will get results that are simply unreliable.
It is very difficult in education to untangle those
relationships. Indeed, in any complex causal social situation it is by its
nature difficult to do so. But one of the important factors is that, as I said,
when you look at the relationship between SES and outcomes, you need to in some
way correct for heterogeneity between schools, or the fact that schools are not
identical. We have known that in the literature since the 1960s. If you fail to
do that, you will bias the results—I mean 'bias' in a statistical sense. You
will not get an accurate indicator.[6]
Increasing spending
Second, the evidence that increased spending leads to
improved education outcomes as argued in the Gonski report and which forms much
of the debate since, must be challenged. The evidence for this is lacking in
the report and by those who have taken this view since.
Those arguing against the approach taken by the ALP/Green
minority government, such as economist Ms Judith Sloan, point to the Gonski
Report's failure to justify the record additional spending ($5 billion per
annum) called for in its recommendations:
This lack of relationship between per-student spending and
student performance is one of the core weaknesses of the Gonski Report. The
report advocates additional annual spending of $5 billion a year (on top of an
estimated $6.5bn). But apart from the political need to ensure that no school
is made worse off by the change to the funding formulas, the case is never made
to justify such a massive increase.[7]
Loadings
Third, the formula and evidence underpinning some of
the loadings was not evidence-based.
Professor Henry Ergas questioned the justification for the
Gonski Review's distribution of increased funding through the disadvantage
loadings. Professor Ergas argued that once a level of funding was reached,
there was little evidence that further increases would have any benefit.[8]
Professor Ergas submitted that the Gonski Review had not provided evidence to
support spending on loadings for disadvantage as it had not established a link
between concentrated disadvantage and poorer student performance. On the
contrary, Professor Ergas submitted that:
The data the [Gonski] report presents suggests performance
deteriorates linearly as the concentration of students from low SES areas
rises...the relation between concentration of disadvantage and outcomes is a
straight line, not one that drops off more steeply as concentration increases.
Nor is there any evidence in the report that suggests that overcoming the
impacts of concentrated disadvantage requires more than proportionate rises in
spending as the level of concentration increases. As a result, the structure of
the loadings from disadvantage lacks an evidentiary basis. That is undesirable
in itself, but to add to the problems the possible consequences of those
loadings are almost difficult to credit.[9]
In the view of Government Senators, to truly 'Give a Gonski'
it is necessary to remember that the principle of the Gonski Review
recommendations was to change school funding policy so that funds could be used
to target areas of most need. As Dr Boston explained, the Gonski
Review was clear that within the proposed new funding model, there was much to
be worked out. The loadings, particularly for disability, being a prime
example:
...the resource standard, the model in the document...which is
the proposed model for the schooling resource standard, is a model. There are
no dollars attached to it. It is a schema, and our recommendation was that that
and the loadings be tested with the national school resourcing body in order to
decide precisely what the figures should be, what the loading should be,
whether that sloped line should be exactly sloped at that level or stepped or concave
or convex—all that had to be negotiated with the national schools resourcing
body responsible to all the ministers, and that never happened. Instead, it was
done unilaterally with different deals being done with different states, and
that is when it came apart. We cannot say that Gonski finally tied down all the
numbers—it did not. The step to tie down all the numbers was never taken and,
as the Independent Schools Council pointed out to your inquiry, we now have 27
different models around the country, all having some sort of needs-based
component to them, but none of them being the pure Gonski. It is a mess.[10]
In its submission, Independent Schools Victoria argued,
using the low socio-economic (SES) loading, that the loadings are:
-
complex and lack transparency;
-
have no evidence base;
-
invite incentives for 'gaming' by schools, sectors and states;
and
-
are unfair in their treatment of different schools and sectors.[11]
Others were also critical of the quality of the Gonski
Review’s research including much of the specially commissioned consultancy
work. For example Mr Ross Fox, Executive Director of the National Catholic
Education Commission advised the committee of the NCEC's concerns about the
Gonski Review's commissioned research:
Allen Consulting Group had one of the four research tasks.
They produced the model. Gonski has very little technical discussion of the
model. Lots of us were very critical of the Allen model and, indeed, still are.
The idea that you set the standard of all Australian schools on the basis of
NAPLAN results alone, then isolate the schools and say, 'These are the highest
performing schools,'—on NAPLAN and nothing else—'what do they cost?' and make
that the basis of all your funding—[12]
These flaws are not acknowledged in the final majority
report.
The majority report also suggested that the Government has
not implemented the disability loading. Inquiries into the Australian
Education Act 2013 highlighted that the previous government had not
revealed a loading and had no agreed definition.
The Australian Government has already introduced a funding
loading to support students with disability which commenced in 2014. The
loading is provided for students with disability in government and
non-government schools on the same basis.
There is more Commonwealth funding for students with
disability than ever before. $4.8 billion for students with disability is
available over the forward estimates within this Budget. This includes $1.1
billion for 2014-15; $1.2 billion for 2015-16; $1.3 billion for 2016-17; $1.3
billion for 2017-18.
The 2014 loading is set at 186 per cent of the base
per-student Schooling Resource Standard (SRS). This means a loading of $17,244
for primary students and $22,679 for secondary students.
Students in special schools are eligible to attract a
loading that is 223 per cent of the SRS in recognition of the complex needs of
these students. This is $20,674 for primary students and $27,190 for secondary
students.
Government Senators welcome the advice that the Government
is continuing to work with state and territory governments and non-government
education authorities on the data collection process. All parties agree that
accurate information is needed before a more refined loading can be calculated.
In addition, the Abbott Government has honoured its
commitment to provide an extra $100 million to extend the More Support for
Students with Disability initiative in the 2014 school year. This funding has
provided a boost to help improve teacher skills and increase the inclusiveness
of schools, a fundamental action for improving students with disability
outcomes and experience of schooling.
A national system
Fourth, the Gonski Review and its advocates believed
that one of the goals of the new funding arrangements would be to create a
national ‘needs’ based funding system, that was sector blind and less complex
than previously.[13]
Independent Schools Council of Australia (ISCA) summed up the current
complicated mess that was partly contributed to by the Gonski Report, but
greatly exacerbated by the rushed, politically driven agenda of the Gillard and
Rudd governments prior to the September 2013 election:
It is clear that the current situation with school funding in
Australia is anything national. With each state and territory government and
the Commonwealth government operating different funding arrangements across
three schooling sectors, there are at least 27 different funding models in
operation. This is even more complex than the previous arrangement.[14]
Other independent commentators and analysts have concurred
with this assessment.[15]
Contrary to rhetoric of the ALP/Green Opposition, there was
no national school funding system. Only three states and territories signed in
full (NSW, ACT and SA); two only signed the heads of agreement (VIC and TAS);
and three did not sign at all (WA, Qld and NT). Moreover, the signatory states
negotiated different implementation arrangements government and non-government
sectors will redistribute funds according to their own needs and methodologies.
These problems have not been acknowledged in the majority report and Government
Senators are disappointed that despite clear evidence the majority report
repeats tired rhetoric rather than the facts.
Centralised control and
federal-state relations
Fifth, the Gonski Review and its politicised
implementation via the Australian Education Act 2013 has added to the
confusion about government responsibility for school education by continuing
old battlegrounds in schools funding: state versus federal government funding
and government versus non-government schools.
Government Senators consider that the measures currently in
place in the Australian Education Act 2013 fail to acknowledge the
constitutional responsibility and long experience that State governments have
had in delivering mass education. In fact, the operation of the Australian
Education Act 2013 as forcibly legislated by the ALP/Green minority
government erodes the states' responsibility to run public schools.
In an article for The Conversation website, Professor
Cheryl Saunders analysed the reforms incorporated in the Australian
Education Act 2013. The article examines the argument by then Opposition
Spokesman the Hon Christopher Pyne MP and various state premiers, that the
reforms represented a significant shift in Commonwealth power over states.
Professor Saunders' view was that the reforms were an unprecedented shift in
power:
In brief, Pyne and the states are right. This is a
significant shift...Schools are a state responsibility, historically and constitutionally.
However, while the states run public schools and oversee schooling, the
Commonwealth since the Menzies government has contributed to funding using tied
or conditional grants. While the states are not legally obliged to accept these
payments, their financial circumstances make it effectively impossible to
refuse.
So, while the Commonwealth has been involved in education for
many years, the new laws, regulations and related agreements signify
unprecedented federal power over schools at a far more detailed level than
previously.[16]
Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey agreed with
Professor Saunders' analysis:
I agree with this assessment. The Commonwealth will obtain
potentially wide powers with respect to schooling in the states through this
Act [Australian Education Act 2013] and its broad regulation-making
powers. It may be that the Commonwealth does not intend to use these powers in
an intrusive manner, but this can’t be guaranteed for future governments.
It is not possible to describe the [Rudd/Gillard]
government’s education reforms as simply a means to achieve better funding for
schools. If that was the sole aim, it could be done by providing the money
without new conditions and powers. This legislation clearly goes beyond that aim
by significantly expanding Commonwealth power.[17]
Professor Saunders' conclusion is particularly telling, with
its implicit contrast between the aims of the Gonski Review recommendations and
the reality of the ALP/Green minority government's school funding reforms:
Reallocating funds to schools on the basis of need is one
thing. But the 2012 Gonski report into Australia’s education system also
emphasised the importance of respecting the expertise and experience of the
states in running schools, and the new federal laws fall short of this. You can
debate whether this is a good or bad thing for education, but it is undeniable.[18]
Recent history shows that the ALP/Green minority government
did not achieve an agreement with all states and territories as claimed; it was
never able to work together with the other governments to implement its
needs-based model. In the opinion of Government Senators, this is because the
previous government tried to impose its view on the state and territory
governments, rather than working cooperatively with them.
The majority report suggests, there was “overwhelming
consensus” for all the changes proposed under the Gonski mantle by the previous
government. This is simply incorrect. Three states and territories did not sign
up. Two only signed the heads of agreement. The negotiation processes were long
winded and secret.
It is clear to Government Senators that having successfully
implemented a needs-based funding system that includes agreements with all
states and territories, the Government should continue to work to resolve the
command and control problems in the Australian Education Act 2013.
Excessive regulation
Sixth, closely related to this intrusion into state
government areas of responsibility was the way the Gonski funding model
operated. As highlighted above, there were different agreements and different
starting times for the states in relation to the new funding model.
The majority report does not discuss the evidence presented
to the committee regarding the inherent problems with the Australian
Education Act 2013. Government Senators believe these issues must be
overcome if needs-based funding is to be successful. A clear example is the
evidence from Mr Cook, Department of Education, regarding the arbitrary and
unfair nature of the SRS:
The Schooling Resource Standard is actually what is overall,
a combination of both a student price and loadings. So, technically, the
Schooling Resource Standard includes both loadings and a per student price.
But, if you take WA and the ACT, for example...they possibly will have a view
that for them the SRS was not a model that was going to work, because they were
getting much less Commonwealth funding purely on the basis that, as a state,
they had decided to invest more than other states and territories. Therefore,
as a state, because you have invested so much, the Commonwealth is not going to
give you as much to reach a particular arbitrary standard.
The government will no doubt have a policy view around where
we go into the future. At the moment, as I indicated, in the budget papers, the
government's view is that applying arbitrary percentages to an arbitrary
standard did not give a fair amount of Commonwealth funding to each state and
territory, because some were disadvantaged because as a state they had invested
more than other states and territories...[19]
How this matter has been tackled by the present Government
is discussed later in this report.
Another example is the evidence from the Department of
Education on the states and territories which are keen to amend the Australian
Education Act 2013 and remove the overbearing and unnecessary legislative
compliance constraints:
Mr Cook: The states and territories have indicated a
number of areas, including...a view that there is too much power...delegated in the
federal minister in their ability in the current act to require states and
territories to take particular courses of action, such as policy actions...
There is concern about some of the specific goals that are outlined in the act
in relation to PISA [Programme for International Student Assessment] growth...
It is probably fair to say generally that states and territories would have a preference
that certain aspects of the act be less specific and provide less power to a
federal minister, with the view that they are the ones who are actually
responsible for school education and for seeking improvements in schools.
Mr Hehir: The main sections tend to be the section 77
[Ongoing policy requirements for approved authorities], section 105 [Minister
may give a direction in relation to an implementation plan] and section 22
[Conditions of financial assistance—implementing national policy initiatives
relating to school education]... But they are the areas where the Australian
government minister has the power. So they are the broad areas [states and
territories] are looking at.[20]
Also, given Australia’s regional and rural features
Government Senators consider that this is a further argument for states and
territories to be able to exercise control over the allocation of school
funding for rural and regional students.
Australia is a continent of extremes, in particular extreme
distances. However, the definition of 'rurality' or remoteness can vary
depending on the circumstances of each state and territory and the location of
population centres. The Victorian Auditor-General, Mr John Doyle observed that
there could be differences in what is regarded as rural depending on school
location and he was not aware of a widespread definition of 'rural'. Further,
Mr Doyle noted:
But I would argue that even on the fringe of the metropolitan
area, where there is perhaps a lack of public transport and what have you, you
have issues that are very similar to those in a rural subdivision type school.[21]
Government Senators contend that it is state and territory
governments which are best placed to make decisions about the allocation of
school funding as they have in-depth knowledge of their state or territory
demographics. A definition made at the national level, without reference to
differences in each state and territory, risks creating inequity of funding.
This excessive intrusion was not limited just to state and
territory governments. It impacted on both non-government sector and government
sectors in varying ways. For instance, Section 77 (d) of the Australian
Education Act 2013 required all schools to provide detailed school
improvement plans imposed a far reaching onerous demand on more than 9,500
individual schools across Australia. This will have a disproportionate impact
on some schools, especially small schools in the non-government sector. In principle treating all schools the same may be
desirable but the reality of our system is that schools in different sectors
operate very differently. Small non-government schools do not have the
resources of a large state bureaucracy to provide support for such demanding
administrative requirements.
There is no mention in the majority report executive summary
about these concerns.
Education reforms that matter
What is most disappointing to Government Senators has been
the almost total focus on funding as a means to improve education outcomes and
to tackle issues of equity by the majority report and public debates. This
ignores evidence that has long been available but too often ignored by
successive governments and vested interests: that simplification of more money
does not work in practice.
Funding levels and education
performance
There is no evidence that spending is a predictor of
education performance. The evidence and research, much of it presented to the
Committee clearly shows this.
The common argument promoted by the AEU and other advocates
of increasing education funding is that more money equals better educational
outcomes. However, as Dr Jennifer Buckingham wrote in 'School Funding on a
Budget', increased funding for schools does not translate to improved
educational outcomes:
Cross-country analyses of international tests have
consistently found no correlation between spending on education and student
performance—countries that spend more on school education do not always perform
better. Furthermore, when a country increases funding to its schools, there is
no guarantee of a corresponding improvement in performance. Therefore, at a
system level at least, there is no evidence that increasing spending on schools
leads to improved performance.[22]
Many others have confirmed this analysis. This is not
ideological, but reflects Australian and international evidence.
Proponents of the increased school funding argument, such as
the AEU, the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens, and some academics
like Dr David Zyngier, cite Australia's poor performance in the OECD's PISA as
evidence that further funding is needed to stop Australia falling behind other
countries.[23]
The objects of the Australian Education Act 2013 also reference
international standards:
- for Australia to be placed, by 2025, in the top 5 highest
performing countries based on the performance of school students in reading,
mathematics and science;
- for the Australian schooling system to be considered a
high quality and highly equitable schooling system by international standards
by 2025;[24]
PISA results should, however, be taken in context. Dr
Jennifer Buckingham has stated that factors such as the increased number of
countries participating in PISA, the addition of the East Asian OECD 'partner
economies', and that participating countries 'may have mean scores that are not
statistically different', that is that they are so close as not to indicate
real differences in performance.[25]
Authors Mr Stewart Riddle, Professor Bob Lingard, and Mr Sam Sellar advised
that PISA results should be used by governments more to 'see how their
education systems "stack up" against others on the reading, science
and mathematical skills of 15 year-old school students' but should remember
that:
However, this measure can’t tell us everything about the quality
of education systems. It is a simple measure that doesn’t take in the
complexities of education. Its newly found prominence comes at a time when we
need more nuance in the education debate, not less.[26]
The emphasis placed on PISA scores is a symptom of the
simplification of the education funding debate which took place under the
ALP/Green minority government. Achieving educational excellence and equity is
complex in its practice and its implementation. Linking additional funding to
aspirations of greater PISA results, as the Australian Education Act 2013
and the NPSI do, reduces the complexity of school funding policy to the
erroneous equation of more funding equals better results. This is simply an
innumerate approach to the evidence.
Further, the PISA results show that highest performing
countries are not necessarily the highest spending countries. Finland, widely
regarded as the trendsetter in education quality, has demonstrated that ‘high
participation rates and widespread equity coupled with good learning results
have been established without increasing educational spending’.[27]
In fact the Gonski Review findings were not focused on more
funding; they were aimed at redistributing funding so that it could be targeted
strategically to address areas of greatest need.[28]
In hindsight, Mr David Gonski himself regretted the decision
to include in the report 'calculations of what...a new school resource standard
were likely to cost.'[29]
Mr Gonski explained:
In retrospect, the decision to mention the number clouded the
entire response to our review. Major media outlets talked of further billions
for education and no doubt those who had to find the amount were very bluntly
reminded of what was involved.
In fact our review was more subtle than asking just for more
money.[30]
The ALP/Green minority government's focus on funding has
been detrimental to sound debate based on evidence rather than self-interest,
emotions and hysteria. As some commentators viewed the situation following the
2013 federal election:
...the crucial issue is how and where that money is best spent.
And this is where the Labor government made a fatal error and
lost control of the school funding debate. It focused on the extra $14.5
billion it was pouring into the system rather than the fundamental structural
reform the Gonski model heralds.
The problem facing Pyne is not that the Gonski model is bad
and unworkable; the problem is the way Labor mishandled its implementation. It
would be a mistake for him to throw out reforms that provide a fair,
transparent and equitable way of giving schools the money they need.
The Gonski reforms redistribute money to schools that need it
most, but the main message conveyed over the past two years was that Gonski
means more money. It was fed by the perception that Labor was offering
sweetheart deals to get states to sign up.[31]
Mr David Gonski himself has more recently also admitted:
Monies may have increased (in Australia) but not been given
in the correct areas. Other countries may be more adept in where they put their
money.[32]
Again, the majority report, like the AEU have ignored the
evidence about Australia’s funding levels compared to other countries. ACER’s
2013 review of the PISA results concluded that in relation to adequacy of
resources for schools. Australian scores were well above the OECD average,
indicating that, relative to other OECD countries, Australian schools on
average had access to a high quality of educational resources.[33]
This is not the picture that is painted about Australia by
some. Depending on the years chosen Australian spending on schools has been
slightly above or slightly below the OECD average, but overall total spending
on primary and secondary schools between 1987-88 to 2011-12 has doubled in real
terms, with the government sector getting a bigger proportion. Much of this
funding has gone to increasing the number of teachers[34]
and reducing the class sizes which on one assessment giving Australia the
smallest classrooms in the OECD[35]
and according to others giving Australia, slightly larger classrooms.[36]
The point is not to argue the semantics of these issues, but to highlight that
in terms of spending, teacher numbers (and pay), and classroom sizes, Australia
performs relative well.
The equity argument
There is confusion about what is meant by equity in relation
to education. Too often it is seen the same as equality of outcomes rather than
in terms of improving access to adequate resources. These issues require
further detailed discussion. Suffice to point out that according to the 2012
PISA results Australia is a high equity country with socio-economic background
being less important in affecting student performance than the OECD average.[37]
What the evidence does show in relation to Australia is that real inequality
occurs within schools rather than between them. What matters is the class a
student attends than the school. This reinforces the notion that teacher
quality really matters. As evidenced by school principals of both government
and non-government witnesses.[38]
Further, too much weight is given to the ability of schools to overcome the
other factors that have long been shown to affect student performance–family
background and not just wealth.
Restoring funding certainty and
developing a national needs based school funding system
There has been considerable debate in the public arena,
repeated in the majority report, that the Abbott Government has reduced school
education funding and introduced wide ranging cuts and that these “significant
cuts jeopardise the widespread improvements in student outcomes.” No evidence
is offered to support this claim. Further, putting aside partisanship, the true
nature of the present government’s funding arrangements have not been explained
or acknowledged in the majority report. Another unfortunate omission.
The majority report argued that the Abbott Government's
Students First policy, under which the National Plan for School Improvement
(NPSI) funding will be reviewed and amendments proposed to the Australian
Education Act 2013, is a reversal of the pre-election commitment to school
funding. In reality, as the Hon Christopher Pyne MP, Minister for Education,
has repeatedly stated since the 2013 federal election, the Government will
provide the same amount of funding as the former Government for schools.[39]
This commitment is reflected in the 2014-15 Budget, with the Abbott
Government's allocation of recurrent spending $64.5 billion in recurrent
funding for Students First over the forward estimates.[40]
In fact, in addition to matching the funding across the
forward estimates, the Government has successfully concluded negotiations with
Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory, providing an
additional $1.2 billion for these governments; funds which the ALP/Greens
minority government cut from schools in these states.
With agreements with Western Australia, Queensland and the
Northern Territory in place, all states and territories and the non-government
sector, now have clear arrangements for school funding for the next four years.
Working cooperatively with the state and territory governments to 'improve
education outcomes all around Australia'[41]
is a key part of the Students First Policy. It allows state and territory
governments to operate free from interference of the Australian Government.
Government Senators observe that certainty of funding was a
clear issue and concern for sectors, states and schools throughout the failed
attempt by the ALP/Greens minority government to achieve a national needs-based
funding arrangement. This was particularly so during the two attempts made by
the ALP/Greens minority government to legislate for the reforms.[42]
This frustration was evidenced by all parties throughout inquiries of the
Senate Education and Employment Committee and the Select committee.
In fact, the Abbott Government has achieved what the
previous government promised, but could not deliver–a national needs-based
system. In June 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Education, Ms Lisa
Paul, confirmed that the Government has delivered the first national needs-based
funding model.[43]
Implementing a national needs-based funding model across
Australia could not have been achieved without the cooperation of the states
and territories. This was demonstrated by the Rudd/Gillard Government's failure
to achieve agreement with all states and territories due to its refusal to
negotiate. Western Australian Premier, the Hon Colin Barnett MLA, noted the
NPSI was never going to achieve real action on school funding:
I think the Commonwealth, the new Commonwealth Government, is
right to go back to square one, keep the money on the table, but you must have
a consistent approach. You can't have the Commonwealth discriminating between
states or having one policy on education in one state and another policy
elsewhere.[44]
The Abbott Government's Students First policy allows state
and territory governments to continue to implement the needs-based funding
models they were already working to implement or had already established, as Table
1 below demonstrates. Mr Cook advised that all states have some form of
needs-based funding, as indicated by research done by the Department of
Education:
What I can say—having worked in education in two other states
but also talking to every single state based on the consultations we did over
the last two or three years—is that every state has a form of needs based state
funding model, as do the Catholic systems, where they all have funding for
indigeneity and for low SES. They may have different definitions as to how they
define low SES. They all have funding allocations based on the size and
location, particularly the larger states. You would expect WA, Queensland and
New South Wales all factor that in. Some states have that very explicitly and
publicly available. If you go to Victoria, on the education website, you can
download their student resource package, which is their needs based funding
formula. It gives you very clear directions as to what dollars a school that is
100 kilometres from Melbourne would get based on location and all that sort of
stuff.[45]
Table 1—State/Territory school funding policies
State/Territory
|
Current
school funding policy
|
Needs-based
model?
|
Queensland
|
Great
Results Guarantee[46]
|
P
|
NSW
|
Resource
Allocation Model[47]
|
P
|
ACT
|
Enhanced
School Based Management[48]
|
P
|
Victoria
|
Student
Resource Package[49]
|
P
|
South
Australia
|
School
Funding Reform[50]
|
P
|
Tasmania
|
Fairer
Funding Model[51]
|
P
|
Western
Australia
|
Excellence
and Equity: Strategic Plan for WA Public Schools 2012-2015 and Classroom
First Strategy[52]
|
P
|
Northern
Territory
|
The NT
Government aims to provide quality education services to all students, no
matter where they live.[53]
|
P
|
Spending issues
Throughout the hearings there have been allegations that the
current Government has broken its promises and reduced school spending. This
criticism increased after the May budget concerning spending over the forward
estimates.
The Abbott Government’s achievements in terms of school
education spending include:
-
Funding is more under the government in the current forward
estimates than the previous government having restored $1.2 billion taken out
by the previous government and distributed to the previous non-signatory states
of Queensland, Western Australia and Northern Territory;
-
Commonwealth recurrent and capital spending from 2013-4 to
2017-18 increased for all sectors by $4.9 billion – a 37.2% increase;
-
For each of the financial years Commonwealth recurrent and
capital funding will grow to the states and territories and non-government
sector and by:
-
8.7 per cent in 2014-15
-
8.9 per cent in 3015-16
-
8.9 per cent in 2016-17
-
6.6 per cent in 2017-18[54]
Table 2 below further summarises Commonwealth funding
to all states and territories and sectors over the forward estimates. The
increases speak for themselves.
Post 2017 funding arrangements
There has been considerable debate about the funding for
years five and six under the original Gonski model and promises made by the
previous government. The complaint is that as the present government has not
committed beyond 2018 it was thus heralding in further cuts to spending and
therefore undermining the school system. This debate was particularly rampant
prior to the release of the Government’s first budget in May. The criticism
escalated after the budget when the government's new funding arrangements,
which involved increasing recurrent school funding growth to the states and
territories based on movements of Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus enrolments,
was publicised through discussion at Budget Estimates. These funding
arrangements were different to, and amounted to $30 billion in cuts. However,
the promises made by the previous government were not budgeted for in the
forward estimates. The ABC Fact Check on this issue is instructive. It
concluded:
The Government did not cut $30 billion from schools in the
May budget. It says it will change the rate of increase from 2018, which is
beyond the current budget period and term of Parliament.
The $30 billion figure used by Ms Ellis is based on adding up
10 years of difference between the increases that Labor says it would have
funded (4.7 or 3 per cent per year) and an estimate of the rate of increase
that the current Government says it will apply (the CPI). It is a component of
the $80 billion in savings that the Government itself is trumpeting.[55]
The Opposition has yet to confirm that it would fund years
five and six if they were in office. To date they have been equivocal on this
issue. It is a pity that the Opposition Senators did not clarify their parties'
position in the majority report.
What the Government has instigated after 2018 are not cuts
but slower growth after years of increasing spending on education by all
governments, but especially by the Commonwealth, during the last two decades.
The use of CPI is consistent with the rest of Commonwealth funding and is
fiscally responsible in light of the current budget situation.
There are further changes. From 2018 onwards Commonwealth
funding to each state and territory will be based on the same percentage
(currently estimated at 19.1 per cent) of the fully loaded SRS. States and
territories were previously on different transition paths to the desired SRS
level in terms of amounts they would receive from the Commonwealth and the rate
at which additional funding is paid. This was based on how far they were
originally below the SRS in 2014 and the deal negotiated (or not) with the
Commonwealth. Under the previous model, states that funded their schools at
relatively low levels compared to the SRS (such as Victoria which was at 82 per
cent of the SRS in 2014), would receive higher additional Commonwealth funding
compared to states who had funded their schools well (WA was above 90 per cent
of the SRS in 2014). Hence, in 2017 Commonwealth funding would have been 20.5
per cent of the SRS for Victoria, but only 15 per cent of the SRS for WA (in
other words far less). To simply index the 2017 funding amounts based on the
above distribution across the states and territories by CPI and enrolments
separately would continue this unfairness. So, the Government has foreshadowed
that from 2018 all states and territories get notionally the same SRS
contribution from the Commonwealth (19.1 per cent), but this redistribution is
indicative only and as stated in the Budget Paper 3, “final state allocations ...
are subject to formal negotiations.”[56]
This is a more honest and fairer approach than previously.
Table 2–Commonwealth funding to all states and
territories and sectors over the forward estimates
Where the Commonwealth fits in
school education
While it may not be relevant to the ALP/Green ideology of
centralisation, Government Senators have a deep and abiding respect for the
issue of where does the Commonwealth government in our federation fit in
relation to school funding and the education system as a whole, fit?
It needs to be reiterated, that the Commonwealth is not the
major funder or policy authority in this area, a fact conveniently ignored by
those pursuing their own political agenda. Its approximate share of total
government funding to schools (i.e. Commonwealth) to government schools is only
16.6 per cent and to all schools 32.6 per cent In relation to the SRS, the
Commonwealth only provides a relatively small contribution to the SRS–the vast
majority of funding for government schools is still provided by the states and
territories (up to 85 per cent).
The importance of understanding the Commonwealth actual role
in funding schools, its ability to react appropriately at a local level and its
Constitutional powers to develop school education policy, cannot be
exaggerated.
Conclusion: Future debate for real education reform in Australia
Ending the sloganeering
Sadly, for the government Senators, the recent debate about
school funding that has occurred since the Gonski Review was announced in 2010
has become politicised and driven by ideology. At times it has been reduced to
sloganeering, epitomised by the Australian Education Union’s ‘Give a Gonski’
campaign.
The AEU maintained that if someone does not support the
recommendations of the Gonski Review, then they do not care about student
outcomes. As Dr Jennifer Buckingham wrote in The Australian in April
2013:
The "I Give A Gonksi" campaign gives the impression
that the proposed school funding reforms represent a big, fat cheque for public
education. The implication is that if you don't "give a Gonski", you
don't care about schools.[57]
This emotive framing of education funding policy has been
detrimental to public debate. As Judith Sloan, economist, wrote in The
Australian:
So do I give a Gonski? Probably not because what I mean by
giving a Gonski is not what others, particularly the Australian Education
Union, mean by it.[58]
The hysterical language used by the AEU has obscured the
realities of education policy funding, in particular that increasing funding
without any targeting, results in diminished returns represented by an
unsatisfactory educational outcome.
The common argument promoted by the AEU and other advocates
of increasing education funding is the simplistic assumption that more money
equals better educational outcomes. However, as Dr Jennifer Buckingham wrote in
'School Funding on a Budget', increased funding for schools does not translate
to improved educational outcomes:
Cross-country analyses of international tests have
consistently found no correlation between spending on education and student
performance—countries that spend more on school education do not always perform
better. Furthermore, when a country increases funding to its schools, there is
no guarantee of a corresponding improvement in performance. Therefore, at a
system level at least, there is no evidence that increasing spending on schools
leads to improved performance.[59]
The 'Give A Gonski' campaign represented a substantial
commitment of resources by the AEU and teachers' unions around Australia. Some
of that spending is represented below in Table 3, based on the evidence
gathered by the committee during its inquiry.
Table 3: Education union
spending on the 'I Give A Gonski' campaign
Organisation
|
Amount
|
AEU Federal Office
|
The AEU’s 2012 and 2013
audited reports show total expenditure on our National Public Education
Campaign (Schools and TAFE Funding Campaigns). Expenditure for 2012 was
$2,900,427. Expenditure for 2013 was $4,396,574.[60]
|
State School Teachers'
Union of Western Australia (SSTUWA)
|
The SSTUWA’s 2013 audited
reports show total expenditure on our Gonski campaign was $24,732.01. The
budget for the 2014 Gonski campaign is $66,000.[61]
|
Queensland Teachers' Union
|
In 2013 the Australian
Education Union – Queensland Branch contributed $394,000 to the public
education campaign. The Queensland Teachers' Union spent $32,504 on Gonski
related campaign activities. The Queensland Teachers' Union budget makes no
allocation to campaigning in 2014, although campaign reserves may be
allocated for this purpose. The Australian Education Union – Queensland
Branch will make a contribution of $237,333 to the public education campaign
and paid advertising.[62]
|
NSW Teachers' Federation
|
NSW AEU: Public education
campaign fees $186,714; Public Education Campaign Advertising: $996,552.[63]
|
AEU Victoria Branch
|
The AEU Victorian Branch
spent $159,000 in 2013 on campaign activities relating to the Gonski
campaign. At this stage we are unable to provide details of any expenditure
for 2014.[64]
|
The 'Give A Gonski' campaign included posters, buses, social
media campaigns and television advertisements. On 3 February 2013, the AEU
launched a television advertisement which ran nationwide for two weeks.
Included as part of the launch were buses with campaign advertising.[65]
The 'Give A Gonski' campaign was active during the lead up to the 2013 federal
election, with a lively social media presence which distilled this complex
issue to slogans and emotive rhetoric. The result has been distorted public
debate and a lack of opportunity to understand the policy issues around school
funding.
In the opinion of the Government Senators, the fact that the
'Give A Gonski' campaign ran predominantly during the year of the 2013 federal
election, was a major component in politicising the school funding debate, and
limiting the scope for sensible policy discussion. It also contaminated the
focus of these hearings.
Next steps
In terms of future discussion debate and policy development
we need to do better. A quality education system in an increasingly competitive
world is not a luxury, but a necessity.
We cannot tackle issues of equity unless our education
system is of high quality and has the flexibility to deliver the range of
services needed to improve student improvement in the classroom.
The evidence is clear about what makes for a quality
education system:
-
increasing school and principal autonomy;
-
having quality teachers appropriately selected, trained in
rigorous and relevant courses with high levels of responsibility and
accountability;
-
a professional teacher workforce; and
-
increased parental engagement to nurture learning and promote
life-long practices outside the school room.
In the view of Government Senators, the majority report of
the select committee is disappointing. Instead of identifying common ground on
which consensus around school funding can be built, the majority report adds to
the emotive rhetoric which is stifling common sense policy debate on school
funding.
Government Senators encourage the Opposition and minor
parties to remove the emotion from the school funding debate and work with the
Government to focus policy development on ensuring all Australian students
receive an education which equips them to be the very best they can be,
irrespective of the school they attend or the state they live in. As a function
of their birthright each Australian citizen is equitably entitled to an
excellent education, no matter where they live or which school they attend.
Senator Chris Back
Liberal Senator for Western Australia
Senator Bridget McKenzie
Nationals Senator for Victoria
Senator John Williams
Nationals Senator for New South Wales
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page