 |
Introduction
The Government has made a feature of its increases to education expenditure
in the 2007–08 Budget although expenditure increases on measures in other
areas such as national security and defence, transport and infrastructure,
and the environment are greater. The increase in education expenditure
is associated with a range of new measures in all three education sectors,
presented in the budget papers under the uniform banner Realising our
potential.
The additional expenditure provided by these measures totals $3.5 billion
over the next four years, increasing from $534 million in 2007–08, to
approximately $970 million in each of the out-years. The relative share
of this additional funding is 57 per cent for the higher education sector,
24 per cent for schools and 19 per cent for vocational education and training.
The measures have widely been viewed as a government election year strategy
to counter the ALP’s blueprint for education, The Australian
economy needs an education revolution, released in January 2007.
Much of the Government’s budget presentation and the media’s commentary
have focused on the $5 billion investment in the new concept of a Higher
Education Endowment Fund. Consequently the education measures more generally
have been represented as the Government’s own ‘revolution’ in education
policy.
The following notes consider some of the main measures in this context.
Higher education
Dr Coral Dow
Social Policy Section
Higher education is the centrepiece of the Government’s education initiatives.
However in an election year and with an anticipated spending budget the
Treasurer opened his budget speech with an investment rather than a spending
measure: the announcement of a $5 billion perpetual Higher Education Endowment
Fund (HEEF).
Higher Education Endowment Fund (HEEF)
The HEEF measure
invests $5 billion of the budget surplus in an endowment fund, the earnings
of which will provide funds for university capital works and research
facilities from 2008–2009. Budget papers estimate the HEEF will earn $304
million annually but the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC)
suggests this is conservative and that the HEEF could secure earnings
of $500 million or more a year.[1]
Earnings would have to be much higher than the estimates if the HEEF is
to fund a reported $1.2 billion maintenance and infrastructure backlog.[2] However universities will not be guaranteed an
annual share of the earnings which will be distributed to eligible higher
education providers in a competitive tender process by the Minister for
Education, Science and Training after advice from the HEEF Board. Eligible
providers are the public universities and any private universities eligible
for grants to support research and capital development projects as Table
B providers under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. Currently
there are three Table B providers: Bond University, the University of
Notre Dame and the Melbourne College of Divinity.
Budget papers make it clear that the HEEF may also receive additional
capital from future budget surpluses, from philanthropic investment which
will be tax deductible and, if asked, will also manage individual institutions’
endowments. Less clear is how applications for funds will be assessed.
The Minister’s media release suggests the best proposals will ‘support
Australian Government policy with respect to diversity, specialisation
and responsiveness to labour market needs’ and that ‘the Board would take
into consideration whether universities had been able to raise matching
funds, for example from state or territory governments, industry, alumni
or members of the public.’[3]
This has been interpreted as a mandatory requirement but the President
of the AVCC, Professor Sutton, is reported as having been assured by ‘Department
of Education, Science and Training officials that it was not a requirement
that universities must raise matching funds to get earnings from the endowment.’[4] However it seems likely that the
HEEF will benefit those universities, such as the Group of Eight, that
already win 70 per cent of national competitive research grants and have
substantial revenue from private sources.[5] In 2004 the Group of Eight raised
$98 million of the $171 million university income from donations and bequests.[6]
Funding for capital works and research facilities has been provided from
the Capital Development Pool (CDP), the Research Infrastructure Block
Grants (RIBG) programme and the annual Appropriations Act. The Portfolio
Budget Statements for 2007-2008 provide estimates for the CDP and RIBG
programmes of $80.09 million and $207.98 million respectively. The annual
appropriations have been in the order of $186 million over 3 years. [7]
There is no indication in the budget papers that dividends from the HEEF
would replace this existing funding. In fact the supporting information
in the HEEF measure
media release describes the HEEF as ‘additional and ongoing funding’ and
the Treasurer in a post budget interview guaranteed that the fund would
not ‘take over existing education funding’.[8]
However the Minister has since been reported as stating that HEEF funds
would ‘eventually supersede other capital funding sources such as the
Capital Development Pool’.[9]
HEEF dividends would have to be substantially higher than the $300 million
forecast if they were to replace all existing capital funding sources,
let alone provide the additional funding promised, and funding sufficient
to meet existing shortfalls in capital and research facilities. The Group
of Eight claim a notable weakness of the budget initiatives is the failure
to address the shortfall in research infrastructure funding.[10]
The Government claims the HEEF as an ‘unprecedented investment for the
future of universities.’[11] The measure has been interpreted as doubling the $5.8 billion
funding to higher education but the more modest $304 million annual dividend,
not the capital investment, provides the additional funds as part of the
$1.7 billion additional higher education funding. The HEEF measure has
been welcomed by the universities but other budget measures have attracted
more comment, in particular additional funding and changes to the Commonwealth
Grants Scheme.
The funding of student places
University student places are funded through the Commonwealth Grants
Scheme (CGS). Under the CGS the Australian Government funds each higher
education provider for an agreed number of Commonwealth supported places
(previously called HECS places) in particular disciplines. The disciplines
are grouped in twelve funding clusters with both the Commonwealth and
the student contribution amounts varying across the clusters. Universities
can offer full-fee places to domestic students once the Commonwealth supported
places are filled. The Budget makes a number of changes to the operation
and funding of the CGS and has removed the cap on the number of domestic
full-fee places universities can offer, which until now has been capped
at 35 per cent of course enrolments.
Under the budget measure, Realising our potential – increasing university
funding, $559.6 million over four years will fund changes to
the CGS. From January 2008 the number of funding clusters will be reduced
from 12 to 7.[12] CGS
funding will be increased for Commonwealth supported places in mathematics
and statistics ($2729), allied health ($1889), engineering, science and
surveying ($684), clinical psychology ($2729), education ($109), nursing
($109), behavioural science and social studies ($840), and medicine, dentistry,
and veterinary science ($1081). The significant increase in funding for
mathematics and statistics meets the findings of the final report of the
National Strategic Review of Mathematical
Sciences Research. In the final report, Mathematics and
Statistics: Critical Skills for Australia’s Future, the authors
claimed that the ‘relative funding of mathematical sciences departments
in universities is inadequate and does not reflect either their crucial
importance or the cost of delivering quality training of students.’ The
report emphasised increasing the Commonwealth grant for supported places
in mathematics rather than reducing the student contribution. By increasing
the Commonwealth grant for mathematics and statistics the budget measure
contrasts with ALP policy to reduce the student contribution fees for
those students and further reduce them for those mathematics and science
graduates entering teaching.
Conversely the accounting, administration, economics and commerce disciplines
have been aligned with law thus reducing their Commonwealth funding and
increasing the maximum student contribution rate. Student contribution
rates are based on graduates’ potential earnings, and the Government’s
decision is based on the higher salaries and competitive nature of the
labour market for these disciplines.[13]
The Minister has stated that universities do not have to increase the
student contribution for these disciplines, but considering that most
universities took the opportunity of increasing HECS by the maximum 25
per cent in 2005 it could be expected that graduates in accounting, administration,
economics and commerce will have an increased HELP debt.
In Realising our potential – allowing more responsive universities
the Budget provides $223.2 million over four years to relax the caps on
Commonwealth supported places and domestic full-fee paying undergraduate
places. Universities will be fully funded rather than penalised for over-enrolments
of up to 5 per cent in Commonwealth supported places. While they will
be required to deliver specified Commonwealth supported places in nursing,
teaching, medicine and engineering they will now be allowed ‘to adjust
student numbers and course mixes to meet student demands and employer
needs.’[14] Included in this mix will be
the ability to offer an uncapped proportion of domestic full-fee places.
There is some confusion in interpretation of this initiative. Currently
the number of full-fee paying places is capped at 35 per cent and the
Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) ensures that providers
fill Commonwealth supported places before accepting other enrolments.
The Minister’s budget press release states universities ‘will still be
required to offer their Commonwealth funded places before offering full
fee places.’[15] The difference
between filling or rather offering places is not explained.
The effect of both removing the cap on full-fee places and creating greater
flexibility in the course mix has the potential for universities with
high demand courses to ask for fewer Commonwealth-supported places and
replace them with full-fee places, particularly in courses where revenue
from full-fee places is higher than that from Commonwealth grants.[16] However the University of Technology
Sydney’s Vice-Chancellor, Ross Milbourne, predicts the number of domestic
full-fee places might actually fall due to the ‘expansion in commonwealth-supported
offers and the fact universities can move commonwealth-supported places
to high-demand areas.’[17] Regardless of the different possibilities this
initiative is another means for universities to create niche markets and,
like the HEEF budget measure, to differentiate the providers in the sector.
The policy to remove the cap on domestic full-fee places also differentiates
government and opposition policies. Since 1998, when full-fee places were
introduced, the ALP has promised to abolish or phase them out.[18]
A Labor government would need to compensate universities with further
funding for Commonwealth supported places. Estimates of this have varied
widely with the focus on full-fee places in medicine costing over $100 000.
However it should not be assumed that fee-paying courses in demand are
all expensive, like medicine. Law, for example, is one of the cheapest
courses to run.[19]
In the 2007–2008 Budget the Government is providing $208.6 million over
four years to assist the universities to specialise and diversify through
the Realising our potential – Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund.[20]
This and other budget measures further implement the Government’s policy
to remove the ‘one-size-fits-all’ model in the sector. In a wide-ranging
speech on the need for diversity the Minister claimed the ‘sector must
stop trying to be all things to all students … that means I want to see
the development of a diversified higher education sector, made up of universities
which differ from each other in terms of mission, discipline mix, course
offerings, modes of delivery, management and in academic structure.’[21]
Increased funding of $1.7 billion to higher education is strategically
directed to enable greater specialisation and diversity in the sector.
Vice Chancellors responded positively to the measures with AVCC President
Gerard Sutton reported as saying it was ‘a fantastic outcome ... spectacular
for the university sector.’[22] Criticism focuses on perceived outcomes of a more privatised,
stratified and less equitable sector.[23]
However all stakeholders have welcomed the increased funding to the higher
education sector which may overcome criticism of previous funding cuts
and perceptions that since Commonwealth spending on non-government schools
has overtaken Commonwealth spending on universities the Government has
neglected the higher education sector.[24]
School education
Marilyn Harrington
Social Policy Section
The justification for the school education measures in the 2007–08 Budget
is widely accepted because it is well documented by research that improving
student outcomes, including literacy levels, will improve life outcomes.
A number of the measures have also been foreshadowed by the recommendations
of recent inquiries and reports commissioned by the Government, covering
such issues as the teaching of literacy, a national Year 12 certificate,
Year 12 curriculum content, the teaching of Australian history, and performance
pay for teachers.[25]
The Budget introduces new measures, and continues and/or
expands existing measures that directly fund schools, school communities
and parents. These measures include literacy and numeracy vouchers, Australian
Technical Colleges (ATCs), and rewarding schools for improvements in literacy
and numeracy. The Investing in Our Schools Programme, which also falls
into this program category, was extended by legislation passed in March
2007.[26]
Another feature of the budget measures for school education is that they
reinforce the trend towards greater Australian Government involvement
in school education—a trend which is also evident in the ALP’s policies
announced to date.[27]
The Budget also signals the introduction of a number of new conditions
for funding for the next quadrennium of schools funding (2009 to 2012),
thereby expanding the conditions for funding that were legislated by the
passage of the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through
Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004.[28]
Continuing and expanded programs
There have been some concerns about the effectiveness of some of the
programs which are continued or expanded by the budget measures. For instance
there is concern about the measure to provide literacy and numeracy vouchers
for students, thereby expanding the Reading Assistance Scheme which had
its origins in the Tutorial Voucher Initiative (TVI), a pilot scheme that
ran in 2005. While an evaluation of the TVI reported that most parents
were satisfied with the TVI, fewer tutors assessed the TVI as effective.[29] Of more concern was the uptake
rate which was 40 per cent of eligible students, although the government
regarded this as a ‘successful result’ for a national pilot.[30]
There were some refinements to the Reading Assistance Scheme as a result
of the TVI evaluation and more are proposed for the new program. To date
the uptake for the 2007 program, at about 60 per cent, is a significant
improvement on the TVI.[31]
The TVI attracted criticism from those who
considered that the funds would be better directed towards schools.[32] These criticisms have continued. Typical of
these criticisms is that of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Education
Union:
The voucher program has been running in Victoria for three
years and take-up is less than 30 per cent. That money should be made
available to support programs in schools. Teachers and principals know
these kids and know what their needs are in a way that private tutors
simply cannot.[33]
Other concerns may be aroused by the Government rewarding schools for
improving literacy and numeracy attainment while giving parents rather
than schools the means to achieve this. As the Victorian Association of
State Secondary Principals, which considers the tutorial vouchers ‘a complete
waste of money’, asks: ‘Why not put the money directly into schools so
we could lower class sizes, have more targeted literacy and numeracy programs?’[34]
The 2007–08 Budget provides for another three Australian Technical Colleges
(ATCs). The establishment of the ATCs has not proceeded as anticipated.
The funding for the original ATCs program has been increased and shifted
between program years, with various reasons given. The previous Minister
for Vocational and Technical Education attributed the additional costs
to the flexibility of the program which had resulted in higher operational
costs, and more new sites and multiple campuses than were anticipated.[35] The proposed ATC for the proposed
Lismore Ballina region has not yet eventuated.
Critics of the ATCs view them as duplicating, at greater cost, existing
state systems of vocational training and education.[36] Some have argued that the colleges
should take on a broader range of subjects to ensure their viability in
the long term. Given that the ATCs, with the addition of three more, are
intended to cater for a maximum of 8400 students, some critics see them
as having little impact on the skills crisis. There are also concerns
about retention rates given the workload demands that will be placed on
these students.[37]
The announcement of three new ATCs also comes ahead of the Government’s
expectation that there will be an evaluation of the ATCs in 2008.[38]
New programs
Two budget measures—the Summer Schools for Teachers and
the rewarding of schools for improvements in literacy and numeracy outcomes—and
the announcement that performance pay will be a condition of funding for
the next quadrennium of schools funding, signal the arrival of performance
pay for teachers.
Performance pay for teachers is contentious. The April meeting
of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth
Affairs (MCEETYA) rejected the federal Minister’s proposal for performance
pay, instead opting to investigate different approaches to recognising
and rewarding teachers through enhanced career structures.[39] The Government’s own commissioned report from the Australian
Council of Educational Research (ACER) noted that: ‘The historical record
is clear that few merit based pay schemes have survived when applied to
teaching.’[40] ACER was cautious in its response
and considered that its review of performance pay schemes indicated ‘the
need to move gradually’, recommending further research focussed on developing
‘valid and reliable systems and measures for gathering evidence for individual
performance pay decision … [and] … learning how to operate team- or school-based
performance award programs.’[41] It is not clear from either
the budget measures, or the announced performance pay condition for the
next quadrennium of funding, whether the implementation of either will
take into account these recommendations.
The bonuses for teachers to attend summer schools could
be perceived as a de facto performance pay system—they have been announced
as ‘Rewarding Australia’s high quality teachers.’[42] The school based rewards for schools that improve their literacy
and numeracy attainment also have the potential to operate as a performance
pay system with the Minister for Education, Science and Training confirming
that the funding could be used to pay ‘greater rewards to outstanding
teachers.’[43]
Save our Schools has voiced other concerns about the school
reward measure, considering that such schemes have the potential for schools
to manipulate outcomes and disadvantage certain categories of students:
… overseas experience with school performance rankings shows
that schools generally respond by cheating on tests, ‘gaming the system’
and poaching or creaming-off high achieving students from other schools
rather than taking on more low achieving students … Many schools in England
and the US increase their test outcomes by excluding low achieving students
from tests in a variety of ways such as exempting them from tests … suspending
them at test time and …encouraging them to be absent … or to leave the
school.[44]
General recurrent grants for schools
Both the Government and the ALP are intent on improving
the quality of schooling and educational outcomes through the funding
of targeted programs. Only one budget measure—the additional funding for
regional and remote non-government schools—impacts on general recurrent
grants (GRGs) for schools which form the bulk of Australian Government
specific purpose payments for schools (an estimated 82 per cent in 2007–08).[45] This is in spite of the findings of two reports.
The first, a MCEETYA report, called for additional funding of $2.4 billion
for government schools to enable them to achieve a minimum National School
Resourcing Standard.[46] The second, a government-commissioned
report on government primary school resourcing, concluded that without
additional financial and other resources, the National Goals for Schooling
were outside the reach of many government primary schools.[47]
Last year the Australian Primary Principals Association (APPA) drew attention
to the lower rates of general recurrent grants for government primary
schools and called for them to be funded at the same rate as government
secondary schools, thereby providing an additional estimated $101 million
for government primary schools.[48]
The measure to increase funding for non-government regional
and remote schools is recognition that the socio-economic (SES) system
of Australian Government funding for non‑government schools does
not currently factor distance into its funding formula. The measure also
requires state and territory government education systems to provide an
equivalent increase for regional and remote government schools, in spite
of weighting mechanisms for distance that already exist in their funding
formulae.
The Government is currently reviewing the SES system of
general recurrent grants for non‑government schools.
Other issues
One area of school policy not mentioned in the Budget is languages education.
The ALP has announced that it will re-establish an Asian languages and
studies strategy for Australian schools. The Department of Education,
Science and Training has commissioned two inquiries on languages education
which are due to report by July this year. It may be the case that the
Govenment will announce changes to its school languages program as a consequence.[49]
There is no information in the Budget that the school education
budget measures, and the proposed new funding conditions for the 2009–2012
funding quadrennium, take account of any administrative costs that may
result. However the Minister for Education, Science and Training has stated,
in announcing funding for the APPA to hold a national forum to create
a draft charter to define the role of primary schools, that:
Schools have been asked to provide a huge range of services
that go far beyond what was traditionally the role of schools, and this
has the potential to have a negative impact on their ability to teach
students and allow them to develop the fundamental skills in areas such
as reading, writing and mathematics … The charter will help to define
the role of primary school education and to allow schools to focus on
the vital task of educating young people.[50]
There are claims that the some of the new conditions of funding foreshadowed
in the Budget and by the Prime Minister do not appear to take account
of policies and programs already in place in schools. For instance, the
NSW education minister has pointed out that NSW government schools have
bullying programs and annual reports, and that principals have capacity
to choose their staff.[51]
The Australian Government is intent on improving school
performance and education outcomes. Many like Kevin Donnelly, education
consultant and former government advisor, consider the federal government’s
approach to education is on ‘the right track’. However, as Donnelly has
expressed, the government’s reforms have the potential to undermine their
policy gains to date by formulating a policy program that is ‘overly bureaucratic,
intrusive and centralised.’[52]
Vocational education and training (VET)
Carol Kempner
Social Policy Section
The $638 million increase in expenditure over four years on new Realising
our potential – VET measures builds on the $837 million over
five years Skills For the Future initiatives announced by the Prime
Minister in October 2006. In effect the new budget measures are broadly
consistent with already established government policy priorities. These
priorities are for the funding of the Commonwealth’s own VET related programs
(e.g. Australian Apprenticeships and Australian Technical Colleges), with
an increasing focus on payments to individuals in preference to increasing
grants to the states and territories for the running of their VET institutions.
The Realising our potential and previous measures have extended
the regime of financial incentives available to individuals to encourage
them to engage in VET. Traditionally the Commonwealth’s VET financial
incentive payments have largely been in the form of wage subsidies to
employers of apprentices. These subsidies have been enhanced and in recent
years have become more targeted to areas of skill shortage, e.g. employer
support for mature age apprentices in occupations in high demand. In addition,
a range of financial supports that target individual VET students have
been introduced. Some of these apply to VET students generally, e.g. income
support measures, while others target particular groups, e.g. skills vouchers
for mature workers to enhance basic skills, and toolkits and scholarships
for apprentices in areas of skill shortage. The Realising our potential
- VET measures continue the targeting of apprentices in areas
of skills shortage with the introduction of a tax-free wage top-up and
training vouchers to help them meet the cost of their course fees.
An interesting addition to the range of financial support measures for
VET students across the board is the introduction in this budget of student
loans in the form of FEE-HELP for Diploma and Advanced Diploma students.
The VET sector’s role in meeting the growing demand for higher level skills
has been evolving. This has focused attention on the inter‑relationship
between the VET and higher education sectors, and issues associated with
the differences in their fees and funding arrangements. The measure is
one that could potentially have longer term implications for the future
direction of VET funding.
A comparison of the size of the increase in expenditure on these measures
with the other main area of Commonwealth VET expenditure—its grants to
the states and territories to support them in the funding of their TAFE
institutes and other providers—brings the Government’s priorities into
relief. Its contribution under the 2005–08 Commonwealth-State
Agreement for Skilling Australia’s Workforce provided
additional funding of only $215 million for the quadrennium. If matched
by the states and territories, it was expected to deliver 128 000
additional training places.[53]
With the new expenditure in this budget the Commonwealth’s expenditure
on grants to the states and territories will decline as a proportion of
the Commonwealth’s administered expenses on VET, from 52 per cent in 2006–07
to 47 per cent in 2007–08.
Another point of comparison is the Government’s expenditure on the establishment
of Australian Technical Colleges (ATCs). The aim of these secondary colleges
is to promote apprenticeships in traditional trades by giving students
a head start in school-based apprenticeships in these areas. Although
a school education expense, the 2007–08 budget proposal to establish three
more ATCs, in addition to the original 25, has been presented as a Realising
our potential – VET measure. With the added funding for the
three new ATCs the establishment costs for these colleges is expected
to amount to a total of $552 million (this excludes ongoing schools funding
to which ATCs will be entitled). In 2007 there will be approximately 2000
students in the ATCs and this number will rise to 8400 by 2009.[54] While this initiative is adding to the supply of apprenticeship
training it is small in comparison with that provided by the broader state
and territory VET system. As at September 2006 there were 404 200
apprentices in-training, 159 100 of whom were ‘traditional apprentices’.
It is also interesting to compare the cost to the Commonwealth of creating
these 8400 places in the ATCs, with the 128 000 training places provided
for in the state and territory VET systems under the 2005–08 Commonwealth-State
Agreement for Skilling Australia’s Workforce (see above).
There is some evidence that the Government’s funding of individual incentives
is having some impact on the demand for, and participation in, VET. For
example, between 2005 and 2006 there has been an 8 per cent increase in
‘traditional apprentices’ in-training. These policies, together with other
factors, such as the demand for workers to develop higher level skills,
are expected to contribute to an increase in the demand for VET.[55] A consequence is likely to be
a focus on the adequacy of supply side funding, i.e. funding for the state
and territory VET sector which annually trains approximately 1.6 million
students. Some have estimated that funding would need to grow by 5 per
cent per annum to meet this demand.[56] How the VET sector is to be funded to meet
this demand is therefore likely to be an ongoing issue and one that will
arise in the context of the negotiations for a new Commonwealth-State
Agreement for Skilling Australia’s Workforce when the current one
expires in 2008.
Endnotes
[1]. R. Lebihan and S. Morris,
‘Unis optimistic about higher returns’, Australian Financial Review,
10 May 2007, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:UR0N6%3B
, accessed 17 May 2007.
[2]. S. Morris, ‘Funding fears
lift as unis eye cash flow’, Australian Financial Review, 12 May
2007, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:PP1N6%3B,
accessed 17 May 2007.
[3]. J. Bishop (Minister for Education,
Science and Training), Higher Education Endowment Fund media release,
http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/bishop/budget07/bud03_07.htm,
accessed on 17 May 2007. See also, ‘Campuses that get donors favoured’,
The Australian, 11 May 2007, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:W71N6%3B,
accessed 17 May 2007.
[4].
R. Lebihan and S. Morris, op. cit.
[5]. The Group of Eight consists
of: The Australian National University, Monash University, The University
of Adelaide, The University of Melbourne, The University of New South
Wales, The University of Queensland, The University of Sydney and The
University of Western Australia. See: The Group of Eight website, http://www.go8.edu.au/, accessed 17 May 2007.
[6]. Department of Education, Science
and Training (DEST), Finance 2004, DEST, Canberra, 2005, http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/FC5576B6-C249-4C16-BE17-91199CF47845/9697/finance_2004.pdf,
accessed 17 May 2007.
[7]. 2007–2008 estimates for
the RIBG are $207.98 million, a slight increase on the estimated actual
for 2006–2007. Funding to the Capital Development Pool shows a reduction
from $110.71 million to $80.09 million. (Portfolio Budget Statements
2007–2008: Education, Science and Training Portfolio, pp. 63, 104); $186
million has been approved for special infrastructure projects between
2005 and 2008 from the appropriations. See DEST, Higher Education
Report 2005, p. 47, http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/5213D64C-C3BA-4D8A-B139-7906281D27AD/15276/HigherEd2005Full.pdf,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[8]. ‘Budget 2007: Treasurer discusses
budget’, 7.30 Report (Budget Special), 8 May 2007, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=tvprog&Criteria=CITATION_ID:WD1N6%3B,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[9]. C. Armitage, ‘Fund will
steer clear of politics’, The Australian, 16 May 2007, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:HX2N6%3B,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[10]. Group of Eight, Higher
education package could transform the sector, media release, 9 May
2007, http://www.go8.edu.au/news/2007/Go8%20on%202007%20budget%2009.05.07.pdf
accessed 17 May 2007.
[11]. J. Bishop, op. cit.
[12]. This decision partly
pre-empts the findings of the Review of the Higher Education
Support Act 2003 which is focussed on funding cluster arrangements
and the funding of clinical disciplines and will continue throughout 2007
and 2008, http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/policy_issues_reviews/reviews/HESA_review/default.htm,
accessed 17 May 2007.
[13]. J. Bishop (Minister for Education,
Science and Training), Increased funding and flexibility for universities,
media release, http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/bishop/budget07/bud05_07.htm,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[14]. J. Bishop (Minister for Education,
Science and Training), Greater flexibility for universities, media
release, http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/bishop/budget07/bud04_07.htm,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[15]. ibid. The supporting information
in the media release also speaks only of offering, not filling, Commonwealth
funded places.
[16]. See, for example, A.
Norton, Some Perestroika in Higher Education, 8 May 2007, http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/05/08/some-perestroika-in-higher-education/#more-206,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[17]. R. Lebihan and S. Morris,
‘Inequity fears unfounded’, Australian Financial Review, 11 May
2005, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:J61N6%3B,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[18]. The policy to permit universities
to charge fees for domestic undergraduate students was introduced in the
1996–97 Budget and implemented in 1998 when 829 undergraduate students
accepted fee paying places. See A. Vanstone (Minister for Education, Training
and Youth Affairs), Higher Education Budget Statement, 9 August
1996. At the 1998 election, and again at the 2004 election, the ALP policy
was to abolish domestic full fee places. In 2006 Kim Beazley reiterated
the policy (Meet the Press, 9 April 2006), and Kevin Rudd has stated
that they will be phased out. See S. Morris, ‘Full-fee stance clarified’,
Australian Financial Review, 11 May 2007, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:G61N6%3B
accessed o 17 May 2007).
[19]. In 2006 AVCC President Professor
Gerald Sutton is reported as estimating compensation to universities might
cost between $150 million and $200 million. See: M. Grattan, ‘Beazley
vows to scrap full-fee university places despite cost’, The Age,
10 April 2006, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:N4BJ6%3B,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[20] The fund will also incorporate
the existing Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund and some funding
from the current Learning and Teaching Performance Fund. See J. Bishop
(Minister for Education, Science and Training), New diversity and structural
adjustment fund for universities, media release, http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/bishop/budget07/bud09_07.htm,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[21]. J. Bishop (Minister
for Education, Science and Training), Speech: Curtin Institute Public
Policy Forum, 24 July 2006, http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Bishop/2006/07/B0010240706.asp,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[22]. C. Armitage, ‘$1.7bn boost
exceeds hopes AVCC hails spectacular outcome’, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:NA0N6%3B;
and ‘Unis expectations exceeded’, Australian, 9 May 2007,
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:LWZM6%3B,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[23]. See National Tertiary Education
Union, Universities benefit from election budget bonanza, media
release, 9 May 2007; and L. MacNamara, ‘Pressure on to take paying students’,
The Australian, 11 May 2007,
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:S71N6%3B
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[24]. However despite the increased
Commonwealth funding to higher education, which will increase to an estimated
$5.8 billion in 2007–2008, it will still be less than the estimated $6.2
billion in funding to non-government schools. See Australia. ‘Budget Strategy
and Outlook 2007–2008’, Budget Paper No. 1, p. 6-10.
[25]. For further information
see Australia. National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy, Teaching
Reading, Dept of Education, Science and Training (DEST), Canberra,
2005, ; Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), Australian
Certificate of Education: Exploring a Way Forward, DEST, Canberra,
2006, G. Matters and G. Masters, Year
12 Curriculum Content and Achievement Standards, DEST, Canberra,
2007, The
Australian History Summit, DEST, Canberra, /;
and L. Ingvarson, E. Kleinhenz and J. Wilkinson, Research
on Performance Pay for Teachers, ACER, Camberwell, Vic., 2007,
, accessed on 11 May 2007.
[26]. For further information see
Marilyn Harrington, ‘Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement
Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2007’, Bills Digest,
no. 117, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2006–07, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2006-07/07bd117.pdf,
accessed on 11 May 2007.
[27]. See, for instance, the
ALP’s policy documents, A
National Action Plan on Literacy and Numeracy ; and Establishing
a National Curriculum to Improve our Children’s Educational Outcomes,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[28]. For information about the
current conditions of funding, see Department of Education, Science and
Training (DEST), Australian
Government Programmes for Schools Quadrennial Administrative Guidelines
2005–2008: 2007 Update, DEST, Canberra, 2007, pp. 211–222, accessed
on 11 May 2007.
[29]. Erebus International,
Evaluation of the Pilot Tutorial Voucher Initiative, DEST,
Canberra, 2006, accessed on 11 May 2007.
[30]. Answer to DEST Question No.
E849_07, Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations
and Education, 2006–2007 Additional Estimates Hearing, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/estimates/add_0607/dest/e849_07.pdf,
accessed on 11 May 2007.
[31]. T. Croker, Reading Assistance
Voucher Program: Report to APPA National Executive Council: Reference
Group Meeting No. 2, 23 February 2007, Australian Primary Principals
Association, http://www.appa.asn.au/cms/uploads/news/readingvoucherreportmarch2007.pdf,
accessed on 11 May 2007.
[32]. Australian Education Union,
Principals slam Minister's reading voucher, media release, 29 May
2004, http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Media/MediaReleases/2004/2805.pdf,
accessed on 11 May 2007.
[33]. Australian Education Union
Victoria, Costello’s budget – where is the vision?, media
release, 10 May 2007, http://www.aeuvic.asn.au/news/1178753062_24707.html,
accessed on 14 may 2007.
[34]. M. Rout, ‘School schemes
hit: money wasted, say teachers’, Herald Sun, 10 May 2007,
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:UW0N6%3B,
accessed on 15 May 2007.
[35]. Gary Hardgrave, Minister for Vocational and Technical Education,
‘Second reading speech: Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in
Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006’, House
of Representatives, Debates, 7 December 2006, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=hansardr&Criteria=DOC_DATE:2006-12-07%3BSEQ_NUM:43%3B,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[36]. J. Gordon and B. Doherty,
‘Howard’s technical colleges struggle with costs and students’, The
Age, 12 May 2007, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:AJ1N6%3B,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[37]. For an overview of some
of these criticisms see L. D’Angelo Fisher, ‘Slow learners’, Business
Review Weekly, 18–24 January 2007, pp. 26–29, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=jrnart&Criteria=CITATION_ID:A9ZL6%3B,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[38]. Answer to DEST Question
No. E823_07, Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations
and Education, 2006–2007 Additional Estimates Hearing, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eet_ctte/estimates/add_0607/dest/e823_07.pdf,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[39]. Ministerial Council on Education,
Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), Information statement,
21st MCEETYA Meeting, Darwin, 12–13 April 2007, http://www.mceetya.edu.au/mceetya/default.asp?id=18933,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[40]. L. Ingvarson, E. Kleinhenz
and J. Wilkinson, op. cit., p. 64.
[41]. ibid., p. 112.
[42]. J. Bishop (Minister
for Education, Science and Training), Rewarding Australia’s
high quality teachers, media release, 8 May 2007, http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/bishop/budget07/bud22_07.htm,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[43]. F. Tomazin, ‘Stealth merit
pay for teachers hits flak’, Age, 11 May 2007, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:671N6%3B,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[44]. Save Our Schools, ‘Howard
Government encourages cheating, poaching and discrimination by schools’,
media release, 13 May 2007, accessed on 15 May 2007.
[45]. For an explanation of
the Australian Government’s system of general recurrent grants for schools,
see M. Harrington, Australian Government General Recurrent Grants for
Schools – A Brief Explanation, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2006,
http://libiis1/Library_Services/electoralatlas/SchoolGrants/Explanation.htm,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[46]. Ministerial
Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA),
Schools Resourcing Taskforce, Resourcing the National Goals for
Schooling : Stage 2 Report, MCEETYA, Carlton South, Vic., 2005, http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/Resourcing_the_National_Goals_May_05.pdf,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[47]. M. Angus et al, The
Sufficiency of Resources for Australian Primary Schools, DEST,
Canberra, 2004, p. vi, accessed on 14 May 2007.
[48]. Australian Primary Principals
Association, Primary/secondary government funding anomaly, media
release, 1 November 2006, http://www.appa.asn.au/cms/uploads/news/funding%20anomaly.pdf,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[49]. For further information
see DEST’s Languages
Education website, accessed on 15 May 2007.
[50]. J. Bishop (Minister
for Education, Science and Training), New charter for Australian primary
schools, media release, 4 May 2007, http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Bishop/2007/05/B0001040507.asp,
accessed on 14 May 2007.
[51]. See, for example, ‘Della
Bosca says Howard is over simplifying schools debate’, AAP, 15
May 2007.
[52]. K. Donnelly, ‘Choice would
be eroded by centralisation’, The Australian, 10 May 2007, http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=pressclp&Criteria=CITATION_ID:HW0N6%3B,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[53]. Australia. Department of
Education, Science and Training (DEST), 2005–08 Commonwealth-State
Agreement for Skilling Australia’s Workforce, DEST, Canberra, 2006,
p. iii, http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/A478ADFF-A582-4628-B191-E69F7380684F/12740/CommStateAgreementPaper_full1.pdf,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[54]. A Robb (Minister for
Vocational and Further Education), Three new Australian Technical Colleges
announced, media release, 8 May 2007, http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/robb/budget07/bud03_07.htm,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[55]. G. Burke and C. Shah,
‘Expansion of vocational education and training’, AVETRA Annual Conference,
April 2007, http://www.avetra.org.au/publications/54-Burke%20%5BRead-Only%5D.pdf,
accessed on 17 May 2007.
[56]. ibid.
|
 |
