Bills Digest no. 37 2008–09
Schools Assistance Bill 2008
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Financial implications
Main provisions
Concluding comments
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
Date introduced:
24 September 2008
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations
Commencement:
1 January
2009
Links: The relevant
links to the Bill, Explanatory Memorandum and second reading
speech can be accessed via BillsNet, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/.
When Bills have been passed they can be found at ComLaw, which is
at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
The Schools
Assistance Bill 2008 (the Bill) provides Australian Government
funding for non-government schools for the years 2009 to 2012. It
succeeds in part the Schools Assistance (Learning Together
Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 (the
current Act), which provided funding for both government and
non-government schools for the years 2004 to 2008.
The Bill also provides funding for Indigenous
students attending non-government schools. This funding was
previously appropriated under the Indigenous Education
(Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 (the IETA Act). A separate
bill, the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, amends the
IETA Act for this purpose.[1]
The Bill marks a major departure in
Commonwealth funding arrangements for schools. The current Act and
its predecessors provided funding for both government and
non-government schools. This Bill provides the funding arrangements
for non-government schools only. Future Commonwealth funding for
government schools will be provided through the National Education
Agreement which is currently being negotiated with the states and
territories through the Council of Australian Governments.
The Bill fulfils the Government s commitment
to retain the current system of general recurrent funding for
non-government schools (the Socioeconomic Status (SES) funding
system) for the next four years. There is a minor modification to
the system, necessitated by the routine revision of SES funding
scores for the next four years and the requirement that no school
receives less funding because of the re-assessment of its SES
score. Under the SES system, the higher a school s SES score the
lower the per student funding rate. Therefore, those schools with a
2009 to 2012 SES score that is higher than their current score will
continue to be funded at their 2008 per capita amounts until the
funding value of the new score is equal to, or greater than, their
2008 entitlement unless the school is already funding maintained
(with indexation) at a previous level or already receiving the
maximum per capita amount.[2]
The Bill also provides additional funding for
non-government schools that have significant numbers of Indigenous
students. The maximum rate of general recurrent funding will
automatically apply to non-government schools in remote and very
remote areas that have 50 per cent or more Indigenous enrolments
and to non-government schools in other areas that have 80 per cent
or more Indigenous enrolments. The Minister for Education estimates
that this measure will provide an additional $5.4 million to these
schools.[3]
There is also another change to the funding
arrangements for non-government schools. Previously new
non-government schools were entitled to establishment assistance
grants, which were paid at the full-time equivalent per student
rate of $500 for the first year of the school's operation and $250
per student for the second year of operation. This assistance is
being phased out, with only the remaining 2009 second-year payments
to be made. This funding was not provided to new government
schools.
The Bill provides funding for capital grants
and continues funding for existing targeted programs, including
short term emergency assistance; education in country areas;
teaching English to new arrivals; and literacy, numeracy and
special learning needs.
Two elements of funding to the non-government
sector funding for non-government hostels and non-government
centres (which provide services to children with disabilities) are
not in the Bill but will be paid to the states and territories to
manage through the National Education Agreement.
In addition to the extra general recurrent
funding for non-government schools with significant Indigenous
enrolments, the Bill provides supplementary recurrent funding for
Indigenous students attending non-government schools. This funding
was previously provided through the Indigenous Education
(Targeted Assistance) Act 2000.
This supplementary funding for Indigenous
education is also being restructured. The non-government components
of various Indigenous school education program elements contained
in the IETA Act are being streamlined into the one per capita
payment Indigenous Supplementary Assistance (ISA).[4] As the Minister explains in her
second reading speech, the aim of this restructure is to reduce
reporting and red tape for schools and provide them with increased
flexibility to focus on the educational achievement of their
students. [5] For the
first time, ISA will be indexed at the same rate as other general
recurrent school funding. The increased indexation is estimated to
provide an additional $24.5 million.
The Bill also provides an Indigenous Funding
Guarantee to ensure that non-government schools and systems, as a
result of these new arrangements, do not receive less funding than
they received in 2008. Funding of $18.1 million over four years has
been provided for the guarantee.[6]
Together, the ISA and the Indigenous Funding
Guarantee will provide $239 million over four years for the
education of Indigenous students in non-government schools.[7]
The Bill continues the general provision in
schools funding legislation for the Minister to make conditions in
the agreements for Commonwealth funding for schools.[8] However, the current Act
introduced an unprecedented number of specified conditions for
Commonwealth funding for schools. While a number of these
conditions have either been met, superseded or abandoned by the
Bill,[9] it retains
the broad thrust of the educational outcomes accountability
framework of the current Act. There are now six conditions covering
school performance:
- participation in national student assessments
- participation in national reports on the outcomes of
schooling
- provision of individual school performance reports to the
Minister
- provision of plain language student reports to parents, to
include an assessment of the student s achievement against any
available national standards and relative to the student s peer
group at the school
- provision of publicly available information about the school s
performance and
- implementation of the national curriculum.
Further information about the specific
requirements under each of these conditions will be provided in the
regulations to the Act when it is passed. However, this
accountability framework will be consistent with that for
government schools under the National Education Agreement.
The financial accountability conditions for
Commonwealth funding have been significantly strengthened. The Bill
includes a new provision which empowers the Minister to refuse or
delay payments if a school audit raises questions about a school s
viability.[10]
Although non-government schools have always
been required to complete a financial questionnaire, the Bill
contains a new requirement for schools to report funding sources.
This is intended to provide the Government with more flexibility as
to what financial information it can collect from school
authorities. The final decision about what schools will be required
to report will be made after consultations with the non-government
sector.[11]
Previously, the financial information that was
collected was treated as commercial-in-confidence and, therefore,
individual school financial information was not released. However,
the Bill contains another new provision which empowers the Minister
to ask for reports about individual school information in a way
determined by the Minister.[12] Potentially, under this provision, the Minister
could make these reports publicly available.[13]
From 2009 Commonwealth funding for government
schools will be provided through the National Education Agreement
(NEA) which is currently being negotiated with the states and
territories through COAG. The NEA will provide the same
accountability framework for government schools as the Bill
provides for non-government schools.
The NEA is part of the Australian Government s
reform of specific purpose payments (SPPs) to the states and
territories. The new structure will comprise an Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) between the Commonwealth and the states and
territories, with separate National Agreements, which will be
schedules to the IGA, covering school education, health, disability
services, housing, early childhood and vocational education and
training. The Minister has indicated that the NEA will not be a
matter for legislation. Rather, the proposed State Finances Act
will appropriate funding for the NEAs.[14]
As well as setting out the broad goals for
school education and incorporating the existing SPPs, the NEA will
include National Partnerships to support specific projects and
reforms, as agreed to by COAG. The Minister has identified three
priorities for National Partnerships:
- improving the quality of teaching
- raising outcomes in disadvantaged school communities and
- delivering a new era of transparency, to guide parents,
teachers and policymakers in making the best possible decisions.
[15]
These arrangements will have to be finalised
by the end of the year, for implementation from January 2009.
The Bill provides an estimated $28 billion
(final 2008 prices) for non-government schools for the years 2009
to 2012. The amounts under the different programs will be adjusted
annually according to their particular indexation arrangements for
price increases.
Commonwealth funding for non-government
schools remains essentially unchanged. The general pattern, with
the majority of Commonwealth funding for schools provided to
non-government schools, will continue. In 2008 09 an estimated 67
per cent, or $6.4 billion, of Commonwealth funding for schools will
be provided to non-government schools, compared to $3.1 billion for
government schools. A similar pattern continues in the 2008 09
budget projections for the out-years.[16]
However, the Government has signalled that it
is time to move on from the past debates about the funding of
government and non-government schools:
For too long the debate about schools was
diverted into unproductive avenues The true target of our efforts
must be individual students no matter which type of school they
attend we are moving beyond the traditional and discredited focus
of schooling debate in Australia; the debate that revolved around
competition between sectors and failed to focus on the realities of
need and outcome across all sectors.[17]
The Government regards its new accountability
and performance reporting framework as integral to improving
educational outcomes:
In schooling, all Australian governments share
the objective of raising overall attainment so that all students
acquire the knowledge and skills they need to participate
effectively in society. In support of this objective, the
Australian Government is working with State and Territory
Governments to develop a strong and transparent data and reporting
framework for student and school performance, which provides:
- Parents with clear information about the performance of their
child and their child s school.
- Comparative information about schools performance, which is
required to support the COAG-agreed outcomes. Particularly
important is the literacy and numeracy performance of like schools,
given that achievement here is arguably the most critical factor in
young people staying on to attain a Year 12 qualification.
- Performance data about schools and school systems, which is
necessary to build a substantive evidence base to show what works
and to support future improvements.
Clear accountability helps create a learning
environment that encourages innovation and excellence from school
leaders, teachers and students. It also means that students,
parents and teachers have the evidence they need to make informed
choices.[18]
There has been little reaction to the actual
Bill and its funding of non-government schools. The non-government
sector has readily accepted the legislation and its conditions for
funding, no doubt assuaged by the continuation of the SES funding
system. The sector has welcomed the Bill because it provides
funding stability and the sector has not publicly expressed concern
about the new reporting framework.[19] However, the Government s promised
review of the SES funding system raises questions about the future
of Commonwealth funding for non-government schools. An internal
review of the system under the previous Government recommended
changes to the system to lower some schools funding levels which
have been maintained at higher levels because of the policy s no
losers approach.[20]
In the main, the debate is focussing not on
the actual content of the Bill, but rather the policy issues
relating to the future arrangements for government schools funding
and the national school performance reporting framework that will
underlie the foreshadowed National Partnerships.
The presentation of this Bill before the
arrangements for government school funding have been finalised, has
created some uncertainty about the future of Commonwealth funding
for government schools.[21] It is not until the National Education Agreement is
produced that judgements will be able to be made about the
financial and educational accountability framework that the
Government is establishing.
The issue which is currently receiving most
attention is the Minister s regard for New York City s school
reporting system as a basis for the proposed school reporting
framework the head of the New York education system will be
visiting Australia next month on the Minister s invitation:
We can learn from Klein's methodology of
comparing like schools with like-schools and then measuring the
differences in school results in order to spread best
practice.[22]
However, she has stopped short of endorsing
league tables and A to F reporting which is a feature of the New
York system.[23]
The New York City system uses annual school
progress reports which compare students' performance from year to
year and compare schools within a group of 40 peer schools with
similar populations. Schools are then graded from A to D and F
based on student test results, the progress of students in a year
and the school environment as determined by attendance and a survey
of parents, students and teachers. Schools rated as A or B receive
financial rewards and are used to demonstrate good teaching
practices. Schools graded D or F are given assistance to improve
and if no progress is made the school is restructured, the
principal changed or it is closed.[24]
According to the latest results for 2007 08,
nearly 60 per cent of schools either improved their grade or
maintained an A-level from the previous year, 50 schools received a
D grade compared to 86 for the previous year, and the number of
F-rated schools dropped from 35 to 18 schools. Accompanying these
results were the results of a pilot school-based merit pay scheme,
whereby teachers at 89 of the 160 participating schools will
receive bonuses as the result of improved student test
scores.[25]
However, the New York City system has been
assessed by some as unreliable and producing misleading comparisons
of school performance and student progress. In his analysis of the
system, Trevor Cobbold, Convener of Save our Schools, concludes: It
is incoherent, can be used to produce league table[s], fails to
compare like with like and is statistically flawed. [26]
Main provisions
Clauses 12 to 15 establish
the basis upon which the Minister may authorise payments to
non-government schools; namely, that a funding agreement must be in
place, that schools must be approved to operate as a school and
that schools must be financially viable. Proposed paragraph
15(c) is a new provision which empowers the Minister to
refuse or delay payments if a school audit raises questions about a
school s financial viability.
Clauses 17 to 22 set out the
requirements relating to the performance of, and reporting by,
non-government schools. Proposed subparagraph
19(2)(b)(ii) empowers the Minister to make reports about
non-government schools performance and financial arrangements
publicly available.
Clause 24 provides that
reports in relation to the programs of financial assistance and the
financial operations of a school, including its financial viability
and funding sources, be provided to the Minister.
Paragraph 29(c) provides that
the agreements for Commonwealth schools funding may include any
other conditions or provisions that the Minister considers
appropriate.
Clause 36 explains the
meaning of Average Government School Recurrent Costs (the AGSRC),
which is the basis upon which the per capita general recurrent
funding rates for non-government schools are calculated. Proposed
subparagraph 36(1)(a)(i) provides the initial 2009
primary AGSRC amount ($8044) and subparagraph
36(1)(b)(i) provides the initial 2009 secondary AGSRC
amount ($10 061).
Clauses 38 to 56 set out the
arrangements for the SES system of general recurrent funding for
non-government schools.
Clauses 64 to 69 provide for
Indigenous supplementary assistance. Proposed paragraph
67(1)(a) provides the per capita assistance amount ($1600)
for Indigenous primary students at non-remote school campuses and
paragraph 67(2)(a) provides the amount ($3850) for
Indigenous primary students at remote school campuses. Proposed
paragraph 69(1)(a) provides the per capita
assistance amount ($2250) for Indigenous secondary students at
non-remote school campuses and paragraph 69(2)(a)
provides the amount ($4400) for Indigenous secondary students at
remote school campuses.
Clauses 70 to 71 provide for
the Indigenous funding guarantee. Proposed subsection
71(b) provides $18.1 million over four years, 2009 to
2012, for the guarantee.
Clauses 83 to 85 provide for
capital expenditure. Proposed paragraph 84(2)(b)
provides base 2009 program year funding of $128.712 million.
Clauses 86 to 99 provide for
grants for targeted assistance:
- proposed paragraph 87(2)(b) provides base 2009
program year funding of $1.057 million for short-term emergency
assistance
- proposed paragraph 88(2)(b) provides base 2009
program year funding of $5.246 million for education in country
areas
- proposed paragraph 91(1)(b) provides base 2009
program year funding of $12.334 million for languages
education
- proposed paragraph 94(2)(a) provides the base
2009 program assistance amount of $5,786 per student for teaching
English to new arrivals eligible new arrivals
- proposed paragraph 95(2)(a) provides the base
2009 assistance amount of $11,572 per student for teaching English
to new arrivals eligible humanitarian new arrivals
- proposed paragraph 96(3)(a) provides the base
2009 assistance amount of $853 per student for literacy, numeracy
and special learning needs (LNSLN) students with disabilities
- proposed subparagraph 98(1)(b)(i) provides the
base 2009 program year funding of $142.375 million for LNSLN school
grants and
- proposed subsection 99(a) provides $1.942
million for LNSLN guarantee amounts.
Schedule 1 lists the SES
scores and their equivalent funding level as a percentage of
AGSRC.
Concluding comments
The Bill heralds a significant change in the
structure and arrangements for Commonwealth funding for schools.
However, until the National Education Agreement is finalised, the
exact form of these arrangements and the implications for the
accountability of Commonwealth funding for schools will not be
known. The future direction of schools funding remains opens with
the promised review of the SES system, the new arrangements for
government schools funding and the foreshadowed National
Partnership Agreements to improve the quality of teaching and the
outcomes for educationally disadvantaged schools and to establish a
new accountability framework for school performance.
Marilyn Harrington
10 October 2008
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted
by the Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any
part of this work by any process without the prior written consent
of the Parliamentary Librarian. This requirement does not apply to
members of the Parliament of Australia acting in the course of
their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian
Parliament using information available at the time of production.
The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the
Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal
opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any
concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary
Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the
contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff.
To access this service, clients may contact the author or the
Library’s Central Entry Point for referral.
Back to top