Chapter 1 - Schools funding: a historical and political context
99.1
Fundamental to the issue of schools funding policy is
the question of the obligation of the government in the provision of schools,
and the social purposes of the school system. The Schools Assistance Bill 2004,
and the principles that apparently underlie it, reflect a specific ideological
approach to this question one that has typified the stance of the Government
over the past seven years. In that time there has been a departure from the
long-accepted role of the Commonwealth in supporting states and territories to
provide both public and private schooling of the highest quality.[3] The departure
of the Commonwealth from its proper role is manifested in the move from a needs
based funding model which ensured an agreed acceptable funding standard for
schools to one which appears aimed at encouraging even more segmentation in the
school sector: the very antithesis of what a national school program should be
aiming at.
99.2
The principles which underlie current policy are based
on the idea that schooling (and education more broadly) is essentially a
commodity that is purchased by individual families, whose 'choice' of schooling
government should encourage and facilitate.
Such a view is, naturally, hotly contested in the community at large as
well as within academic and policy debate.
The outcome of the imposition of these individualistic, market-oriented
policies has been a rapid increase in inequality in the outcomes of schooling.
An OECD study[4]
in 2000 identified Australia
has having an excessively segmented school system, reflecting high levels of
social inequality. In contrast, countries to which Australia
is usually compared achieved equal or better educational outcomes at the top,
and showed a much more narrow gap between the highest and lowest levels of
achievement. This is relevant to funding, and to the structure of the
Australian school system: other comparable countries, generally speaking, can
claim to have systems that are more 'national' and more comprehensive, with
less marked division between the top and the bottom of the socio-economic scale
in terms of schooling outcomes.
99.3
It is inevitable that the committee's consideration of
its terms of reference has led it along well-worn paths in the schools funding
debate. An examination of key issues raised at hearings and in submissions has
raised familiar arguments and uncovered the fossilized remains of the old
'state aid' controversy. The inquiry of necessity covered much of the ground
examined only four years ago, in 2000, in consideration of the legislation that
introduced the new funding model for non-government school funding the States Grants (Primary and Secondary
Education Assistance) Bill 2000. It is fair to observe that little of
the evidence has explicitly placed arguments in an historical context. This may
reflect a reluctance to confront the reality that a political compact which
many claim to have been made over 30 years ago is increasingly in tatters and
that the policy expedients of successive governments over that period of time
for the purposes of funding schools are no longer capable of holding a coherent
policy structure together. While a pragmatic political settlement, based on
genuine community consensus, was achieved many years ago, like many such policy
solutions the continuing soundness of the Karmel settlement was completely
dependent on political will to maintain that consensus within the community by
ensuring a fair, even-handed approach that transparently responded to the
proven needs of schools and school systems. The current Governments
abandonment of such a commitment has allowed political schisms to open up. Some
of the elements which dominated the debate in the 1960s and 1970s, such as
sectarianism, have disappeared through effluxion of time, but new developments
such as the decline in levels of political and public support for public
education, have proven to be just as divisive. Now, as then, the key
conflicting issues of equity and entitlement have yet to be reconciled. That
remains the main policy challenge in schools funding.
Observations from history
99.4
It is forty years since the first tentative legislative
step was made to provide Commonwealth financial assistance to schools.[5] The landmark States Grants (Science Laboratories and
Technical Training) Act 1964 appropriated just under 5 million pounds in
capital grants to schools. In 1964 the proportion of school students attending
non-government schools was under 24 per cent. The non-government school sector
mostly comprised Catholic schools (83 per cent), and most of these were run
autonomously by religious orders or were parish schools staffed for the most
part by religious congregations, the largest of which ran scores of schools in
dioceses across the country.
99.5
Operating as fairly exclusive and sometimes elite
institutions were a relatively small handful of well established independent
schools, mostly affiliated with the various Protestant denominations, some with
distinguished academic reputations and in possession of a certain social
cachet. These were generally schools for the wealthy, and for families which
had a tradition of attending particular schools through successive generations.
Even so, they provided a service for many rural families, as did Catholic boarding
schools. Apart from state government bursaries paid to a small percentage of
students, no government funding found its way into any non-government school.
99.6
One result of the absence of government funding of
schools which had for the previous 80 or more years educated the broad spectrum
of the Catholic community was that by the mid 1960s, with the demands of the
post war baby boom having their effects, Catholic schools were facing collapse.
A steep decline in numbers joining religious orders was creating a staffing
crisis in Catholic schools, which educated a significant proportion of the
lower middle and working class. This
crisis effectively precipitated the 'state aid' debate.
School Enrolments by Type of School,
1953-2003[6]
Year
|
Govt
|
Catholic
|
Other Non-Govt
|
Total Non-Govt
|
All Students
|
|
('000)
|
%
|
('000)
|
%
|
('000)
|
%
|
('000)
|
%
|
('000)
|
1953
|
1,206
|
76.7
|
286
|
18.2
|
80
|
5.1
|
366
|
23.3
|
1,572
|
1963
|
1,752
|
76.1
|
451
|
19.6
|
98
|
4.3
|
549
|
23.9
|
2,301
|
1964
|
1,797
|
76.1
|
463
|
19.6
|
102
|
4.3
|
565
|
23.9
|
2,362
|
1969
|
2,111
|
77.8
|
490
|
18.1
|
112
|
4.1
|
602
|
22.2
|
2,712
|
1974
|
2,253
|
78.4
|
494
|
17.2
|
124
|
4.3
|
618
|
21.5
|
2,872
|
1979
|
2,332
|
78.2
|
513
|
17.2
|
138
|
4.6
|
651
|
21.8
|
2,983
|
1984
|
2,261
|
74.9
|
567
|
18.8
|
190
|
6.3
|
757
|
25.1
|
3,018
|
1989
|
2,194
|
72.4
|
594
|
19.6
|
243
|
8.0
|
837
|
27.6
|
3,031
|
1994
|
2,215
|
71.5
|
602
|
19.4
|
282
|
9.1
|
884
|
28.5
|
3,099
|
1999
|
2,248
|
69.7
|
636
|
19.7
|
343
|
10.6
|
979
|
30.3
|
3,227
|
2003
|
2,255
|
67.9
|
661
|
19.9
|
403
|
12.1
|
1,064
|
32.1
|
3,319
|
99.7
The political debate of the 1960s about school funding
needs no recounting in this report. The needs of Catholic schools were
addressed at that time in a piecemeal fashion, but it was not possible to do
even this without consideration of the needs of all schools. The States Grants
(Technical Colleges
and Science Laboratories) Bill 1964 appropriated
for the non-government sector only about 12 per cent of the total funds,
probably as an acknowledgement of some residual sectarianism in the community.
Commonwealth assistance to schools expended rapidly in the late 1960s. In 1968
grants for school libraries commenced in parallel with continuing science
laboratory grants, and per capita grants were introduced in 1969, at first for
non-government schools, and from 1972 to public schools as well.[7]
99.8
The Whitlam government, which had debated school
funding with some intensity before 1972, took a more systematic approach. Its
policy was to submerge the issue of grants to non-government schools within the
broader policy of addressing the needs of all schools, regardless of their
governance, provided that they were in genuine need of assistance. This would
address the emerging problem of asset-rich high-fee schools taking a share of
government largess which they had not claimed prior to the Gorton
initiatives of the sixties. The Whitlam government's acceptance of the recommendations
of the Karmel report in 1973 resulted in legislation to establish the Schools
Commission. This agency, at arms length from direct ministerial direction,
would run a systematic program of Commonwealth grants to both government and
non-government schools. The expenditure program recommended by the interim
Schools Commission, and contained in the States Grants (Schools) Bill
1973, was debated in the parliament at the same time. It provided for
expenditure of $694 million in 1974 and 1975. The needs and equity criterion
applied by the interim Schools Commission failed in its first test, as the
Senate forced amendments to the bill which provided continued funding for
category A schools, originally classified by the bill as asset rich and
therefore ineligible for funding.
99.9
The Karmel report is regarded as the most influential
of all Australian reports on school education. Even its critics commended the
Karmel committee for its view that issues of educational quality and standards
should shape the financial arrangements designed to implement the
transformation of the school sector.[8] As noted above,
however, the Schools Commission, as designed by Karmel, was thwarted in its
preferred funding mechanism by a Senate hostile to its 'needs first' funding
philosophy. Marginson points out that, even with the graduated scales of
financial assistance calculated on the basis of need, the funding that was
available had different outcomes in different schools. The additional money
assisted government schools, but it ensured the survival of the Catholic
schools, and helped the elite private schools to flourish. This was a powerful
counter-model to the strategy of equality of opportunity. Karmel 'normalised'
the socially selective schools, strengthened their competitive position, and
confirmed their elite status.[9]
99.10
The 'Karmel compact' served to take the heat out of the
school funding issue. Over the years 1967-1983, however, the Fraser Government
oversaw an incremental change in policy, implemented through guidelines issued to
the Schools Commission, which provided a considerable increase in the
proportion of Commonwealth funds directed to non-government schools, albeit confined
to some extent within a 'needs-based' rhetoric. This trend in fact reversed the
intention of the original Karmel recommendations which had anticipated a
cessation of grants to the most asset rich schools. Between 1976 and 1983 the
maximum per capita grant to non-government schools increased by 66.3 per cent
for primary schools and by 65.9 per cent for secondary schools. Minimum grants,
received by a few affluent schools increased by just over 160 per cent for
secondary schools. Marginson makes the point that over this time a layer of
poor Catholic schools remained 'whose continuing poverty was used to underwrite
the political position of the whole private sector[10]. The
sub-committee notes that this political strategy is one which, in modified
form, continues today.
99.11
Marginson also identifies a significant policy change
over that period in regard to the opening of new non-government schools. In
1981-82, for the first time, grants to non-government schools exceeded grants
to public schools, at a time when general purpose grants to the states had
fallen nearly 2 per cent in real terms. The committee makes the point that the
policies of the current government are following in grooves which were well carved
out nearly twenty years previously. In 1976-82 recurrent grants to private
schools increased by 87 per cent in real terms while grants to public schools
fell by 24 per cent in real terms[11]. It is noteworthy
that this trend has been followed by the current government, which has also seen
grants to non-government schools in 1996-2004 increase at twice the rate of
public schools. In the 2005-08 quadrennium this funding trend will be
confirmed.
99.12
It should also be noted that, during the tenure of the
current Commonwealth Government, the majority of the increase in funding to
private schools, above and beyond normal inflation measures, is due to the
application of the AGSRC as an indexation mechanism. As many witnesses
observed, this index is running at the moment at six to seven per cent. It
reflects the increases in overall expenditure on government school systems
provided by state governments and, as such, is pitched well above ordinary cost
increase measures such as the consumer price index. When introduced by the
Keating Government, this index stood at little over two per cent. The change in the value of the AGSRC is due
in large part to the more generous school funding decisions on the part of
state governments in the last several years.
Effects of social change on school funding
99.13
In the past thirty years, important social and economic
changes affecting school education have ensured that the issue of Commonwealth
assistance to schools has remained a matter of controversy. The Karmel
committee was alive to the demographic movement which was putting pressure on
school infrastructure at the time, but it could not anticipate that within a
short period there would be a decline in the birth rate, together with rising
levels of disposable income, along with the advent of the two income family;
and, an expanding middle class with changing views about the role of education
and the kinds of schools families believed would best suit the needs of their
children.
99.14
Such trends may not necessarily have encouraged the
considerable expansion in enrolments in non-government schools, but the
conjunction of conditions and circumstances brought this about. The decline in
the birth rate has made private schooling more affordable for families with
only or two children. By the 1980s, social factors and perceived deficiencies
in public schools led to a noticeable enrolment drift away from them by the
so-called 'aspirational class'. It is difficult to obtain reliable information
about this trend beyond raw enrolment figures. It has been speculated that in
choosing to pay fees for schooling many parents believe they can buy a more
favourable educational outcome. They may also believe that, in exercising this
'choice', parents will be better able to influence the kind of schooling their
children receive. These assumptions are widely encouraged by non-government
schools, and are more influential for being incapable of objective assessment.
It is also speculated that many parents believe they are purchasing both a peer
group for their children, and fruitful long-term friendships, as well as more
committed teachers and better emotional support and pastoral care. Staffing
inflexibilities and other bureaucratic characteristics of state education
departments are claimed to impede public schools in developing a learning
culture which is attractive to the 'aspirational' class. Again, this is
speculative territory, where perceptions carry more influence than more
reflective judgements about the comparative quality of educational programs or
hard facts about local public schools.
99.15
The committee recognises that perceptions about the
state of the school system gathered through hearsay comment over talk-back
broadcasting and back fence gossip is more politically powerful and influential
over time than research undertaken by reputable authorities whom few people
have heard of and whose studies may fall on the deaf ears even of public
officials. Evidence of some witnesses pointed to an apparently profound social
change that has diminished confidence in public education on the part of the
middle class. The committee put this observation to the NSW Public Education
Council, which verified this perception. As the committee was told:
I do recall a study a few years agoshowing that the parents who
educated themselves in the government system and who then got degrees put their
own children in the independent system at a disproportionate rate. So I think
there is truth in what you are saying. I think that Tony
Vinson has expressed the view that for some
parents there is a concern that with its necessary emphasis on fairness and
equity there may be less academic rigour in the public system. I do not think
there is actually any evidence of that but I think that is a perception. I
participated in discussions on behalf of a forum run by one of the big
television stations and almost every person who spoke thereand it was only a
small group of about 50 peopleabout their decision to send their children to
non-government schools mentioned the lack of resources in government schools.[12]
99.16
The committee notes the provocative comments of the
Prime Minister earlier this year making the sweeping statement that public
schools were deficient in the values they presented, or failed to present, to
students in their care. While this carefully calculated comment was met with a
broad rebuff from educators and parents from public and private schools alike,
it was a comment intended to feed the vaguely held suspicions of an electorate
susceptible to negative propaganda about public schooling. There was no
specific detail given; simply an added weight to opinion in the land of
talkback broadcasting. It is remarkable that such comments received such credibility
in an overwhelmingly secular society, and where secular values, as distinct
from religious values, are rarely discussed in any abstract way.
Choice, need and entitlement
99.17
The debate over school funding turns on arguments about
the validity of claims made by supporters of uncapped overall levels of
Commonwealth funding of non-government schools. The policy-making difficulty
presented in this debate is that the principles underlying fair, equitable and
effective allocation of limited public funding are juxtaposed against funding
demands which have little to do with principles of government responsibility to
act in the interests of the community as a whole. Instead these claims are
based on the absolute rights of individuals, irrespective of their circumstances,
to attract government subsidies for schooling. The notion of education as a
common good, essential for the prosperity and well-being of the country, and as
a process which creates and promotes social cohesion and shared values, is
increasingly blurred in the rush toward social fragmentation and the move to
push individual advantage at the expense of society overall. Ambition and
self-interest have always been motivating instincts in the educational process,
but having successfully harnessed or incorporated these instincts, together
with other aspirations in a comprehensive school system for a brief period in
the 20th century, the committee believes we are in danger of
returning to a highly stratified and inequitable system of schools to which
there is contested entitlement and in which choice is a matter to be exercised
by schools as much as by parents.
The matter of choice
99.18
The current Coalition government has based its school
education expenditure on principles of choice and entitlement. There has never
been any doubt about the right of parents to choose the education of their
children. The issue remains whether the state has a role in supporting this
right to choice by funding any and all schools to which parents might wish to
send their children. The political consensus, following the debates of the
sixties and seventies, was that there is a qualified obligation on governments
to facilitate this choice through funding grants. The committee observes that
there remains a question about the limits of choice given that governments have
obligations that compete for funding; and that long existing public
infrastructure and institutions must be preserved and continually invigorated.
It is clear that a policy based on 'choice' alone is unlikely to be sustainable.
'Choice' does not lead to an equitable distribution of preferences or benefits.
Taken to its logical conclusion, choice may not even be an option for those who
wish to exercise it, because of scarcity of supply or opportunity. Where the
exercise of choice is backed by state funding it is by no means assured that
the community as a whole will benefit. That is why, in nearly all circumstances
of life, those who choose to exercise choice are generally expected to set
their own expenditure priorities. There are necessarily limits, therefore, on
the exercise of taxpayer funded options. Thus, other factors determining the
decisions of governments must come into play.
99.19
The committee heard from a parent organisation that the
expansion of the non-government school sector did not necessarily lead to
increased choice and diversity so much as more conformity.[13] It pointed to
the assumption underlying Government school funding policy that 'choice' is
good because it equates to a free market philosophy which must lead to
diversity, yet there is no evidence that non-government schools wish to attract
non-conforming individuals into their communities. Students do not necessarily
encounter much social diversity in schools which enrol only able and healthy
students from middle class families or those who aspire to this status[14].
99.20
A preoccupation with choice plays havoc with
educational planning and cost projections. There is already evidence of
over-supply in some educational 'markets'. This forces up the cost per student.
Since education is compulsory, public schools have a responsibility to maintain
places in principle accessible to any student. But, as the NSW Public Education
Council has asked, how many places must be publicly funded above the minimum
necessary, in order to provide individual parental choice of school? Is every
family entitled to a choice of at least two schools?[15] The committee
agrees with the view expressed in this submission that the notion of unlimited
choice of schools is impractical and unaffordable. It is also an option unavailable to the large
number of families in rural and remote areas where a local government school is
the only practicable 'choice'.
99.21
Finally, choice does not necessarily deliver improved
learning outcomes. As one academic commentator pointed out to the committee,
Government policy has so far promoted the multiplication of schools and an
expansion of places in the expectation of better learning quality outcomes for
disadvantaged students, but there is no evidence that this has occurred. Nor
has the growth of 'markets' in school education appeared to have led to better
targeting of resources to children most in need.[16]
Entitlement
99.22
The same applies to consideration of the concept 'entitlement'.
It is commonly argued that it is because parents are paying such high fees for
education in particular schools that they are entitled to a reward for their
sacrifices. This argument is not new: in the debates on the States Grants
(Schools) Bill 1973 the House of Representatives
was told:
We reject the emotional talk about wealthy schools. If schools
are well off as far as facilities are concerned, it is because the parents have
provided those facilities. We know that many parents who send their children to
private schools are by no means wealthy. But they are prepared to make
sacrifices so that they can send their children to schools which they believe
offer extra opportunities for their children.[17]
99.23
This sentiment is echoed in a number of submissions to
this inquiry. The argument that because individuals pay taxes they are entitled
to a specific benefit has no more plausibility in this instance than the demand
made by an individual for relief from taxation because of a disagreement over
the way the government intends to appropriate revenue. Nonetheless, it is a
view put forward with conviction.
99.24
The consistent policy of Labor in government and in
opposition since 1996 has been that education funding should be allocated on
the basis of need and in pursuit of equity. This was a relatively
straightforward policy when it found expression in the recommendations of the
Karmel report. The policy to modernise the existing school systems through
funding of infrastructure, teacher training and curriculum transformation ran
up against a Coalition policy to expand alternative school options. This was
done for the purpose of creating a new constituency for the Coalition,
sensitive to arguments which play on the notions of choice and entitlement, and
assisted by social developments which have been described in the previous
section
Need
99.25
The state is bound to regard the satisfying of need as
its first priority and, as needs vary in the degree of urgency they present,
governments must direct their energies and resources accordingly.
99.26
All representatives of independent schools were careful
to stress the importance of the need factor, and supported the payment of
additional funds to meet the needs of all schools. Their only stipulation was
that extra funding to address needs should not come from the entitlements that
are due to all students.
Competing under different rules
99.27
The committee takes the view that a perceived relative
impoverishment of public schools, compared to private schools, has been the
main reason for a drift of support from middle class families towards private schooling.
It fears that there is a tendency for the Commonwealth Government to view
public schools as institutions for those families unwilling or unable to make
the 'sacrifice' necessary to educate their children in non-government schools.
The clientele of public schools are regarded rather like families unwilling to
pay for private health insurance: 'freeloaders' on the system, although
fortunately freeloaders on state governments rather than on the Commonwealth.
The Government believes it can afford to wear political opprobrium for its
neglect of public schools because they are not used by its core constituency.
99.28
The Government is unlikely to deny the importance of
public service obligations of public schools because it would be predisposed to
see this as the main reason for maintaining them. They provide the 'safety net'
of schooling. What may not be so obvious to the Government is that marginalised
schools and school systems have a greatly reduced capacity to achieve the
agreed national goals of schooling for the 21st century.
99.29
The objection of the committee to this view of the role
of public schools is that it locks them into expectations of mediocrity. It
belies the diversity of public schools and their record of academic achievement
in all states and territories. It also points to the discriminatory
consequences for public schools when they attempt to compete against
non-government schools for middle class enrolments. Public school principals
have alerted the committee to the fact that non-government schools play under
far more favourable rules, as far as admission policies are concerned, and are
not bound by any obligations apart from those established in common law. It is
argued that is this difference in the operational rules which influences
parental choice as much as funding inequities. As one submission states:
Publicly-funded private schools, by default or by design, can
avoid catering for students from low income families, indigenous Australians,
students with disabilities, students from one-parent families and students
whose families may not profess a religious faith.
The consequence has been to create a public school system which
disproportionately caters for these groups and, in the process, caters for
young people and communities which are marginalized. This situation will be
accentuated if funds to existing 'wealthy' private schools are simply
redistributed to 'low fee' private schools, without any change in the way these
schools operate. It will simply create and advantage more private schools at
the higher end of what is an already uneven playing field.[18]
99.30
The committee received consistent evidence of public
school systems bearing the larger part of the burden of catering for the needs
of disadvantaged students. They are under-resourced for this social obligation
purpose. Over 40 per cent of students in public schools are from low-income
families compared with 27 per cent of Catholic school students and 27 per cent
from other non-government schools. Public schools enrolments of students with
disabilities comprise 4.2 per cent, compared with 2.2 per cent in Catholic
schools and 1.8 per cent in other non-government schools. Other indicators of a
social divide between public schools and other schools relate to indigenous
enrolments: 4.5 per cent in public schools compared with 2.6 per cent in other
schools; with year 12 retention rates being much higher, at 85 per cent in
non-government schools, compared to about 70 per cent in public high schools.[19]
99.31
Barbara Preston
has undertaken a great deal of research on student characteristics and the type
of schools they attend. She has found that students attending public schools
are much more likely to have low family incomes than students attending either
Catholic or other non-government schools. Indigenous students, whatever their
family income level are much more likely to attend public schools. Preston's
research findings are represented in the table below, under which she identifies
the points arising from it.
Proportion of students in Government,
Catholic, other nongovernment and all primary and secondary schools with very
low family incomes, high family incomes, and who are Indigenous,
Australia,
2001
|
|
Government
|
Catholic
|
Other
non-govt
|
All
schools
|
Very low family income (less than
$400/week)
|
|
|
Primary
|
13%
|
7%
|
7%
|
12%
|
Secondary
|
11%
|
6%
|
6%
|
9%
|
High family income (more than $1,500/week)
|
|
|
Primary
|
20%
|
31%
|
41%
|
24%
|
Secondary
|
23%
|
39%
|
52%
|
31%
|
Indigenous students
|
|
|
Primary
|
4.6%
|
1.7%
|
1.5%
|
3.8%
|
Secondary
|
3.8%
|
1.1%
|
0.9%
|
2.5%
|
Source: ABS 2001
Census custom tables
|
This table provides key
data relevant to this inquiry, and indicates that
-
compared with both Catholic and other
nongovernment schools, government schools have almost twice the proportion of
students with very low family incomes (below the level of income of two parent
families on benefits)
-
the proportion of students with high family
incomes in Catholic primary and secondary schools is more than 50 per cent
higher than the proportion in government schools
-
the proportion of students with high family
incomes in other nongovernment primary and secondary schools is more than twice
as high as the proportion in government schools
-
compared with both Catholic and other
nongovernment schools, government schools have around three times the
proportion of Indigenous students[20].
99.32
It is interesting to consider these findings in the
light of evidence given by the Tasmanian Minister for Education that current
funding arrangements to be continued in the new quadrennium provide public
schools with far less Commonwealth funding for indigenous students and students
with disabilities than is provided for non-government schools. In the case of
students with disabilities the funding is about one fifth of that provided for
students in non-government schools.[21]
Walled and unwalled school communities
99.33
The Secondary Principals' Association of NSW argues
that the manner in which non-government schools are permitted to operate in Australia
has resulted in substantial advantages accruing to them, with the effect of
seriously disadvantaging public schools. This situation has occurred because
neither the Commonwealth nor state governments have properly considered the
conditions under which publicly-funded non-government schools should receive
public funds; and the long term effects on public schools of a non-government
school sector operating under what is effectively self-regulation.
99.34
The committee received tabulated evidence of differences in operational practice, requirements
and obligations applying to public and non-government schools. The Secondary
Principals' Association of NSW provided the table below with advice that the
information presented for non-government schools in NSW is incomplete because
of difficulty in obtaining the information. Characteristics of the integrated
school system of New Zealand
are added for comparison.
Regulatory provisions
applying to schools: a comparative table
Feature of school
operation
|
NSW public secondary
schools
|
Systemic schools and
independent schools in NSW
|
New Zealand state
schools, which include govt & integrated schools
|
Enrolling students
|
Must enrol any student,
without a history of violence, living in drawing area
|
Usually no obligation to
enrol.
|
Government schools are
zoned. Integrated Catholic schools cannot enrol more than 5% non-Catholics
|
Suspension of students
|
Must adhere to a strict
policy which includes detailed provisions for procedural fairness
|
Practice varies no
publicly available policies and procedures
|
As for NSW. Both government
and integrated schools follow the same rules.
|
Expulsion of students
|
Only after exhaustive
procedures (above) are followed.
|
Decided by the school board
|
Discrimination on basis
of sexuality, age or disability
|
NSW Anti-Discrimination Act
1977 applies to public schools.
|
Appropriate sections of the
Act do not apply to, or in respect of, a private educational authority
|
Not permitted by
legislation.
|
Appointment of staff
|
By DET according to
state-wide procedures. Limited local selection of executive staff. Schools
can appoint temporary teachers
|
Usually school-based
decision
|
By schools/boards following
interview. Both government and integrated schools follow the same rules.
|
Dismissal of staff
|
Done by the DET after a
lengthy school-based process of review of efficiency
|
By schools/boards following
program. Both government and integrated schools follow the same rules.
|
School uniforms
|
New draft policy in NSW
makes uniforms compulsory .except for anyone who doesnt want to comply.
|
School-based decisions.
|
Both government and
integrated schools follow the same rules. Enforcement has a legal basis.
|
Fees and contributions
|
DET will only support fees
only for elective subjects as long as there are no-cost alternatives.
|
School or system decisions
|
Government and integrated
schools follow the same rules but integrated schools collect additional
attendance dues.
|
Properties and maintenance
|
Some global budget
provision but mainly centrally controlled and organised.
|
Varies, usually
school-organised.
|
Grant for schools includes maintenance, but the property
in integrated schools is owned by the school authority.
|
Note: All but
5% of private schools in New Zealand are fully integrated into the state system
and are regarded as state schools. Under the Private Schools Conditional
Integration Act 1975 any school can apply to become an integrated school and
the state then funds the operation of the school, with the land and buildings
owned by the school authority.
99.35
As the table shows, the operation of non-government
schools is bound by far fewer rules and constraints in comparison with public
schools. The NSW Principals' Association believes that it is this difference in
operational rules and requirements, as much as funding inequities, which
affects the competitive ability of public schools and influences public perceptions
about their relative attractiveness. Publicly-funded non-government schools, by
default or by design, can avoid catering for students from low income families,
indigenous Australians, students with disabilities, students from one-parent
families and students whose families may not profess a religious faith.
99.36
The Association argues that the consequence has been
the creation of a public school system that disproportionately caters for
marginalised and disadvantaged groups. The committee agrees with the view
expressed that this trend will be accentuated if funds to existing wealthy
schools are simply redistributed to 'low fee' non-government schools, unless
there is a change in the way these schools are required to operate. The playing
field will remain uneven until such time as the non-government sector is
obliged to accept some form of 'community service charter', and to accept in
particular their share of responsibility for dealing constructively with
disadvantaged and difficult-to-teach children.
99.37
Public school principals must deal with consequences of
this state of affairs every day. They
work within substantial restrictions on the way they operate, in contrast to
the relatively few restrictions placed on principals of neighbouring
publicly-funded non-government schools. One illustration of this problem is the
frequent ill-disguised 'dumping' of unwanted students from non-government
schools into public schools, often without any evidence of the students having
been accorded procedural fairness and regardless of how many years the parents
of the students paid high fees to those schools. This practice, and its
differential consequences for public schools on the one hand and private
schools on the other, illustrates the lack of fairness in existing frameworks.
99.38
In illustration of the points made in the Principals'
Association's submission and evidence, the committee obtained a small sample of
data collected by the NSW Teachers Federation which provides a sample of the
reasons for movement of students from non-government schools to public schools.
This data is in the table on the next page. It shows the reasons why these
movements took place in the case a several public and private schools. We can
infer from this example that this traffic is considerable.
99.39
Only infrequently is movement the other way, with
non-government schools taking in nonconforming or difficult 'black sheep' from
public schools. The committee emphasises its support for the legal obligations
that currently apply in all states to public schools and school systems. Its
concern is that these same laws and regulations should apply to all schools,
and that the burden of holding up the enrolment safety net should be shared by
all schools.[22]
The committee notes in passing evidence of co-operation between public and
Catholic schools in rural Western Australia
in taking in disruptive students and giving them 'another chance' in a
different school environment. This policy should be more widely practiced.
99.40
The committee notes that this issue has been current for
several years, and while it has resulted in some reconsideration of policy at
the state level, it also requires the attention of the Commonwealth and
MCEETYA. In 2000, former director of the Australian Council for Educational
Research (ACER) and now director of education at the OECD, Dr
Barry McGaw,
urged that non-government schools should be made to provide the same social
cohesion that Australia
values and expects from its public schools. McGaw described most non-government
schools as 'monochrome', established to create a limited social environment
that is at odds with the more inclusive social value system of public schools.
It was too late to roll back the enrolment tide toward non-government schools
and for this reason it was important for the Government to impose conditions on
non-government schools to ensure diversity in their enrolment and an obligation
to serve the wider public good.[23]
|
ENROLMENTS INTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS FROM PRIVATE
SCHOOLS
|
PUBLIC SCHOOL
|
PRIVATE SCHOOL
|
YEAR
|
GRADE
|
REASON GIVEN BY PARENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oxley High, Tamworth
|
Carinya Christian School, Tamworth
|
2004
|
7
|
Unhappy at Carinya
|
Oxley High, Tamworth
|
Carinya Christian School, Tamworth
|
2004
|
8
|
Not stated
|
Oxley High, Tamworth
|
Carinya Christian School, Tamworth
|
2004
|
11
|
Couldn't get subjects
wished to study
|
Oxley High, Tamworth
|
McCarthy Catholic College, Tamworth
|
2004
|
8
|
Expelled
|
Oxley High, Tamworth
|
McCarthy Catholic College, Tamworth
|
2004
|
8
|
Expelled
|
Oxley High, Tamworth
|
McCarthy Catholic College, Tamworth
|
2004
|
9
|
Asked to leave
|
Oxley High, Tamworth
|
McCarthy Catholic College, Tamworth
|
2004
|
9
|
Asked to leave
|
Oxley High, Tamworth
|
Toowoomba
Grammar, Queensland
|
2004
|
10
|
Being bullied and school
did not act.
|
Robert Townson Public
School
|
St
Peters Anglican School, Campbelltown
|
2001
|
1
|
Child has autism. Parents were 'encouraged' to transfer
to public system - told by St Peters that public system has the necessary resources
|
Cronulla High
|
Trinity Grammar
School
|
2003
|
10
|
Expelled from Trinity after
3 warnings for misbehaviour
|
Cronulla High
|
Scots College
|
2004
|
12
|
Expelled from Scots after 3
incidents of misbehaviour
|
Riverside Girls High
|
Ascham
|
2004
|
9
|
Expulsion for bullying and
harassment
|
Riverside Girls High
|
Loreto Normanhurst
|
2004
|
9
|
Couldn't afford fees any
longer
|
Riverside Girls High
|
MLC Burwood
|
2003
|
8
|
MLC refused to accelerate
her academically, which Riverside
would do
|
Riverside Girls High
|
Marist Brothers Dundas
|
2004
|
9
|
Harassed at previous school
|
Riverside Girls High
|
St Scholastica's, Glebe
|
2002
|
7
|
Enrolled with sister in
Year 11 when St Scholastica's threw out 4 girls at end of Year 10
|
Riverside Girls High
|
St Scholastica's, Glebe
|
2002
|
11
|
Told to leave
|
Riverside Girls High
|
St Scholastica's, Glebe
|
2002
|
11
|
Told to leave
|
Riverside Girls High
|
St Scholastica's, Glebe
|
2002
|
11
|
Asked to leave
|
Riverside Girls High
|
St Scholastica's, Glebe
|
2002
|
11
|
Subject choice
|
Riverside Girls High
|
Marist Sisters, Woolwich
|
2002
|
11
|
Could no longer afford fees
|
Riverside Girls High
|
Marist Sisters, Woolwich
|
2004
|
11
|
Riverside HSC results
better
|
Riverside Girls High
|
Rudolf Steiner, Dural
|
2002
|
10
|
School didn't offer
accredited HSC
|
Riverside Girls High
|
New England Girls Grammar, Armidale
|
2002
|
10
|
Expelled for stealing
|
Conclusion
99.41
The committee believes that targeted and judicious
reform is necessary in the school sector in order to permanently put to rest
the running controversy over schools funding that has continued with varying
degrees of intensity over the past forty years. The dispute has always been
over the allocation of funding, but the underlying problem is a failure to
address the basic issue of the twin obligations of the state to educate its
citizens and to maximise the efficiency of public investment to suit the needs
of the whole community. Acceptance of Commonwealth funding requires the
acceptance in turn of multiple responsibilities which go toward the building of
a cohesive society rather than one which is characterised by exclusiveness and
fragmentation. A reorientation of the policies affecting the school system is
necessary to address this challenge. A much higher priority must be accorded to
requirements for accountability and transparency in return for public
investment. The attainment of the national goals for schooling, in particular
the central goal of equity of outcomes, is not possible until the inequities
inherent in the current Commonwealth funding regime are reversed.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the
Howard Government should accept responsibility for resolving the divisiveness
its school funding decisions have generated, and that the Commonwealth should
demonstrate leadership in developing a new national consensus on school
funding, with a renewed focus on equity and a determination to raise the
quality of education in schools that are poorly resourced to deal with
under-achieving students.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the
Australian Government accepts its responsibility for the support of high
quality public school systems as a national priority, including the endorsement
of the MCEETYA principles for schools resourcing.