Chapter 2 Feedback from school communities
2.1
Stakeholders from government schools, advocates for educationally
disadvantaged students and their families, unions, parents groups, young people
and teacher-educators expressed strong support for the principles underlying
the Bill. However, concerns were expressed, primarily by the non-government
school sector, about future funding arrangements and the retention of school
autonomy.[1]
2.2
The Bill is broad in its scope and is a preliminary legislative step in
bringing about reform to Australia’s system of education. A recurring theme in
feedback from a broad range of school communities was that the Bill lacked
detail.[2] Much of the feedback from
school communities raised issues beyond the current contents of the Bill and
thus beyond the scope of this inquiry.
2.3
This chapter focuses on feedback from school communities that specifically
relates to the text of the Bill and not the broader issues surrounding
education. The specific concerns raised refer to three distinct areas of the
Bill.
2.4
The first area of concern related to the goals of education reform as
provided in the objectives of the Bill at clause 3. Second, school communities raised
concerns about the content and method of developing the National Plan for
School Improvement (the National Plan). Third, school communities expressed opinions
about the system of funding foreshadowed under the Bill. The three areas are addressed
below.
Future of education reform and objectives of the Bill
2.5
Professor Richard Teese, Director at the Centre for Research on
Education Systems, reflected the position of many stakeholders:
I see the bill as a big opportunity for us to go forward. The
chief virtues of the bill are the flexible nature of the funding model and its
adaptability to local circumstances, because we must ensure that wherever a
school is found in Australia it is operating at the highest possible standard
and is well provided for in terms of its physical stock, its staffing, its
curriculum and its accessibility. I think the model does that. It is not a one
size fits all. In fact, it is actually the opposite. It is actually an approach
to funding that says, ‘We know you are different, so here is the way we adjust
for that difference’ It is not going to solve everything, but it is a very
significant move. … [It] is fundamental that we pass this bill, because there
are other very serious tasks that lie in front of us... [3]
2.6
School communities offered feedback on the proposed future direction of
education reform specifically in relation to the preamble, as well as the objectives
of the Bill.
Preamble
2.7
Some stakeholders called for minor amendments to the preamble of the
Bill. Proposed amendments included:
- reference to the
Melbourne Declaration;
- specific reference to
a variety of international convention;, and
- recognising the role
of parents.
Melbourne Declaration of 2008
2.8
Some stakeholders called for the Bill to be amended to better reflect,
or directly incorporate the educational outcomes captured by the Melbourne
Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (the Melbourne
Declaration). In 2008, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
Training and Youth Affairs agreed to the Melbourne Declaration which set out a
range of skills, knowledge and capabilities considered a priority for the
development of Australian students, including:
- becoming successful
learners: literacy and numeracy, technology skills, logical thinking, problem
solving skills, collaboration and communication;
- becoming confident
and creative individuals: innovation, optimism, entrepreneurship and creativity;
and
- becoming active and
informed citizens: ethical integrity, civics and citizenship.[4]
2.9
Organisations supporting greater inclusion of the Declaration in the
Preamble argued that the Melbourne Declaration provides a much broader and more
holistic perspective on the goal of education. These stakeholders included:
- Australian Secondary
Principals Association (ASPA); [5]
- The Smith Family;[6]
- Steiner Education
Australia;[7]
- Foundation for Young
Australians;[8]
and
- Independent Education
Union;[9]
2.10
An alternative recommendation made by other stakeholders suggested the
inclusion of the Melbourne Declaration in the text of the Bill at clause 3.[10]
Committee comment
2.11
Reference to the Melbourne Declaration could alleviate some of the
concerns in school communities. As considered below, some stakeholders
expressed concern about the Bill’s stated goal of Australia becoming one of the
top five countries by 2025, noting that the focus on literacy, numeracy and
science within these international testing arrangements could forsake other
important areas of the curriculum.[11]
2.12
The breadth of these goals for education reflects the expanding
understanding internationally of what students require in the 21st
century.
2.13
Specific reference to the Melbourne Declaration, and its recognition of
the importance of a broader range of skills, knowledge and capabilities, may
alleviate some of these community concerns.
Recommendation 1 |
|
The Committee recommends that the Preamble of the Australian
Education Bill 2012 be amended to include the educational outcomes as agreed
in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians 2008. |
International conventions
2.14
Some stakeholders suggested that the Preamble be amended to make
specific reference to relevant international conventions, for example:
- International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;[12]
- Convention on the
Rights of the Child;[13]
and
- Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disability.[14]
2.15
In accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act
2011, the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum included a statement of
compatibility with human rights. In this statement, the following international
agreements are specifically referred to:
- International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
- Convention on the
Rights of the Child;
- Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities;
- International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
- Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and
- Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
Committee comment
2.16
The legal status of a Preamble, is similar to that of Explanatory
Memorandum: no legal rights are created, and both documents are used in the
interpretation of the legislation in an Australian court.[15]
2.17
Calls for reference to certain international conventions within the
Preamble of the Bill would add no additional force to the rights and
obligations specified in the multilateral conventions referred to in the Bill’s
Explanatory Memorandum.
2.18
The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights attached to the Bill,
and as required under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011,
is sufficient in this regard.
Role of parents
2.19
A number of organisations raised concerns that the role of parents was
not specifically acknowledged in the Bill.[16] For example, the
Australian Parents Council (APC) stated:
The lack of acknowledgement of the parent engagement
imperative for school reform in the Australian Education Bill is therefore very
disappointing. Simply lumping parents in with the ‘broader community’ (Preamble,
Section 1, Lines 23-25) and absorbing parents into the category of ‘other partners’
(Preamble, Section 1, Line 28) is grossly insufficient.[17]
2.20
Mrs Caz Bosh, President of the APC elaborated on the central role of
parents:
parents are different from the community in that they have a
much more central role; they have a partnership role. There is no wording in
that bill as it stands that recognises the special place of parents. The way I
think about it is as a concentric circle. When we talk about having students at
the centre—this bill purports to put students’ needs at the centre—you would
have students at the centre, parents in the next layer, schools in the one
after that, and community in the one after that.[18]
2.21
APC therefore recommended the following amendment to the Preamble
(proposed amended text underlined):
It is essential that Australian schooling be of a high
quality, be highly equitable and work in partnership with families and
communities in order to create a highly skilled and successful workforce,
strengthen the economy and increase productivity, leading to greater prosperity
for all.
… the Australian Government will recognise the role of the
Governments of the States and Territories, non-government education
authorities, parents, other partners and schools in delivering school
education, and work with them to support and lift the performance of schools
and school students.[19]
Committee comment
2.22
Parents play a vital role in achieving educational outcomes, and are
important partners in Australian schools. The Preamble should be amended to
acknowledge this partnership.
Recommendation 2 |
|
The Committee recommends that the Australian Education Bill
be amended to give specific reference to parents in the Preamble of the Bill in
recognition of the integral role parents play in the attainment of excellent
educational outcomes for all Australian students. |
Objectives of Bill
2.23
School communities provided significant feedback on the goals of high
quality and high equity in Australian education as well as becoming one of the
top five countries in reading, mathematics and science by 2025.
A ‘highly equitable’ education system
2.24
The Bill states a key goal for reform is to make Australian schooling
‘highly equitable’. The Australian Council of State School Organisations, the
peak national body for the parents of children at government schools commented:
The Australian Education Bill will be the test of Australia's
resolve on equity. ... We have a unique opportunity this year to make a
difference, particularly to the futures of low-income and other disadvantaged
students, to set a path to a fairer society and to boost economic prosperity.
Regardless of whether you are a parent of a public school
student or a private school student, the inequities of the Australian education
system are now clearly visible, not only in the outcomes of the students but in
the resourcing provided to their respective systems. An individual need only
drive through their own neighbourhood in order to observe the differences in
physical resources such as ground maintenance, age and condition of buildings,
sporting fields, libraries, technologies and so on.[20]
2.25
Some stakeholders called for the inclusion of a definition of ‘highly
equitable’ within the Bill[21] and recommended the
definition as provided by the Gonski Review.[22] The Gonski Review’s
definition stated:
equity in education [is] ensuring that differences in
educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power
or possession.[23]
2.26
The Australian College of Educators argued that addressing inequity is
‘so vital that it deserves a section of the Bill to itself’.[24]
Committee comment
2.27
Clause 3(b) sets the first objective of Australian schooling to provide
an excellent education for school students and then provides that this standard
be available on a highly equitable basis. The Bill provides for a satisfactory
presentation of the objectives of Australian schooling in its current form.
2.28
The term ‘highly equitable’ should be defined in the Bill with reference
to the definition used by the Gonski Review, namely:
equity in education [is] ensuring that differences in
educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power
or possession.[25]
Recommendation 3 |
|
The Committee recommends the following definition of ‘highly
equitable’ be inserted into clause 4 of the Australian Education Bill:
highly equitable means
differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in
wealth, income, power or possession. |
An ‘excellent education’ and the top five by 2025 goal
2.29
Some stakeholders expressed concerns about the Bill’s stated goal of
Australia becoming one of the top five countries by 2025, commenting that this
goal might constrict achievement in other areas of the curriculum.[26]
For example, the Australian Primary Principals Association (APPA) was concerned
that the goal privileges reading, mathematics and science over other subjects
that it argues are equally important such as those that develop a student’s
creativity such as the visual arts, music and drama.[27]
2.30
APPA also cautioned about pursuing the 2025 goal:
This goal will focus Australia’s attention on aspects of
curriculum which may well not be viewed as important by international testing
authorities in 2025.[28]
2.31
In recent years the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) has considered the merits of a broader knowledge base and
the importance of skills such as creativity, critical thinking, communication
and collaboration; and character related traits in both moral and performance
domains.[29]
2.32
This concern also exists among many young Australians. The Foundation of
Young Australians (FYA) recently conducted a study of students aged 13 to 18
and found that students believed their education is not preparing them for
their future.[30] The study found that
students also believe that education is too focussed on exam results, without
demonstrating the relevance of what they learn.[31]
2.33
Consequently, FYA is concerned that the focus on reading, mathematics
and science would not prepare students for the 21st century
environment:
Given the broad range of skills recognised elsewhere in
education policy, this goal provides a remarkably narrow concept of an
‘excellent’ education. It also ignores the global movement towards the use of a
broader range of indicators to measure educational success.[32]
2.34
The Australian College of Educators also commented on the 2025 goal:
A goal for education reform should not be based on some form
of international ranking but on what constitutes a quality education for all
Australians if we are to continue to be an open, democratic and informed
society and to earn our living in a competitive world.[33]
2.35
P&C Federation NSW noted:
Whilst a government has a right to be global in their vision
the prescriptive ambition identified in this objective seems contrary to the
broad language in the rest of the Bill. The subjective nature of “excellence”
means that Australian schooling may indeed realise object 3(b)(i&ii)
[equity and excellence] without ever realising object 3(b)(iii) [the 2025 goal].[34]
2.36
DEEWR responded to these concerns:
There is no way around the fact that literacy and numeracy
are the fundamental basics for any student in a school so, while I can
appreciate feedback that says there is more to education than just reading and
writing … reading, mathematics and science are fundamental building blocks for
all children ...
We know you can learn reading and writing and science through
things like art. We know you can learn it through things like civics and
citizenship, or citizenship education, and so we will still be encouraging that
through the national curriculum. But, to give us a benchmark or give us
milestones in terms of improving our literacy and numeracy, we think this is
fundamentally, as I said, the building block for what all students need to be
successful.[35]
Committee comment
2.37
The Committee acknowledges and supports the 2025 goals focus on reading,
science and mathematics. However, it is important to note the significant
degree of community concern regarding the need to retain broader understandings
of the goals of education.
2.38
The Recommendation to incorporate the holistic goals articulated in the
Melbourne Declaration into the Bill is a response to this concern. This
action impels us to the view that, in addition to vital numeracy and literacy
skill development and testing, there be a range of evidence seeking instruments,
located or developed to ensure that the broader and holistic Education Goals
for Young Australians 2008, are also assessed and responded on in transparent
and an easily accessible forms that contain meaningful data.
2.39
This meets parent, community and professional expectations and concerns
raised in the course of the inquiry.
Recommendation 4 |
|
The Committee recommends in order to meet professional,
parent and community concerns that in addition to vital numeracy and literacy
skill development, testing and reporting that there be a range of evidence
seeking instruments located or developed to ensure that the broader, holistic
Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians 2008 are
also assessed and reported on in transparent and easily accessible forms that
contain meaningful data. |
The National Plan for School Improvement
2.40
The Gonski Review recommended the development of a national plan with five
reform directions as being the greatest priorities for reform.[36]
The five reform directions to be included in the National Plan are:
- quality teaching;
- quality learning;
- empowered school leadership;
- transparency and
accountability; and
- meeting student need.[37]
2.41
The South Australian Department for Education and Child Development endorsed
the top five reform priorities as specified in the Bill:
These reform directions are consistent with the requirements
for quality education that our own experience backed by international evidence
shows us are essential for the success of our children and young people as
individuals, citizens and contributors to the economy.[38]
2.42
DEEWR advised of the support of these reform directions in the Council
of Australian Governments (COAG):
Those five reform elements have not been disagreed or argued against
by anyone. They were noted by COAG. And so there really is no disagreement
anywhere that those five areas are areas that are not important.[39]
Quality teaching and quality learning
2.43
‘Quality teaching’ and ‘quality learning’ are two distinct reform directions
under the Bill. Stakeholders considered these reform directions as
complementary measures – there is a clear nexus between teaching and learning.
2.44
Reaching the goal of quality learning relies on teachers who have
well-grounded confidence and sound professional judgement in order to make
well-informed decisions about how to tailor teaching to their students on an
individual and collective level.
2.45
Dr Nicole Mockler, a teacher educator, commented on what ‘quality teaching’
should look like:
The provision of teaching of a high quality to all students
is not merely a question of skill acquisition for teachers. Good teaching is
highly contextual and responsive to local needs, and based upon the exercise of
well-honed and finely tuned professional judgement on the part of teachers. The
development of teacher professional judgement and of teachers who are confident
in their own judgement needs to be at the centre of professional learning
endeavours.[40]
Quality teaching is at least as much about teachers’
dispositions and the quality of their relationships with their students as it
is about a bundle of skills and competencies that might be expressed in
‘rigorous professional standards’ and packaged as ‘best practice’. [41]
2.46
Valuing teacher professional judgement and professional autonomy make it
possible for teachers to design appropriate learning experiences for their
students. Stakeholders commented that creating an education system to which
Australia aspires relies upon an approach that understands the complexity of
teaching, values professional judgement and extends the level of trust and
professional autonomy to teachers.[42]
Empowering school leaders
2.47
AHISA noted the commitment to empowering school leaders was an on-going
and increasing trend throughout the states and territories.[43]
2.48
DEEWR explained the anticipated detail of this reform direction:
The bill will not necessarily list every single item of what [empowered
school leadership] may be, but again it picks up on … quite [a] differential
across states and territories, we would work with states and territories—as we
have through the National Partnership Agreement on Empowering Local Schools—to
identify exactly what they will be doing to support that. ... But certainly it
is about selection of staff, greater management of budget, moving away from
having tied budget lines—which sometimes happen in states and territories,
which tell schools, ‘You must spend your money on this’—and giving that
autonomy back to the principal to make a decision as to how to best spend that
money. They are the sorts of things that this would be addressing.[44]
2.49
School communities endorsed the need for empowered school leaders and
advocated that the focus when driving this reform should remain on improving
student learning outcomes such as curriculum implementation, pedagogy,
assessment, staffing and school improvement planning.[45]
2.50
ASPA commented:
Empowered leadership is about more than a set of skills ...
School leaders will be empowered when they have had access to high quality training,
ongoing professional learning and appropriate support.[46]
2.51
AHISA commented on what ‘empowered leadership’ in independent schools
includes:
Empowered leadership in the independent sector embraces a
wider understanding of school autonomy than the freedom to select staff or
manage budgets, and includes the operational autonomy to positively shape and
lead the educational, pastoral, community, financial, spiritual, cultural and
managerial practices in schools.[47]
2.52
Some stakeholders questioned the effectiveness of increased school
autonomy in achieving better educational outcomes. The Australian Education
Union stated that there is a:
… lack of clear-cut evidence that local management/greater
‘autonomy’ over issues such as school governance, workforce, infrastructure and
funding leads to direct or predictable improvements in student learning and
outcomes. [While] overall there is no clear relationship between the degree of
autonomy in allocating resources and a school system’s overall performance, … school
autonomy over design of curricula and assessment is a key characteristic of
successful school systems.[48]
2.53
Professor Teese cautioned that the issue of autonomy can be
‘overplayed’:
autonomy is useless without resource flexibility. Whether we
are talking government or non-government is irrelevant. The issue is: what is
the margin of freedom of action in a school? It is for that reason that [financial]
resources are absolutely critical.[49]
2.54
And APPA suggested that:
It is becoming increasingly apparent that a significant
element of school leadership is ‘community leadership’ … the principal must not
lead a school in isolation.[50]
Transparency and accountability
2.55
Stakeholder consideration of the proposed transparency and
accountability reform direction, focused on the efficacy of current
accountability and transparency measures: matters which are to one side of the
current Bill.
2.56
APPA reflected a common sentiment:
there is a national challenge to use the school and system
data on student performance far more effectively than is currently the case.
Using NAPLAN results in ways for which they are not designed and thereby
raising the status of NAPLAN to high stakes testing does not benefit students,
schools or school communities and will do little to improve student achievement.[51]
2.57
However, APPA also noted:
the use of local data in context on individual school
websites and other school community media provide real transparency in regard
to school operations.[52]
2.58
Dr Mockler commented that a balance needs to be struck here:
which satisfies reasonable accountability desires while not
undermining the social trust required for teachers and schools to educate young
Australians to the best of their abilities.[53]
2.59
Finding a balance was central to the discussion, as was the developing more
‘meaningful’ data for parents and the broader community.[54]
Meeting student need
2.60
Children with Disability Australia commented on the complexity of
meeting student need in schools:
To achieve in this reform direction, schools will need a
fundamental capacity to identify and plan for individual student need, as well
as to deliver high quality education. This reform direction needs to better
describe the elements required to identify and meet student needs at the
system, school and student levels. One such element here is the identification
and use of good practice in inclusive education. Another is the development of
pathways for students from early intervention programs into school, the
transition from primary to secondary school, and from school to further
education or vocational options.[55]
2.61
APPA stated that ‘student need’ should be broadly defined in the Bill to
include both wellbeing and learning, whilst also acknowledging the challenges
that primary schools currently face in delivering mental health services or
social welfare to its student body.[56]
2.62
Some stakeholders urged an amendment to the order by which the reform
directions are listed in the Bill, arguing that ‘meeting student need’ should
be prioritised ahead of the other four reform directions.[57]
Consultation in the development of the National Plan
2.63
Stakeholders maintained the importance of appropriate consultation in
the development of the National Plan.[58] The Bill provides for
consultation with state and territory governments as well as non-government
education authorities in the development of the National Plan. However, the
Independent Schools Council of Australia noted that any agreement to implement
the National Plan will have to be agreed by individual schools, and not the
representative bodies that are involved in current negotiations.[59]
2.64
Other stakeholder organisations advocated that the Bill require broader
consultation in the development of the National Plan, particularly with young
Australians.[60]
2.65
As stakeholder consultation is a prerequisite to successful reform, it
is anticipated that the Government will continue to consult and be receptive to
stakeholder feedback.
Balancing national consistency with schools’ diversity
2.66
While there was broad, overall support for the development of a
nationally consistent plan to improve schooling, [61]
school communities expressed concern that the plan must be sufficiently
flexible to allow for diversity.[62] Though supporting the
development of a National Plan, Independent Schools Queensland argued:
it is imperative that any such Plan must reflect the
diversity of schooling provision and the different approaches taken by
individual independent schools in response to community demands. There must not
be a systemic approach or a “one-size-fits-all” model for school improvement
plans. Any such approaches would have a significant negative impact on the
provision of choice and diversity in schooling.[63]
2.67
Similarly, Independent Schools Council of Australia commented:
Independent schools would advocate for greater flexibility
around school improvement strategies in order to recognise the unique
characteristics of each school and the needs of their school community.[64]
2.68
Australian Heads of Independent Schools Australia (AHISA) echoed these
sentiments:
AHISA regards it as important that the desirability of the
adoption of any nationally imposed strategy or target does not outweigh the
consideration that schools will have differentiated capacity to meet any such
targets, including the level of resources. It is important that means are put
in place to assist schools with less resource capacity, and that a punitive
approach is not adopted where schools have less capacity to address policy
priorities. [65]
Committee comment
2.69
The Committee received much evidence that went to the detail of the
reform directions that will be detailed in the National Plan.[66]
It is important to note that the clauses in the Bill enable the Commonwealth
Government to develop a Plan, but the text of these clauses does not form the
National Plan; the Bill, if passed, merely provides for the development of such
a Plan. At the time of writing, the National Plan is still being negotiated
with state and territory governments and non-government education authorities.
2.70
The five stated reform directions are the top priorities of education
reform for Australian schooling. These directions are widely supported by
governments, public and non-government education authorities and their
representatives, parents, and the broader community.
School funding
2.71
The Gonski Review proposed a change to the structure of school funding
as well as increased investment in education.
2.72
The Australian Education Union commented:
if we want to ensure that every child achieves his or her
full potential, we need a new funding system—not a funding system that is blind
to the real needs of students but a funding system that delivers funding in a
way that addresses disadvantage. The current funding arrangements we believe
are inadequate and indeed the research shows is broken and failing our kids. We
need a new funding system that better targets our resources.[67]
2.73
DEEWR commented on the link between increased investment and improved
educational outcomes:
The question about additional investment is always a question
about how you actually spend the investment that you get. … We have evidence
that across a range of countries where they have additional investment targeted
in to particular areas, that has made a difference [to educational outcomes].[68]
2.74
Ms Jane Caro, an author and public commentator, also strongly supported
increased investment in education:
Australia, of all countries, is at a point where it has got
to make a decision. Are we going to invest in, improve and really put energy,
effort and commitment into our public education system or are we going to
become the first democracy to allow it to become a residualised welfare system
of last resort for the poor? This feels like the point at which we are making
that decision.[69]
2.75
Ms Therese Temby, Chair of the National Catholic Education Commission
commented:
Section 9, the section on school funding, from our point of
view needs to be strengthened to ensure that a national approach to school funding
is legislated. The bill should specify the legislative arrangements, including
the funding formula that will generate Commonwealth funding for Catholic and
other non-government schools in school systems. We also think section 9 should
be amended to include a new subsection—that systems will allocate funding based
on system-defined criteria that are better able to recognise and respond to
school and student needs. While we have been assured in discussions that
systems will be able to distribute funding on the basis of a local school based
need, section 9 is the place to ensure that system distribution of government
funding is protected into the future. In our last recommendation, we suggest
that section 9 has a statement that the state and territory governments will
contribute funding to government schools and to non-government systems in
schools.[70]
2.76
Ms Caro described the current complexity of schools funding and how a
new, clearer system would benefit public accountability:
the way we fund public and private education in this country
is really a dark art. It is so obscure, obtuse and hard to understand, and so
not transparent, and so complicated. ... The public are left confused, because
they cannot understand it. … [The Gonksi funding model] makes it understandable.
It makes it easy to understand why the money is going where it is going, how
much money is going where, and why it is going there. It makes sense, you can
make an argument, you can understand it. To my mind, that is what good policy
is. It ought to be understandable by someone like me, who is just an ordinary
citizen, without too much trouble. If it is not, then we need to work at it to
make it more understandable—particularly about something as important as the
future of our children.[71]
2.77
Professor Teese also commented on the benefits of a simplified, national
funding system:
What we expect to do with the bill is to create a framework
for wherever you go to school in this country and whatever the conditions that
you are faced with. …. We need a national approach to funding which says: ‘From
now on, we’re not worried about who you are or where you live. This is what you’re
going to get, and that’s going to free your teacher to relate well to you.[72]
2.78
The new funding system, as outlined in the Bill and foreshadowed in the
Government’s response to the Gonski Review, would add much needed clarity to
the public funding of Australian schools.
Loadings to address educational disadvantage
2.79
The Australian Education Union strongly supported the proposed system of
loadings to address educational disadvantage funding system foreshadowed in the
Bill. The Union commented on the responsibility carried by public schools to
address educational disadvantage:
public schools which educate two thirds of our students and
the majority of children from disadvantaged and high-needs backgrounds. Public
schools educate 80% of students in lowest quartile of socio-economic
disadvantage; 85% of Indigenous students; 78% of students with a funded
disability; 83% of students in remote/very remote areas; and the majority of
students with English language difficulties, for example over 90% of students
in the ESL New Arrivals Program.[73]
2.80
ASPA commented on the effect that a loadings system will have on
schools’ ability to address education disadvantage:
there is no doubt that being provided extra dollars—in terms
of resource together with the empowered notion of leadership, to bring in some
of those services that in the past have been difficult to access because you
are looking at either a user-pays service or you are looking at an
intergovernment-agency agreement approach; certainly the flexibility that will
[be] provided to engage different models of solving local problems—will be a
huge advantage. We would certainly support that notion.[74]
2.81
Addressing areas of educational disadvantage as well as improving
overall achievement across the board, requires appropriate levels of resourcing
in Australian schools and targeting resources to where they are most needed. Stakeholders
focused on two of the educational disadvantages specified under the Bill:
disability and school location.
Students living with a disability
2.82
The Australian Federation for Disability Organisations (AFDO) stated
that students with disability and their families are ‘not welcomed routinely
into schools in the public, independent or religious school systems’.[75]
2.83
Achieving equity and excellence in education was passionately argued by organisations
who engage with students living with a disability. For example, the Australian
Special Education Principals Association advocated:
that through support with targeted resources aligned to
individual need, Australian students with disability can achieve high
educational outcomes, which enable their participation in a diverse, skilled
workforce.[76]
2.84
AFDO advocated for a schooling system where:
All schools receiving Government funding should be education
ready for the inclusion of children with disability. This includes full
accessibility of all infrastructure, teacher training to ensure teachers teach
for all children and creating a school environment that welcomes children with
disability, including participation in extra-curricula activities and school
community social events. [77]
2.85
AFDO argued that when calculating the loading, resourcing be directed
but not limited to physical, technological, digital and social support
mechanisms.[78] Consequently, AFDO argued
that government funding should be extended to infrastructure costs in addition
to a loading.[79]
2.86
The National Policy Officer for AFDO, Mr Stephen Gianni, commented that
educational outcomes achieved by students with disabilities are directly linked
to levels of funding.[80]
2.87
The Deputy Chair of the National Independent Special Schools
Association, Ms Kerrie Nelson, discussed how a loadings system will affect the
current special-schools landscape:
I would hope that out of this bill, given that there might be
an increase—particularly in some states, where the level of funding for
students with disabilities in independent schools is very, very low—we would
grow some more choice in schooling for kids with disabilities and perhaps see
that there are opportunities for independent special schools to become more
viable in other states, as well as to support the viability of schools here in
New South Wales. I know that in my school, for example, my waiting list is well
over 400 students. There is an enormous demand because it is a disability-specific
school with a transition focus. There is an enormous demand for choice in
schooling.[81]
2.88
Ms Nelson also described the benefits of a transitional-focus (between
special schools and mainstream schools) to education for students with a
disability, commenting that the flexibility and transferability of the
disability loading will foster greater educational achievement by these
students.[82]
Committee comment
2.89
Every child with disability should be provided with an excellent education
where they have the opportunity to realise their full potential. The concerns
raised by representative organisations are significant.
2.90
DEEWR released its Review of Disability Standards for Education in June 2012.[83]
Location and size of schools
2.91
Proposed loadings to address the educational disadvantages associated
with the location and size of a student’s school were generally applauded by
school communities.[84] The Isolated Children’s
Parents’ Association NSW, supported reforming the loadings system to address
educational disadvantage caused by distance and remoteness:
It is therefore extremely important to the future of rural
and remote communities that the funding models for rural schools and boarding
schools are structured and quantified so as to allow rural and remote students to
achieve their potential in learning. In order to do so, funding will need to be
sufficiently targeted so as not just to maintain the status quo, but to
actively reduce the currently entrenched disparity in educational outcomes due
to location of school which remain despite the considerable efforts of school
teachers and administrators.[85]
2.92
However, the applicability of the loading to students attending schools
providing distance education was queried by some stakeholders. [86]
For example, the Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association Qld commented on the
nature of distance education and its unique challenges:
the cost of educating a child studying via a School of
Distance Education is greater than that required to educate a student in a
mainstream school due to the method of delivery of the curriculum and the
unique needs of geographically isolated children. It is therefore imperative
that distance education is seen as a specialised service and financed
accordingly.
Due to the geographic isolation of many of their students, it
is a requirement that Schools of Distance Education in Queensland offer face to
face contact through mini-schools, activity days, field services and an annual
camp. The cost of schools delivering these services in isolated locations is significant
and requires extensive staffing and resourcing.[87]
2.93
The national Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association (ICPA) also commented
on the costs of distance education:
While provision has been made for disadvantage associated
with distance through the location loading, our concerns remain around the lack
of equity being granted by government to distance education families and
students. The delivery costs of distance education must be comprehensively
accounted for in all facets of this mode of education, including greater
individual financial support for families who play a significant role in the
delivery of distance education to their children.[88]
2.94
The ICPA explained that the additional costs of educating students via
distance, commenting that unique costs are borne both by the school and by
parents. The school faces additional expenses when providing schooling via
distance including
- basic costs such as
printing and mailing out materials and resources to students;
- the need for physical
equipment and resources at the school of distance education site so that
appropriate facilities are in place for when the students come together at the
school; and
- the ability to
provide free daily contact with the school via internet and/or phone.[89]
2.95
The parents of students of distance education are also bearing greater
costs according to the ICPA. The Federal President of the ICPA, Mrs Judy Newton
commented:
With greater demands being placed on families and the need
for the home tutor to be present to supervise, assist and ensure that daily
schoolwork is completed, it is vital that the role of the distance education
home tutor is recognised. This role takes a tutor—often the mother—out of paid
employment and away from other commitments to business and family and may
necessitate employment of additional staff to fill the created void. [90]
2.96
The Bill does provide for a loading for the location of a school,
however as stated above, there is ambiguity about the applicability of this
loading to distance education schools. Ms Newton commented on this ambiguity:
Where we usually run into a problem is that the
administrative hub of the distance education centre may be in a large regional
centre, whereas these children are beyond that. Our understanding is that the
loading factor would not actually come into play there.[91]
Committee comment
2.97
As noted earlier in this Report, parents play a vital partnership role
in the achievement of excellence in schooling. The contributions of parents are
all the more important for students of distance schooling given their unique
role in facilitating much of their child’s learning, and absorbing many of
these costs personally.
2.98
The Bill outlines a shift in focus from funding the costs of schooling
to the costs of educating school students. This shift was a core recommendation
of the Gonski Review. The Prime Minister noted that, ‘The bill provides for a
new funding standard, based on what it costs to educate a student at schools.’[92]
2.99
The Committee notes the concerns raised by distance education providers
and the parents of students attending these schools. Though the educational
disadvantage presented by distance education may be reduced through investments
in better telecommunications such as the National Broadband Network, these
types of investments will not solely address the disadvantage.
2.100
Additional funding to schools providing distance education could allow
them to provide greater support to students’ families.
2.101
The proposed system of loadings to address education disadvantage is
a key element in this shift and the new funding model envisioned by the Bill
should acknowledge that the specific factors of distance education are taken
into account.
Broader funding concerns
2.102
A repeated concern among stakeholders was the uncertainty of proposed the
system of school funding.[93] At the time of writing, the
funding formula for schools is still under negotiation through COAG processes.
2.103
The Bill operates in a broader context of school funding agreements and
the future direction of education in Australia. The Explanatory Memorandum states
that the Bill will be subject to future amendments once funding agreements are
reached with stakeholders. This was confirmed in the DEEWR’s submission,[94]
as well as at its appearance before the Committee on two separate occasions.[95]
DEEWR noted that this process:
allows the Government to set the broad framework, while
continuing to negotiate on the detail of the funding model and associated
reform.[96]
2.104
It is understandable that stakeholders held concerns about the content
and timing of these amendments and these broader concerns have formed part of
the inquiry’s public record. DEEWR indicated that these broader concerns were
informing current negotiations and future proposed amendments.[97]
2.105
Another concern was the uncertainty for schools regarding the expiration
of current funding agreements (expiring at the end of the current calendar
year) and the amount of funding these schools can expect in 2014.[98]
2.106
The Prime Minister has committed that no school will be worse off under
the new funding system. This commitment provides schools with the certainty
that they can budget for the 2014 academic year with the knowledge that they
will receive an equal or higher amount of funding from the Commonwealth
Government in the 2014 academic year as what they received in the 2013 academic
year.[99]
2.107
Despite some stakeholders describing the proximity to funding agreements’
expiry as ‘unprecedented’,[100] DEEWR clarified that
the Commonwealth has previously reached funding agreements with other
jurisdictions in the preceding months prior to the commencement of the unfunded
academic year:
we have to remember that in some of the past quadrenniums
legislation has been passed by the parliament in December for the following
year. [If] you look at past quadrenniums, particularly over the last 12 years,
most legislation has been passed by the parliament late in the year before it
is actually introduced.[101]
Committee comment
2.108
Australia is unique in the OECD in having an education system where all
schools receive government funding, whether government, Catholic or independent.
Australia is also distinct in having high levels of choice between schools and
between sectors.
2.109
For our nation to prosper, Australia needs a population of well-educated
young people. Education must be seen as a long term investment – one that will
provide dividends by higher economic growth and a more equitable society.
2.110
Whilst the broad concerns about funding have been raised throughout this
inquiry, this Advisory Report details the concerns which specifically address
the terms of the Bill in the form that it has been referred. The Bill constitutes
the Committee’s terms of reference, and therefore examining matters external to
the Bill would exceed this reference.
2.111
The extent of community concern and uncertainty around the funding model
is significant. However, the evidence received by the Committee gives every
indication that the Government is aware of the extent of these community
concerns, and is progressing funding negotiations with the relevant
stakeholders.
Concluding comments
2.112
The key to Australia’s social and economic wellbeing, now and into the future,
is a highly educated population. Education is the foundation for ensuring
Australia is able to meet the challenges and opportunities of an increasingly
connected global economy. Education is also the key to social cohesion and a
vehicle to drive greater social capital.
2.113
Meeting the reform challenge posed by recent drops in Australia’s
international standing, must take account of multiple and complex factors involved
in driving education reform. Moreover, in the 21st century, all
students need to be provided with a broader set of skills, knowledge and
capabilities necessary for their future lives and careers.
2.114
In making these comments, the Committee supports the statement made by
Professor Teese:
The point of why this bill is so important… is to get past
that obstacle in the road—the financial obstacle. It is not going to end the
issues of quality or accountability. These are issues that the parliament—the
law-makers—will have to continue to work on. But [Parliament] will not be
saddled with the problem of an incoherent and divisive funding system. [Parliament]
will be able to focus on the issues that really matter.[102]
2.115
As noted in chapter 1 (para 1.70-1.77), DEEWR has stated that the
Government intends to introduce amendments to the Bill ‘prior to its final
passage’. [103]
These amendments will seek to give greater clarity to a recalibrated system of
schools funding which, according to many stakeholders, is long overdue and has
widespread support. However, no further information was received about the
nature, timing or content of these amendments.
2.116
The Committee can only make recommendations regarding the passage and
suggested amendments to the Bill currently before it.
2.117
Consequently, the Committee recommends that the Bill, as referred, be
passed with the amendments outlined in this advisory report.
Recommendation 5 |
|
The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives
pass the Australian Education Bill 2012 with the amendments outlined in this
advisory report. |
Mr Mike Symon MP
Chair