Skip to navigationSkip to contentSkip to footerHelp using this website - Accessibility statement
Advertisement

Opinion

In wake of stalled Gonski Review is there a way forward on school funding?

Dean Ashenden
Updated

Subscribe to gift this article

Gift 5 articles to anyone you choose each month when you subscribe.

Subscribe now

Already a subscriber?

It is now five years since the Rudd government launched the Gonski review of school funding, and well over three years since it reported.

Subsequent work bearing on the issue by the Abbott government includes its Commission of Audit, the Competition Policy Review, and now a Reform of the Federation discussion paper, and yet still there is no solution in sight.

These various reports agree that present arrangements are a mess, but may also contain elements of a solution that could reach across party and federal-state lines.

Happier times: Three years on the release on the Gonski Review school funding policy has stalled. Andrew Meares

Both the Commission of Audit report and the Reform of Federation paper suggest distinct roles and responsibilities for federal and state/territory governments in schooling within a national framework of principles and reporting. That may provide a crucial link.

Gonski a starting point

Advertisement

Gonski is the essential starting point. Its various recommendations, and particularly its 'needs-based' funding scheme, attracted strong public and political support.

Few contested Gonski's arguments for a nationally consistent system, or for 'need' to be determined in the same way for government and non-government schools alike.

But Gonski's problems began with his implementation proposals – a national schools resourcing body; national determination of contributions by federal and state/territory governments; and for a single approach to defining and targeting need. Gonski was too centralist and prescriptive for some to swallow.

It also increased government spending on schools by around 15 per cent. Some saw it as good money after bad, with little chance of making a difference, or monitoring results.

Reconciling Gonski's principles

In the upshot one side of federal politics supported a modified Gonski scheme and the other did not. Some states signed up, some refused. There is no prospect that 'Gonski' will be implemented as recommended or as subsequently negotiated.

Advertisement

The problem is finding a way to reconcile Gonski's principles, particularly needs-based funding, with the roles of the states and territories and various school jurisdictions.

That might be done as follows:

  • Commonwealth funding to states and territories for schools to be determined according to a single definition of need. Tasmania and the Northern Territory, for example, with higher levels of disadvantage, would get higher per capita funding from the Commonwealth than, say, Western Australia or the ACT
  • State/territory governments would determine needs-based allocations to jurisdictions, government and non-government, and to independent schools, in ways consistent with an agreed national statement of funding principles
  • Each state/territory government, and all jurisdictions (and independent schools) would report promptly, publicly and in detail on funding policy and practice within a common reporting template
  • Governments, jurisdictions, and independent schools would participate in an ongoing national research program on the cost-effectiveness – not mere 'effectiveness' – of needs-based funding policies and educational practices.

All in the details

The devil would lie in the detail of a statement of principles and a reporting template, of course.

But these are details which could be settled within a framework providing for a clear and simple division of labour between the levels of government, and thus removing duplication, complexity and opacity in present arrangements.

Advertisement

The approach suggested requires full disclosure of allocations, of their use, and of outcomes. It puts resources where progress will not be made otherwise. It provides a means by which systems and schools can learn from each other.

The major sticking point: cost

One problem remains: the cost.

The Rudd government required Gonski to ensure that 'no school will be worse off'. That made Gonski expensive, perhaps doubling the annual tab to more than $6 billion.

As the Gonski report made plain, that was hard to justify. The schools concerned enjoy per student revenues far above, and levels of need well below those of comparable government and Catholic systemic schools. That expenditure is even harder to justify now, and should be revisited.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the urgency or the importance of settling the school funding question, as current funding agreements have only two years to run.

Gonski drew on clear evidence that the impact of inequality on schooling outcomes is higher in Australia than in most other economically-advanced societies. Recent evidence suggests the problem is deepening.

Concern about the long-term consequences of educational inequality for social cohesion and legitimacy now extends far beyond the usual suspects to major international agencies such as the IMF and the OECD and to the Business Council of Australia. An opportunity to make substantial, national progress on persistent educational and social problems is slipping away, and if not grasped, will soon disappear.

Dean Ashenden was a senior adviser to Labor federal minister of education Senator Susan Ryan, 1983-86. He has consulted for education agencies and authorities in every state and territory and at the national level.

Subscribe to gift this article

Gift 5 articles to anyone you choose each month when you subscribe.

Subscribe now

Already a subscriber?

Read More

Latest In Policy

Fetching latest articles

Most Viewed In Policy