Today is the beginning of the 2007 school year, and as in previous years, the media is filled with stories about how supposedly "free" government schools impose "voluntary" levies that parents are effectively forced to pay. These levies can total up to $1000 per student.
There are claims and counterclaims about principals applying unfair pressure to parents, and about how without these levies schools would struggle to provide even a basic curriculum.
There's a simple solution to the problem. Education in government schools shouldn't be free. Or, put another way, government schools should be allowed to charge compulsory fees from parents. The level of fees could be means-tested so that those families genuinely unable to pay would not do so, but everyone who could afford to pay would be required to make a contribution.
The notion that government schools should be free, regardless of family wealth, is an accident of history and an idea whose time has passed. In the 19th century, "free, secular and compulsory" were the defining characteristics of education provided by the government. These principles might have been appropriate when they were enshrined in Victoria's Education Act of 1872, but more than a century later they are out of date.
The key role of government in school education is to ensure that all children are educated. Over decades the community has come to accept that the requirement that there be compulsory education does not mean that students must necessarily attend government schools.
A third of students are now in non-government schools that are not free and are not secular. Every year that proportion increases. Clearly parents are willing to invest in their child's future, and they want an education that is not values-free.
The original purpose of "free" education continues to be laudable. No student should miss out on an education because of family financial circumstances. However, this objective does not conflict with government schools collecting fees from parents able to pay.
There are two key reasons why government schools should not be free.
The first is the basic one of equity.
Defenders of free education in government schools have never questioned why the children of millionaires should have access to 12 years of free education paid for by taxpayers, when the state's most disadvantaged students in our most disadvantaged schools are starved of resources.
There are few other public services that are provided free of charge to the rich and poor alike. In principle at least, in Australia health services are provided through public hospitals equally to everyone. But those who can afford to make a contribution to these services are required to do so through the Medicare levy. Medicare is no less a "public" system simply because it is funded through both general taxation and a compulsory personal income-tested levy. Similarly, government schools would be no less "public" if they were funded from a combination of government and private sources. The test of whether something is public is not who pays for it, but who can use it.
The second reason why government schools should be able to charge compulsory fees is because it would improve the quality of education. It isn't only that schools would receive a substantial funding boost and that principals would be freed from the obligations of pursuing recalcitrant parents.
More importantly, the conversion of education from a free service into one paid for by parents out of their hip pocket would dramatically increase the accountability of government schools. Parents would insist on higher standards from the government education system and the system would be forced to respond. If a service or a product costs nothing, or practically nothing, it is likely to be taken for granted. (The best example of this phenomenon is our attitude to water). On the other hand, if we pay a charge for something, we have higher expectations of what we have purchased and we will care about it more.
A traditional argument against compulsory fees in government schools is that middle-class parents would opt out of the public system into the private system, thus "residualising" government schools and leaving them as the place for the education of the poor and under-privileged. The problem with this position is that such a process is already occurring. "Free" education isn't keeping the children of the middle-class in government schools. And those middle-class children in the government system are more likely to be in selective or specialist schools anyway.
The only thing that will attract parents back to government schools is the offer of a quality education -- and a quality education is something for which parents are willing to pay, regardless of what sort of school provides it.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment