With speculation that the Gillard government will soon release a formal policy response to the Gonski school funding review, the education funding debate has again hit fever pitch.
In many ways the preferred policy positions of the key protagonists are already set, with their main arguments previously choreographed before the audience of public opinion.
The Australian Education Union has long called for the Gonski recommendations to be implemented, and it is not difficult to understand why. Additional taxpayer funding for government schools would further entrench teachers' employment, and provide opportunities for the union to skim some of the extra funds via higher teacher salaries in any future negotiations with the states.
If the implemented school funding reforms freeze or reduce public funding received by some non-government schools, the AEU hopes that the resultant fee pressures facing affected schools might make student enrolments drift back to fully tax-financed government schools.
The non-government school sector initially reacted cautiously to the Gonski review; however, this stance has changed in recent weeks as Catholic and independent school representatives cite growing concerns about the distributional consequences of funding changes.
With the level of public funding for non-government schools contingent on private payments made by parents, the Gonski model potentially leads to some schools losing funds compared to existing Commonwealth and state funding systems.
Independent school associations in states such as NSW and Queensland estimate that some of their member schools could face public funding cuts, while the national independent school body estimated that about 180 of its members could lose funding under the Gonski regime. Representatives of Victorian Catholic schools have calculated that a sizeable proportion of their schools, which tend to receive greater public funding than most independent schools, could also see their funding reduced.
A comparison of the base 2009 funding amounts proposed by Gonski with base Commonwealth and state funding does suggest, depending on student composition, that some non-government schools could lose funds.
This week's statement by Prime Minister Julia Gillard that no school will be worse off will fail to assuage the concerns of non-government schools, since the key issues of funding indexation and the phasing in of the new funding methodology remain unresolved.
Aside from continuing funding uncertainty, there are other potential traps lurking for non-government schools within the current funding reform agenda. The Prime Minister suggests that school funding will be used to leverage improved standards, including through a National School Improvement Plan obliging schools to specify how they intend to lift student academic performance.
While the details of the government's new educational and financial accountability requirements have not yet been specified, it is likely that schools and school systems will experience a continuing increase in the amount of regulatory obligations they confront on a daily basis.
If the educational red tape tide rises significantly, then the government's promise of greater autonomy for schools risks being chimerical in nature, as principals and administrators become snowed under by paperwork and other regulatory requirements.
The scope of governmental regulatory powers over schooling would increase even more dramatically if non-government schools, with a high concentration of students with needs, are publicly funded on a similar basis to government schools.
Although Gonski suggested only those schools in these circumstances which do not impose compulsory fees should be eligible for full public funding, this suggestion if implemented could set a precedent that the government only funds non-government schools if they agree to waive their fees.
Such a development, mimicking developments in Europe and New Zealand and long advocated by the Australian public education lobby, would fundamentally alter the nature of schooling in this country.
It would reduce the ability of parents to directly invest in the schooling of their choice, and mute the ability of prices signalling the cost of school provision, on the one hand, and intensity of parental preferences on the other. These additional concerns relate to the fact that improving the quality of school education hinges upon policy reforms far greater in scope than the proposed funding changes which, in all likelihood, will entrench the position of under-performing government schools within the system.
But where is the deregulatory agenda that allows all schools to customise their own curriculum, asset management, staffing policy and price settings to suit the needs of their students? Why is there a lack of preparedness to embrace alternative schooling models, such as for-profit schooling, when we readily accept for-profit entities providing our daily bread?
What about allowing innovative practices such as online education, which could radically reduce costs and engage young people with fresh learning methodologies?
The flaws of Gonski are not limited to its unyielding acceptance of the funding perspectives of the public education lobby, but extend to its inability to seriously consider reforms to bring about a separation of school and state.
Expect much heat in the funding debate, but, as a result of Gonski's funding preoccupations, equally expect this debate to miss the point about the need for structural reform of Australian schooling.
No comments:
Post a Comment