The Shocker: ‘Funding Maintained’ Maintained

My previous post focused on the big positive coming out of the Gonski Review – the recommendation that students from disadvantaged backgrounds should attract extra funding. This post turns to a deeply disappointing aspect of the Review, one that, if implemented, will mitigate against efforts to tackle disadvantage in our schools.

It was the phrase that surfaced during the Review process that had partisans of private schooling accusing Gonski of Marxism . The Review’s Emerging Issues Paper stated that “equity should ensure that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions.” Sounds more like classical liberalism than Marxism to me but, in any case, it’s thorough-going language. It was the kind of rhetoric that had the private school lobby worried that Gonski would recommend a serious trimming of the largesse bestowed on them by the Howard Government.

Perhaps the most indefensible aspect of the Howard system was the ‘Funding Maintained’ arrangements. Any private school that would have been worse off as a result of the SES formula had their funding maintained in real terms. Consequently, to this day, only half of private schools are actually funded according to the SES formula that is supposed to determine Government funding to private schools. Was Gonski going to get rid of this anomaly? Would the panel’s commitment to equity lead it to go further? Perhaps it might recommend that schools that charge fees higher than the schools resource standard did not need Government funding. Perhaps it would recommend that along with public funding comes an obligation to make schools accessible to all sections of the Australian community.

Gonski has recommended a continuation of the Howard model.

Not a bit of it. No wonder, the vocal headmaster of King’s, Tim Hawkes, couldn’t hide the smile from his face as he awarded Gonski a B+ on Monday night. Gonski had recommended not less but more public funding for private schools, including the likes of exteme high- feel privates like King’s and Geelong Grammar. The Review’s perverse chain of reasoning goes as follows. The Government has promised that no school would lose a dollar of funding as a result of the Review. It has always, as far as I’m aware, astutely avoided stating that promise in terms of real dollars. But the Review mischievously interpreted the commitment in that way. In order that no school lose a real dollar, all private schools will receive a minimum of 25% and maximum 90% of the schools resource standard. Trevor Cobbold from Save Our Schools spells out the bizarre implications of this approach.

So it proposes a minimum level of funding for elite private schools to ensure that none lose funding. The price is that many of these elite schools will receive large funding increases. This is a hidden implication of the model. What we have is a new “no losers” guarantee which writes the Howard Government’s guarantee into the funding bottom line and indexes it into the future. This sleight-of-hand brings an even greater problem for the future. A major absurdity in the old “SES” scheme is that private schools on the same SES score got vastly different levels of government funding, because of the multitude of special deals that had been done. This was particularly true of the Catholic sector. The Gonski review has recommended continuing a SES funding scheme, but with schools on the same SES score receiving the same funding. The Government’s “no school will lose a single dollar” mantra means that the current funding maintained rates at each SES score will drive the funding rates in the Gonski model. The funding baseline in the Gonski model at each SES score must be that of most over-funded school in order to achieve similar levels of funding.

It may reasonably be asked, so long as public schools are being adequately funded – and the loadings for disadvantage will help that happen – why begrudge the increased funding to private schools. There’s three answers to that question I think.

Firstly, the basic rationale for funding of private schools is so shoddy and lacking in any logical basis. ABC economics correspondent, Stephen Long, has generously suggested that the Review had its hands tied. But it was the Review’s decision to interpret the Government’s commitment so that it meant no school would lose a single, real dollar – and then to insist on this principle. So, instead of giving us a basis for a fair and rational approach, the Review has just reinforced historical anomalies that resulted from deals done with special interests.

Nowhere, as far as I can see, does the Review provide a rigorous examination of when and to what extent public education expenditure incentivises private expenditure. In fact, such examination would undermine its recommendations because clearly government funding of high-fee privates doesn’t do this, ie. parents would send their kids there even without the public funding.

Nowhere in the Review is there consideration of the ample evidence that public subsidies are not reducing school fees, as was claimed by the Howard Government and others. All we get is the recommendation to perpetuate a political fix won by wealthy rent-seekers in the past. What, ultimately, is the point of a schools resource standard, if government then funds some schools over and above that resource standard (without any extenuating circumstance like a particular student population being more expensive to educate)?

The second and more fundamental reason to be concerned about the proposed increase of funding of private schools is that resources are limited. The Government’s muted response to the Review is evidence of this, if it was needed. The increased largesse to private schools, often very privileged ones, are resources that consequently won’t be able to be spent on public schools.

Thirdly, there is a zero sum game between public schools and private schools not just in terms of resources but also student populations. As the Review accepts:

Particularly compelling is the evidence that suggests that all students, regardless of their own background, seem to perform better in schools with a higher average socioeconomic background. Schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students clearly present a unique set of challenges. (Gonski Review 2011, p. 127)

And yet the Review recommends the continuation of an approach by  Government that intensifies concentrations of disadvantage in public schools. Instead of proposing that Government funding minimises resource gaps between public schools and wealthy private schools, it advocates arrangements that will increase the resources gap. Instead of recommending that the fees and enrolment policies of recipients of public funds should be regulated to make these schools more accessible it is silent in this regard.

More money for disadvantaged kids is great. More money for kids who attend schools where there are concentrations of disadvantage is very, very important. But I’m left with the feeling that Gonski doesn’t quite get it. In education, your peers are resources. The propensity of peers to inspire, challenge, distract, obstruct etc. materially affects the quality of a child’s education. Geography will always mean that privilege and disadvantage are concentrated to some extent. But this reality does not justify funding arrangements that make these patterns worse.

Unfortunately, if Gonski’s approach to public funding of private schools is implemented schools will continue to compete with each other on the basis of “wealth, income, power or possessions” in the same way they do now. Supporters of public education and equity in general must fight hard against this aspect of the Review.

The Big Win: Loadings for Disadvantage

To my mind, the Gonksi report is a very mixed bag. However, the unambiguous positive is the recommendation that students from disadvantaged backgrounds should receive extra funding over and above the schools resource standard. If implemented, small schools, remote schools, low-SES students, indigenous students and students with low-English proficiency will all attract significant extra funding on a recurrent basis. For various technical reasons, Gonski approaches funding for students with disabilities slightly differently but the principle remains the same.

Moreover, Gonksi and his panel clearly acknowledge the effects of concentrations of disadvantage within a given school on educational outcomes.

Over and above the individual impacts of educational disadvantage, the panel is convinced that the compound and concentrated effects of disadvantage at the school level are significant and require action. Particularly compelling is the evidence that suggests that all students, regardless of their own background, seem to perform better in schools with a higher average socioeconomic background. Schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students clearly present a unique set of challenges. It is clear that these schools require additional resources and other teaching strategies to overcome these challenges. (Gonski Review 2011, p. 127)

As can be seen in Table 20, the Review has recommended that the loadings for disadvantage increases as the concentration of disadvantage increases.

Gonski recommends that the loadings for disadvantage increase as the concentration of disadvantaged students in a school increases. Table 20 Gonski Review 2011, p. 169.

The amounts stipulated in Table 20 are only indicative. The Review suggests that setting the precise amounts requires further investigation. There are a number of other matters that the Review suggests need to be examined in more detail. One concerns which low-SES students should receive an additional loading. Should it only be those students in the lowest quartile or should there also be a lower loading for those in the second-lowest quartile (Gonski Review 2011, p. 168)? The Review also recommends further exploration of whether low-SES and Indigenous status warrant extra funding in and of themselves or only in the context of a school where there are numerous disadvantaged students.

So, the detail remains up for grabs but the principle is clear. Adequate resourcing is needed for harder-to-educate student groups. Public schools that enrol the overwhelming majority of disadvantaged students need to be resourced accordingly. This is a crucial element of any fair and smart funding system. We now need to exert every effort to ensure the recommendation is implemented and that the loadings reflect the full costs involved.

More on other, less positive, aspects of the Review in coming posts…

Please send one last message to the PM

With the Gonski Review to be released on Monday the 20th of February, it’s crucial that we keep up the pressure on the Labour Government to deliver. Please go to the For Our Future site and send one last email to the PM. You can send the form message or add your own.

And please ask colleagues, friends and family to join in too. The Government needs to know how important this is to the 65% of Australian kids who are attending public schools.

Leaked Submission Reveals Gross Inequity

The publication by The Australian of a previously confidential submission to the Gonski Review has shone light on the extent of inequity in our schools – and how existing Government funding policies have exacerbated it. From Opportunity to Outcomes was commissioned by all State Governments except NSW and authored by the impeccably credentialled Professor Richard Teese of Melbourne University. Teese’s report blows the tired old private school lobby arguments out of the water and powerfully sets out the case for significantly increased funding for public education. Here are the main take-aways…

• Disadvantaged kids are lagging way behind their more priviliged peers.
• After adjustment for student intake, public schools perform as well or better than private schools.
• Public schools do the heavy lifting.
• Concentrations of disadvantage have negative effects on student outcomes.
• Public schools aren’t funded adequately to support the disadvantaged students they enrol.
• Private schools enrol very few disadvantaged kids.
• Increased funding to private schools hasn’t made them more accessible.
• Government must fund a vital public education system. Funding to private schools should be means-tested against fees and other forms of income.

Disadvantaged Kids Are Lagging Way Behind
Their More Priviliged Peers

“Schools that enrol mainly children from low income and poorly educated families record reading scores that place the average child at about two years behind the average child in a school with mainly high SES students. This gap tends to grow over stages of schooling.” (Teese 2011: iii)

Adjusting for student populations, public schools perform as well or better than private schools.

Using NAPLAN data, the paper shows that public schools work as well or better than private schools (including Catholic schools). This finding echoes the results of PISA 2009 that, after adjustment for intakes, public schools are as successful as private schools.

Public Schools Do The Heavy Lifting

“How much depends on getting funding arrangements right with respect to public schooling is highlighted by the finding in Chapter Two that almost all schools that serve predominantly poor families in Australia are public schools. This finding relates to metropolitan and provincial schools, not only schools in remote or very remote communities.” (Teese 2011: iv)

“Equally we should stress that public schools educate 80% of all students with disabilities and 80% of all indigenous students (for a full discussion, see Rorris, Weldon, Beavis, et al. 2011).” (Teese 2011: iv)

In poor urban areas, public schools “over-reflect” the social profile of the area. They have a disproportionate share of the poorest families, but also of children who are most educationally disadvantaged (not necessarily by socio-economic status). Local community after local community displays a characteristic pattern in which non-government schools—whether Catholic or private non-Catholic—”under-reflect” the social profile of the area, though not invariably. They recruit a disproportionate share of socially and also academically advantaged children.

The result is a pattern of residualization in poorer communities, and an intensification of the stress experienced in public schools in more socially mixed areas. The division of labour between schools works in such a way as to create more socially blended environments in the private sector and more complex and manifold disadvantage in the public sector.

Concentrations of Disadvantage Have Negative Effects on Student Outcomes

Data for Victoria and Western Australia are used to investigate and document these patterns. The New South Wales Department of Education and Training has modelled the impact of differential social mix on children’s NAPLAN scores, and this is replicated for Victoria in Chapter Four. In brief, the average child from a poor background increases his or her score with every increase in the social mix of the school attended. This is true of all other children as well. This multiplier effect points to the risk of selective schooling as aggravating underlying patterns of residential segregation. Policies of parental choice enable geography to be by-passed. But this happens with respect to only a very small number of low SES children. (Teese 2011: vii)

Public Schools Aren’t Funded Adequately to Support The Disadvantaged Students They Enrol

“But public schools serving mainly socially disadvantaged families struggle to convert opportunity to outcomes, and remain within the older framework of expectation and performance. Australia does not fund them as if the intention were to enable them to produce results that are not simply “good, for who students are”, but good in comparison with the performance expected of schools serving socially advantaged families.” (Teese 2011: iv)

Private schools enrol very few disadvantaged kids.

While private schools are frequently claimed to enrol a large social range of children, this is not borne out either from a study of the composition of enrolment trends (Chapter Three) or from an analysis of intakes to schools serving local communities (Chapter Four).

Increased Funding to Private Schools
Hasn’t Made Them More Accessible

“Despite decades of funding and enrolment growth, there are very few private or Catholic schools across Australia that enrol predominantly children from lowest SES backgrounds. Our funding arrangements need to be seen in this context.” (Teese 2011: iv)

“The analysis demonstrates that the greatest increase in the proportion of students attending private (including Catholic) schools has occurred in high SES localities, while no increase at all has been registered in low SES localities.

This finding is true for both primary and secondary schooling. However, the private sector share of secondary school students at the start of the period 1986-2006 was significantly higher than the share of primary school students. At both levels of schooling, drift has increased as a function of the social complexion of an area—the higher the level of SES of an area, the greater the drift, and vice versa.

One result has been that, today, proportionately as many children in poor communities attend public schools as they did two decades ago—around 4 out of 5 (both primary and secondary). There has been no change in the “exposure” of public schools to the needs of the poorest families, 80% of whose children continue to rely on public schools.” (Teese 2011: iv)

Teese’s Recommendations

“Basically there is no escaping the imperative of making strong public schooling available to every community.” (Teese 2011: viii)

“There should be an integrated approach to policy across levels of government as compared to the current fragmentary approach which divides responsibility for public and private schooling between the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments. Within each jurisdiction, one public authority should be responsible for delivering State and Territory and Commonwealth support to schools within a framework of national accountability arrangements. These arrangements should enable more effective targeting of resources as well as greater flexibility and certainty for schools.

Funding should be according to a standard price per student, adjusted for relative need as measured by student and school characteristics and means-tested against fees and other revenue. Core funding should be supplemented to compensate for disadvantage.”(Teese 2011: viii)

Review to be released in February

The Public Schools For Our Future campaign reports:

The Minister for School Education Peter Garrett has announced that the final report of the Gonski funding review will be delivered to the Federal Government this month and released after school returns in 2012.

This timing only increases the importance of campaigning activities For Our Future has planned for February. Stay tuned!

Schools Funding Facts

Gonski wants to hear from you!

The Public Schools For Our Future campaign has called a National Day of Action for this Tuesday November 15. With the Schools Funding Review reporting in December, it’s the last chance to make your voice heard. You can email the Schools Funding Review here.

There’s a form message you can send but we know emails make more of an impact when they’re unique. Can you modify your letter so it expresses what you really care about? If you’re able to, here are some key schools funding facts that you might like to include in your message.

• “‘The panel [of the Funding Review] believes that the focus on equity should be on ensuring that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions.” more >
• “Children at public schools serving poor communities are three to five years behind their peers at schools in wealthy suburbs, an analysis of NAPLAN test results has found… the average performance of year 5 students in wealthy areas of Sydney is better than that of year 9 students from poor areas.”  more >
• “… there are big gaps between our Indigenous and non-Indigenous students; big gaps between our lowest and highest socio-economic levels. These gaps are the equivalent of more than two years of school. So we have big challenges in Australia not only in maintaining our high performance and continuing to improve it, but particularly to address the needs of disadvantaged students.” more >
• “Despite teaching over two-thirds of all students, the public school share of federal funding will be only 36 per cent in 2013.” more >
• “Government schools are the main provider for educationally disadvantaged groups. The vast majority of low income (77%), Indigenous (86%), disability (80%), provincial (72%) and remote/very remote area (83%) students attend government schools.”   more >
• “It was reported last week that Geelong Grammar’s fees in 2012 will be $30,820 for Years 11 & 12. Fees for the compulsory Year 9 at Timbertop will be $52,000. Fees are up 5.5% from 2010. This far exceeds the 3.8% increase in the labour price index for private education and training in 2010-11… The school also receives substantial income from private sources other than fees and charges. In 2009, it raised nearly $3.5 million in other private contributions. Its capital expenditure that year was $7.8 million. In 2010, it recorded a profit of $10.7 million, the biggest of any private school in Australia… Despite all this luxury, Geelong Grammar will get $5.2 million in Federal Government funding in 2012 plus about $1 million from the Victorian Government.” more >
• “The Sunday Herald Sun analysed 2010 financial statements for 10 of the state’s [Victoria's] most exclusive colleges, revealing a combined annual profit of $58.6 million. The same schools claimed $55.4 million in state and federal government grants over the period.” more >
• “Funding for each secondary student at The King’s School in Parramatta, for example, has risen to $3589, or by 176 per cent, since 2001. Secondary enrolments have risen 18 per cent.” more >
• “A SPECIAL funding deal struck by the Howard government, which provides half of the nation’s private schools with more money than they are entitled to receive, was intended as a “stepping stone” and not a long-term arrangement… The deal stands today, and exempts about 60 per cent of Catholic schools and 20 per cent of independent schools from being funded on the basis of the socio-economic status of their students, maintaining their relative funding at 2004 or 2001 levels.” more >
• “According to the Productivity Commission the Howard Government spent $1,051 per public school student compared to $4,515 per private school student.”  more >
  
• “According to the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) Australia ranks 23rd out of 27 major nations when it comes to public expenditure on education as a percentage of our economic output (Gross Domestic Product). Only two major countries spend a lower proportion of education funding on public schools than Australia. We are 27th out of 29 nations according to the OECD. Only Belgium spends a higher proportion of government education funding on private schools and universities than we do.” more >
  
•  ”Australia has above-average class sizes in primary schools (where it counts the most). The average primary class in Australia has 23.3 students. The average in OECD countries is 21.4.” more >
• “Independent private schools receive from all funding sources around $15,000 per student a year. That compares to around $11,000 per student in public and Catholic schools.” more >
• “Class sizes are still too high. Across all primary schools the survey found 80 per cent of classes have more than 20 students. Almost one third (32 per cent) of all classes have 26 students or more in them.” more >
• “The supply of teachers is a major issue. Almost 60 per cent of principals have reported they had trouble getting the teachers they needed. A total of 57 per cent said the problem was getting worse.” more >
  
• “The Howard government claimed that increased Commonwealth funding to non-government schools would produce a shift in enrolments to the private sector with overall savings to the public purse. It achieved the first but not the second result, as confirmed by a ‘‘before and after’ snapshot of the financial effect of increasing enrolments in  non-government schools over the decade, 1996 to 2006. This shows that, had public schools been used to accommodate the extra 200,000 students who enrolled in non-government schools over that decade, the additional cost to the public purse would have been around $2 billion. But the actual public funding increase for non-government schools over this period was more than $3 billion. This was because the rate of public funding increase to non-government schools over this period significantly outstripped the rate of enrolment increase; as well as the rate of public funding increase to government schools. This
  was a longstanding pattern that gathered momentum during the years of the Howard Government.” more >
  
• “Catholic schools are not educating most of our poor, especially at the primary level.  72% of Catholic students from families with lowest third of family income attend Government infant/primary schools and only 19% attend Catholic schools At secondary level 63% of the “poorest” Catholics attend Government secondary schools and 22% attend Catholic secondary schools.” more >

November 15: National Day of Action

The Australian Education Union has declared November 15 a national day of action. It’s our last chance to remind the schools funding review that we want a better deal for public education, a better deal for every child. Find our more at the For Our Future site and in the video below.

MySchool Data Reveals Massive Inequity

A new report from Save Our School’s Trevor Cobbold, Inequity, Disadvantage and Education Outcomes, reveals massive inequality in educational outcomes in Australian schools.

The average literacy and numeracy results of Year 9 students in low SES government schools are lower than, or only just match, those of Year 5 students in high SES government and private schools.

Yet, low SES government schools are vastly under-funded for the task they face. For the most part, they have less than half the income per student of high SES private schools and only marginally greater income per student than high SES government schools.

Cobbold’s analysis of MySchool data compares the performance of high-SES private and government schools against the performance of low-SES government schools. Lack of equivalent low-SES private schools disallowed such a comparison. Interestingly though, Cobbold’s analysis reveals that high-SES government schools are equalling or outperforming high-SES private schools despite considerably less resources per student.

Nearly $400 million a year in government funding is being wasted on the wealthiest 80 or so private schools in the country. They achieve no better literacy and numeracy results than government schools with similar, or even lower, SES profiles despite having double or more their resources. High SES government schools are clearly more efficient at producing high quality outcomes.

Real reform in schools funding

A new report commissioned by the Australian Education Union and authored by Dr Jim McMorrow outlines what needs to be done to fix our broken schools funding system.

•  achieving a mature partnership between
• Commonwealth and State governments
• putting public schooling back at the centre of national priorities and agreement
•  adopting national target resource standards for schools to guide planning for greater public investment
• using public funds to narrow resource gaps between schools that cannot be justified on educational grounds
• protecting public investment against erosion through inflation
• consolidating funding in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness.

Submission on Research Commissioned for Funding Review

Dear Chair,

Thank you for the opportunity to again make a submission and, more generally, for the thorough consultation the Review panel has engaged in over the last year.

This submission focuses on some of the implications of the The Nous Group consortium report, ‘Schooling challenges and opportunities’, for the following elements of the Terms of Reference.

“1. The role of funding arrangements in supporting improved educational outcomes, including:

a. links between school resourcing and educational outcomes; and

b. funding allocation mechanisms that address current barriers to educational achievement such as English language proficiency, indigeneity, location, disability and special needs, and other disadvantaged groups such as low socioeconomic areas and other concentrations of disadvantage.”

“6. What forms of accountability, transparency and regulation are necessary to promote high standards of delivery and probity among schools receiving public funding…”

The Nous Group paper observes that “… Australia’s subsidisation of the fee-charging, autonomously-run independent school sector with public funds is unique across OECD countries.” (Nous 2011: 5). It also finds that “… although we do not ‘stream’ students as some other systems do, there is a high degree of academic selectivity in Australia’s systems. Those schools that can attract high-performing students do so.” (ibid). The report further finds that:

What is striking is the strong correlation between the performance of a child and the average SES of all the students that attend his or her school. In other countries, including ‘high equity’ countries like Finland and Canada, such an effect would not be evident. In Australia it is quite pronounced. The NILS modelling used in this report provides compelling evidence of this and shows the gain in reading scores of moving an under-performing lower SES child to a higher SES school, compared to their scores should they remain in a low SES school.” (Nous 2011: 5/6)

This finding confirms similar findings presented by the NSW Department of Education and Training Discussion Paper, ‘Australian School Funding Arrangements’. After extensive analysis the report concludes:

… there is a considerable “neighbourhood effect” with regard to SES [socioeconomic status] which impacts on student performance in government schools in NSW. That is, the SES of the other students in a school impacts on the performance of any other student, adding to the already significant impact of the student’s own SES on their performance… Irrespective of a student’s SES, their performance will, on average, improve if they attend higher SES schools. (NSW DET 2011: 13)

The findings of the Nous Group show that this is as true for non-Government schools as it is within Government schools.

The consequences of these findings are profound. They mean that to achieve equity, in the sense the Review has defined it, it must not only give consideration to appropriate resourcing levels but to how resourcing mechanisms affect the profile of school student populations.

The most salient aspect of current funding arrangements in this regard is the capacity of non-government schools to exclude disadvantaged students through high enrolment fees and exclusive enrolment practices (eg, entrance tests, expulsion policies). This is apparent in sector average ICSEAs.

The average ICSEA value for all government schools in Australia is 980 and the average for non-government schools is 1031, but our five sample groups reveal finer differences between schools. After government schools (with an ICSEA of 984) Christian schools have the lowest ICSEA at 1002, with Catholic schools at 1043, Anglican schools at 1054 and the high-fee schools at 1123 (Bonnor: 2010).

A related consideration is the unconditional nature, at present, of Commonwealth Government funding to non-government schools in terms of enrolling students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The Catholic system is often considered to be better at including disadvantaged students. However, the reality is that it does little to educate poor Catholics: Government schools do that. Cardinal George Pell has acknowledged this.

43% of Catholics are educated in state schools, including 69% of Catholics students from families with lowest third of family income. Only 21% attend Catholic schools. As a consequence Catholic schools are not educating most of our poor, especially at the primary level. 72% of Catholic students from families with lowest third of family income attend Government infant/primary schools and only 19% attend Catholic schools. At secondary level 63% of the “poorest” Catholics attend Government secondary schools and 22% attend Catholic secondary schools. Predominantly our schools now cater for the huge Australian middle class, which they helped create. (Pell 2006)

Pell has lamented this state of affairs but it is unclear that anything substantial has been done to change it.

The power of neighbourhood effects create a strong incentive for schools – Independent, Catholic or Government – to, as much as they have the power to, enroll the best and brightest and to shun the less advantaged. The Nous Group (2011: 50) describe the risk of a downward spiral setting in in schools with large populations of disadvantaged students.

… the school deteriorates, teachers’ morale drops, school behaviour and orderliness can worsen, safety becomes an issue in the school and nearby, thereby affecting the surroundings and reducing the amenity of the area until the school becomes a ‘blight’ in the community. (Nous Group 2011: 50)

The institutional self-interest in excluding disadvantaged students needs to be taken into account in designing funding arrangements.

At the level of principle, the Review needs to distinguish two different sets of criteria of school quality, against which schools compete and parents select schools. Subjective criteria for school quality might include religious world-views or the lack of them, disciplinary policies, curriculum offerings and pedagogical philosophies. These criteria are subjective in that there is reasonable and significant disagreement about them within our community. Either it is appropriate to cater to a diversity of beliefs, like those about religious questions, or it is desirable for conflicting ideas about optimal educational practice to compete in a quest to prove themselves. In contrast, objective criteria are those that we all agree on. Resourcing levels can be considered an ‘objective’ criterion of school quality, in that nobody could reasonably desire their school to be less well resourced. Given the Nous Group’s findings on neighbourhood effects, student SES profile is also an objective criterion of school quality.

The Review should recommend funding arrangements that limit competition on the basis of objective criteria (and thereby increases competition on the basis of subjective criteria). They should do so because the result of competition on objective criteria is determined by power differentials. For those without power, it does not involve any meaningful choice at all.

Such an approach would entail Commonwealth Government funding NOT contributing to resource advantages in non-Government schools (ie. total funding per student that exceeds total funding per student in Government schools). At present, numerous high-fee schools which charge well in excess of the average cost of educating a student in Government schools, receive thousands of additional dollars of Commonwealth Government funding (see for example, Patty 2011). This funding should cease and should instead be devoted to reducing the resource disparities between high-fee private schools and public schools.

Funding arrangements that minimize competition on the basis of objective criteria would also impose rigorous obligations on non-Government schools to enroll disadvantaged students. For these obligations to be rigorous they would need to ensure that providing access to low-SES and other disadvantaged students took priority over making the school more attractive in an ‘objective’ sense.

References

Bonnor, C (2010), ‘What My School really says about our schools’, Inside Story, 23 April 2010. Retrieved 30/ 9/2011 from http://inside.org.au/what-my-school-really-says-about-our-schools/

Nous (2011), ‘Schooling challenges and opportunities’

NSW Department of Education and Training (2011), ‘Australian School Funding Arrangements’.

Patty, A (2011), ‘Private school students win bigger share of funding’, Sydney Morning Herald, January 25, 2011. Retrieved 30/9/2011 from: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/back-to-school/private-school-students-win-bigger-share-of-funding-20110124-1a2wr.html

Pell, G (2006), ‘Religion and Culture: Catholic Schools in Australia’, Keynote address to the 2006 National Catholic Education Conference, Sydney. Retrieved from: http://www.sydney.catholic.org.au/people/archbishop/addresses/2006/2006928_17.shtml 30/9/2011.

Why ACT Teachers Went On Strike Today

Why ACT Teachers Are Striking On Tuesday

Barr for Fairer Funding: Open Letter to Federal MPs

The following letter was sent to Canberra MPs, Andrew Leigh and Gai Brodtmann (and forwarded to Kate Lundy and Gary Humphries) on Sunday 14th of August. Please forward the letter, with whatever additions you see fit, to Leigh (andrew.leigh.mp@aph.gov.au), Brodtmann (gai.brodtmann.mp@aph.gov.au), Humphries (Senator.Humphries@aph.gov.au) and Lundy (Senator.Lundy@aph.gov.au). It was also published at RiotACT on Monday the 15th.

______________________________________________________________

Dear Dr Leigh and Ms Brodtman,

I write to draw your attention to two issues recently raised by the ACT Minister for Education, Andrew Barr, in the context of the Commonwealth Government’s Review of Funding for Schooling.

As you’d be aware, Commonwealth funding to private-schools is currently indexed against the average cost of educating students in the public system. This is despite the reality that public schools face additional costs associated with providing education to all young Australians, including those with high needs. In his submission to the Commonwealth Government’s Review of Funding for Schooling, Minister Barr questioned the current arrangements.

“The ACT considers the use of the AGSRC as the basis for providing funding to non-government schools results in a generous level of indexation and funding to some non-government schools, when considering the needs of students as the primary focus. Public schools have a higher proportion of students with high needs including special needs students, Indigenous students, low-SES students and students from non-English speaking backgrounds.”

Minister Barr has also raised concerns about another aspect of the socio-economic status model introduced by the Howard government in 2001. He has noted that using census district averages to assess a student’s socio-economic status leads to significant inaccuracies. In The Canberra Times of the 10th of August he was quoted as stating:

“The key example I always give is the postcode 2603, which takes in the suburbs of Red Hill and Forrest… This is one of the richest postcodes in Australia, but it also contains quite a number of disadvantaged families in public housing and rentals… I have to raise these examples in virtually every discussion I’ve had with education ministers, because more often than not funding is aggregated across postcodes and the ACT misses out, yet we know we have pockets of disadvantage.”

Minister Barr pointed out that there is a better alternative already employed in the context of My School 2.0. The Index of Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) used on My School 2.0 relies on school-level information about parental occupation and educational attainment. When this measure was implemented on My School earlier this year, it gave a more accurate picture of the socio-economic background of the student populations at Australian schools. Surely, the same superior measure should be employed to inform Commonwealth funding of schools.

As the Gillard Government receives the Gonski Review in the coming months and then formulates its response, I urge you to attend to these two important arguments advanced by the ACT Education Minister. More generally, I urge you to advocate within the Government for a fairer, smarter funding system that strengthens the public schools that, amongst other things, educate the overwhelming majority of Australian kids from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Greenwell

Give Pete Some Love!

I have just fired off the following letter to Education Minister Peter Garrett in response to his article in this morning’s edition of the Oz. It’s the boldest statement the Government has yet made in support of public education. We need to give him a pat on the back! Can you help out? Just fill out his online contact form to let Minister Garrett know you welcome his support of public education. Please feel free to copy or modify my letter below…

31/5/2011

Dear Minister Garrett,

Congratulations on your excellent article; ‘Quality education demands fair funding policy’ (The Australian, 31/5/2011). It’s great to hear the Government advocate the importance of public education in such a wholehearted way. As a teacher at a public school, I passionately agree with you that;

“… public provision of quality, free, secular, universal education is a birthright and that we as a nation are diminished when we cannot say that every child has access to a high-quality education. More than that, our overall national education system is predicated on high-quality public schools in every community.”

I also share your view that private schools have a role to play in Australian society and public funding of private schools is appropriate in some cases.

As you would no doubt be aware, the latest PISA results indicate deep inequity in educational outcomes in Australian schools. According to Geoff Masters, the chief executive of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), the gaps between the highest and lowest socio-economic levels is “the equivalent of more than two years of school”.

To make inroads into this unacceptable situation, we need to prioritise the funding of disadvantaged students and the public schools they overwhelmingly attend. Australia cannot afford to continue to publicly fund high-fee private schools that already have two to three times the income of government schools.

In addition to resourcing, educational outcomes are significantly affected by the socio-economic status of the cohort a student is educated with. (See, for instance, NSW Department of Education and Training Discussion Paper: Australian School Funding Arrangements, p. 10-11). The right to a quality education requires policy that minimises concentrations of disadvantage and provides appropriate funding where this is unavoidable. Unfortunately, fees and exclusive enrolment practices currently make many non-government schools inaccessible for students from low socio-economic backgrounds. New funding arrangements must ensure that public funding entails public obligations. That is, private schools that receive public funding have a responsibility to educate a proportionate share of students from low SES backgrounds.

I thank you again for your advocacy of the importance of public education to Australian society. It is imperative that the right of all young Australians to a high quality education is fully reflected in the Government’s response to the Gonski Review.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Greenwell

Andrew Leigh on Sky News

Federal MP for Fraser, Andrew Leigh, recently commented on the schools funding issue on AM Agenda on Sky (from about six and a half minutes in the clip below). Here’s my reaction to his comments, posted on Leigh’s blog on the 8th of May:

Andrew,

Congratulations on a convincing performance despite a mischievous interlocutor and, at times, superficial interviewer. Here’s one, hopefully constructive, criticism of your comments on schools funding…

As evidenced here, the Coalition and segments of the media want to frame this issue in terms of whether any school will be worse off as a result of anticipated Labor reforms to schools funding. In the face of this strategy, it must be tempting to stick to value-neutral criticisms, like the your thoroughly justified point about anomalies. (Interesting in this regard to note the Oz’s report yesterday about how both Howard and Nelson wanted to phase out the “no losers” guarantees – http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/howard-wanted-to-wean-schools-off-funds/story-fn59niix-1226051428684)

However, I wonder whether it wouldn’t ultimately be more effective to go on the attack and engage in a debate about values. Namely, do we believe in equal opportunity for all young Australians? Do we share the Gonski Review’s belief that we “should ensure that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions”? Do we think it’s right or smart to stand idly by while PISA results show disadvantaged students are increasingly slipping behind?

The “will any private school be worse off” debate is a dumb one that the Government is never going to win. Change the topic.

I appreciate that part of the equation here is that the issue is currently subject to the Gonski Review process. However, when the time comes, it would be great to hear the Labor party being forthright about the need to guarantee educational opportunity for all young Australians.

Submission to the Funding Review – Jennifer Vincent

FREE supporter, Jennifer Vincent, got this great submission in to the Funding Review before the March 31 deadline. Apologies it’s taken so long to put it up here. Please note that while public consultation has closed for the time being, the Review Panel has recently advised that we will have another opportunity, in August and September. And congratulations Jennifer on this powerful submission…

1. Equity of educational outcomes

I fully support the review’s focus on equity of educational outcomes. I think the evidence shows that the only way equity of educational outcomes can be reached is by an adequately funded Government-provided system of public schools that provide an excellent education for all.

As p.11 of the issues paper notes, Australia has a high-performing schooling system that compares well with other countries. The issues identified as problems with our school system’s outcomes are essentially equity issues rather than quality issues, with an “underperforming tail” of low achievement associated with social disadvantage, indigeneity, remoteness and language background.

Countries such as Finland with both high performance on international tests such as PISA, and high equity, have high levels of Government support for public schools and low levels of Government spending on private schools (Australian Government funding for schools explained, Parliamentary Library Background Note, 17 November 2010, revised 31 January 2011 – citing OECD, Education at a Glance 2010). If our goal is to improve the equity of our outcomes without compromising quality, these are the funding models we should look to.

An equitable funding model needs to differentiate between public and private schools

The emerging issues paper often discusses private and public schools as if they are two separate yet equal sectors comparable on a like for like basis: they are not. Any funding model needs to recognise the fundamental difference in their purpose, structure and operations.

Public schools are provided by governments as a matter of obligation to support universal compulsory secular education. They are also provided as a matter of good policy to ensure a well-educated, productive society.

Private schools may be funded and regulated by governments but they are not provided by them and they can and do have selective enrolment processes, whether on the basis of religion, family connection with the school, or ability to pay high fees. Private schools are also selective in terms of which students they retain – they are able to expel students whose behaviour is disruptive or undesirable.

Private schools are able to fund representative organisations to advocate for them. Public schools cannot, and the State governments who should be advocating for them feel constrained by the fact that they also fund and regulate private schools and therefore need to be seen to be even-handed.

Choice in schooling should not be a primary goal of a funding model

While the concept of school choice has been promoted by governments (not least in the terms of reference for the funding review) as an incontrovertible good, it should be recognised that choice and equity goals may be at odds, as has been seen with the middle-class drift towards private schools and the resultant growing concentration of disadvantage in public schools. Governments funding private schools in the guise of supporting choice undermines Governments’ first objective of directly providing excellent schools for all.

While parents will continue to choose private schools for a variety of reasons, it should not be because of inadequacies in the public system.

Funding should be directed to schools rather than students

It is not in fact “fair and equitable” for a funding model to “provide some level of government support for all students” (p.17 of the issues paper). As others have pointed out (See for example John Greenwell submission to the School Funding Inquiry, and Professor Simon Marginson in the Sydney Morning Herald Feb 12-13, 2011) , having the freedom to choose an alternative to a public school is not the same as having the right to Government funding to support that choice. Governments should fund schools, not students, and fund their own schools as a matter of priority.

The first priority of a funding model should be adequate funding for a universally excellent system of public schools

A universally excellent public school system is good both for individuals and society, in terms of educational achievement, equity, social cohesion and national productivity, as the Finnish experience shows. A two-tier system undermines social cohesion and all of society suffers as the disadvantaged become more disadvantaged.

While education does have private benefits, fundamentally it is a public investment in the future of a nation.

Private schools should not receive government funding

With a properly funded and resourced universally excellent public school system, the demand for private schools is reduced. Those who wish to opt out of this system for whatever reason can do so at their own expense. With excellent public schools available it does not matter if private schools are selective and exclusive in their enrolment policies on the basis of religion or ability to pay fees.

2. Recurrent funding

As I have outlined above, I think that a commitment to equity of educational outcomes suggests a funding model which supports public schools but not private schools. However, I acknowledge that the historical reality of the current system of funding and the commitments made by the Government in setting up the review mean that private schools will continue to be funded at some level.

Whatever funding model is ultimately adopted, the “funding maintained” and “funding preserved” provisions in the current model are inequitable, unjustifiable and must go. Even private school lobby groups have acknowledged that these provisions have no sound policy basis (Chief Executive of the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation and the Executive Director of the Independent Schools Council of Australia, quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald, 25 March 2011).

Whatever funding model is ultimately adopted, it needs to distinguish between public and private schools and not have simple “per school” or “per student” objectives. The principles on pp 20-21 of the issues paper don’t do this.

I think it is appropriate for state governments to continue to fund and administer public schools. This model has worked very effectively for decades.

3. Targeted and needs-based funding

As discussed above, I think that focusing on providing a system of universally excellent public schools will do much to reduce the gaps in achievement for disadvantaged students. However, there will still inevitably be differences in the student profile even of public schools and additional funding will need to be provided to overcome specific areas of disadvantage. This can build on the work already being done by State and Commonwealth governments to target schools with high populations of disadvantaged students.

4. Community and family engagement

I do not support the idea that governments should do more to encourage philanthropic donations to government schools. Governments have a responsibility to adequately fund public schools, and if the responsibility is shifted to individual schools to solicit donations from parents or the community, equity will suffer. Even if governments seek corporate donations on behalf of all schools, or for specific school programs, this potentially commercialises public education and compromises its independence.

Public schools in NSW are already becoming worryingly dependent on the fund-raising that their P&Cs are able to do. P&Cs fund teaching resources, educational software, hardware and capital works. For example, at my children’s medium-sized urban primary school, the P&C has funded a community language teacher, Mathletics software, smartboards for classrooms and the installation of air conditioning. These are core elements of a 21st century education and should be funded by government. P&Cs in smaller schools or less affluent areas don’t even have access to this level of fund-raising and perforce their schools go without.

Another letter to the PM

FREE supporter, Jill, sent this powerful letter to Prime Minister Gillard today. Can you join her in telling the PM we want better funding for public education? If you’re short on time, there’s an easy option; Public Schools For Our Future have a great pro forma message you can modify or just send as is.

Dear Prime Minister,

I have been very gratified by your statements that you are passionate about education; and indeed under your leadership as Minister for Education there have been a number of significant initiatives designed to increase educational opportunities and increase standards for all.

I particularly applaud the National Partnerships programmes and the Commonwealth Government’s commitment to the delivery of high quality teaching to students most in need of it.

You have also said the Australia should be aiming high in education, that our students should have access to educational opportunities equal to anywhere in the world. Importantly, you have said that that high aim should apply to all students, whatever their backgrounds, level of ability, or wherever they live. To dismiss claims that some children are too difficult to educate is a very necessary and laudable goal which I was very pleased to hear you articulate.

The Review of Schools Funding is an excellent time to address these big questions. As you urge, it should not be merely an exercise over private versus public school funding.

However, if there is to be equal opportunity for all students, surely there must be some redress of the current imbalance in funding of the private and public sectors? Currently, as you acknowledge, the number of educationally disadvantaged children is on the increase, and those children are predominantly educated in the public system. Yet on average total funding of non-government schools is higher than that of the government schools which are doing most of the heavy lifting in this area.

It is welcome to hear Minister Garrett signal the end to the inequitable distribution between private schools since the SES model was introduced in 2011. Is it equitable for a non-government school to be receiving funding over and above its SES entitlement, and for no change to be made to that model until 2014?

However, as you foreshadowed, the whole SES model is in need of review. Is it equitable, for instance, for schools charging fees in the $20,000 + bracket, to be receiving as much as $3,000 per student in Commonwealth funding?

I would appreciate hearing your response to the notion of a needs-based funding allocation – or a resource-based formula – rather than the present very arbitrary allocation of funding.

I would also appreciate hearing from you that the public education sector should be the default system in Australia, that educational fairness for all means a public sector which meets the benchmarks of educational diversity, high standards, openness to all backgrounds and ability.

Investing in public schools not only benefits children and families but it is an investment in stronger local communities and a more prosperous and equitable nation.

Funding Review: Communique #4

The Review of Funding for Schools released its fourth communique today. Here are the main points:

• The panel has commissioned research from a range of organisations including: the Australian Council for Educational Research, The Allen Consulting Group, Access Economics and a consortium led by The Nous Group which also includes the Melbourne Graduate School of Education and the National Institute of Labour Studies.
• A Second Issues Paper, accompanied by a report of the key findings of the research commissioned by the Review, will be published in August.
• The public will be able to respond to the Second Issues Paper throughout August and September.
• The Panel anticipates it will deliver its final report by the end of the year.

Review of Funding for Schools: Fourth Communique

Dear Prime Minister…

The Public Schools For Our Future campaign is asking one and all to send an email to the PM expressing support for better funding for public education. They have a pro forma email you can send or you can devise your own message. Here’s the message I sent.

Dear Prime Minister,

I am a Canberra secondary school teacher and a member of the Australian Education Union. I write to convey my support for better funding of public education and fairer, more intelligent arrangements for the funding of all Australian schools.

Introduction of new funding arrangements

I was pleased to read Minister Garrett’s recent comments criticising the overfunding of many non-government schools via the Howard Government “no loser” guarantees (‘Axe to fall on school funds deal’, The Australian, 27/4/2011). However, I’m also aware of your Government’s commitment to not reduce any school’s nominal funding per student. While I appreciate the need to give schools advance warning of changed funding arrangements, I note that new arrangements will not begin to be put in place until 2014, over six years after the election of Labor to Government in November 2007.

I am concerned that this delay reflects a failure to appreciate the profoundly negative effects that current funding arrangements are having on young Australians, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. As the 2009 PISA results indicated “The gap between students in the highest and lowest socioeconomic quartile is equivalent to more than one proficiency level or almost three full years of schooling.” (Thomson et al (ACER), ‘Pisa in Brief’, p. 13)

I am also concerned that your commitment to the private sector does not appear to account for how easily transitional arrangements can be perverted into the kind of anomalous and unjust scenario that we presently find ourselves in, courtesy of the Howard Government “no losers” guarantees.

I would be very grateful if you could advise me of a date by which you expect all Australian schools will be funded according to the new arrangements that your Government has committed to start introducing in 2014.

Competition between schools
on the basis of resource disparities and student profiles

You have expressed your opposition to “the old-style education debates” which “revolved around public versus private schools and which system deserves more government support” (‘No more public v private debate’, Sydney Morning Herald, 29/5/2008). I share your view in as much as you are rejecting sectarian prejudice and affirming the benefits of a diversity of world-views and approaches to pedagogy, behaviour management and organisational management in Australian schools.

However, your comments appear to overlook two fundamental ways in which Australian schools differ and compete with one another. The first is their levels of resourcing and the second is the socio-economic profile of their student populations. As the My School web site shows, many high-fee private schools receive two or three times the total recurrent income of typical public schools and they have substantially more privileged student populations.

You have stated: “Let me be clear: some non-government schools serve some less affluent communities, and some public schools serve some more affluent communities.” (‘No more public v private debate’, Sydney Morning Herald, 29/5/2008). This is true but only part of the truth. Without additional information, it could be misleading. Calculations made using data on the My School web site showed that the average ICSEA for public schools (980) is below that of Catholic schools (1043) and Anglican schools (1054) and well below that of High-fee schools (1123) (‘What My School really says about our schools’, Inside Story, 23/4/2010). These gaps – which would have only been widened by My School 2.0 – reflect the general tendency for non-government schools to exclude disadvantaged children, through prohibitive fees and exclusive enrolment policies.

Tragically, the Commonwealth Government supports and exacerbates this kind of competition by providing additional funds to high-fee schools and failing to impose requirements that would make these schools more accessible to low and middle-income families. Trevor Cobbold has shown how fees at many exclusive schools have doubled since 2001 and fee increase cannot be accounted for by enrolment growth or inflation (‘Private School Fee Increases Have Exceeded Increases in all Inflation Measures’ 11/2/2011). Many Australians, including myself, continue to oppose the no-strings-attached public funding of exclusive high-fee private schools. We do so because such funding is incompatible with a very basic belief that we share with you: all young Australians deserve the opportunity to be their best through receiving a world-class education.

I respectfully put it to you that at as long as governments continue to fund exclusive schools that are vastly better resourced than those most Australian children attend, it will be too soon to claim that public-private debates are a thing of the past.

I appreciate that you are not able to provide policy detail at the present time but I would be grateful if you could advise me on where you stand in relation to two matters of principle. Do you believe government policy should aim to increase or decrease competition on the basis of resource disparities? Do you believe government policy should aim to increase or decrease competition on the basis of the socio-economic profiles of student populations?

Consultation with the Australian Education Union (AEU)

It has been positive to see that, after consultations via a working party throughout 2010, the My School web site has been significantly improved by addressing a number of the AEU’s key concerns relating to the site. As you would be aware, the AEU represents the interests and perspectives of nearly 200,000 Australian teachers. As such, it is essential that your Government consults closely with the Union on all education issues, including funding. I seek your assurance that you will do this.

In summary

In summary, I would be very grateful if you could answer the following questions:

•   Can you advise me of a date by which all Australian schools will be funded according to the new arrangements that your Government has committed to begin introducing in 2014?
•  Do you believe government policy should aim to increase or decrease competition, on the basis of resource disparities, between schools ?
• Do you believe government policy should aim to increase or decrease competition, on the basis of the socio-economic profiles of student populations, between schools ?
• Can you assure me that you will consult closely with the AEU as your Government formulates the details of new schools funding arrangements?

Thank you for any consideration you are able to give to my correspondence.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Greenwell

Garrett unleashed (sort of…)

Axe to fall on school funds deal, Justine Ferrari, The Australian, 27 April 2011

Public Schools For Our Future Campaign Update – April 2011